CK Transit Service Review 2011

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION INFORMATION REPORT
TO: FROM:
Mayor and Members of Council Stephen Jahns, P.Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Engineering and Transportation Division July 28, 2011 CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent
DATE: SUBJECT:
This report is submitted for the information of Council. BACKGROUND Existing Services - Conventional CK Transit Chatham Conventional is a conventional public transit system operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited as a contract service to the Municipality of ChathamKent. CK Transit Chatham Conventional operates four (4) routes within the Community of Chatham on a 30 minute cycle Monday through Saturday from 06:15 through 19:15. These routes are aligned in a radial orientation with all buses travelling in a one-way, counterclockwise direction interlining at the Downtown Transit Terminal. Reference Appendix B for route maps and fare structure.
Table 1: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Transit Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time Frequency Monday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Tuesday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Wednesday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Thursday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Friday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Saturday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Sunday n/a n/a n/a
Existing Services - Interurban CK Transit Interurban is a conventional public transit system operated by P.J. Weaver Industries as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Municipality is serviced by three (3) primary routes within the Municipality of ChathamKent on a four trips per day cycle Monday through Saturday. Between the Victoria Day
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Weekend and the Labour Day Weekend, CK Transit also operates Seasonal Route S1 which circulates between the Communities of Chatham, Erieau and Mitchells Bay. Reference Appendix C for route maps and fare structures. Existing Services Chatham Accessible Transit CK Transit Chatham Accessible is a curb-to-curb accessible public transit system operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Community of Chatham is serviced by three (3) accessible transit vehicles of varying size which circulate within the approved service area of the Community of Chatham. Currently, there are over six hundred (600) individuals registered to use the service to improve their quality of life within the Community of Chatham.
Table 2: CK Transit Chatham Accessible Transit - Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time Monday 08:00 18:00 Tuesday 08:00 18:00 Wednesday 08:00 18:00 Thursday 08:00 18:00 Friday 08:00 23:00 Saturday 09:00 18:00 Sunday 09:00 17:00
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent has received requests to provide extended hours of service to 23:00 and additional bus resources to accommodate greater usage of the accessible service. Such a request is subject to budget deliberations and is allowed for in the existing contract with the service provider. Engineering and Transportation Division will provide a report for referral to the 2012 budget process. Existing Services Wallaceburg Accessible Transit CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible is a curb-to-curb accessible public transit system operated by Cadillac Cabs Incorporated as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Community of Wallaceburg is serviced by two (2) accessible transit vans which circulate within the approved service area of the Community of Wallaceburg. Currently, there are over three hundred and fifty (350) individuals registered to use the service.
Table 3: CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible Transit - Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time Monday - Friday 08:00 18:00 Saturday 09:00 17:00 Sunday 09:00 17:00
Service Review In December of 2010, HDR|iTrans was assigned the following tasks associated with the existing transit services in the Community of Chatham:
a. b. c. d. e.
development of a bus shelter and bench policy, operational analysis of existing transit routes, redesign of existing transit routes and services, integration of transit fares, assessment of transit vehicles.
This Report This report is submitted to Council for information and in response to the items mentioned above. A complete copy of the report authored by HDR | iTrans is attached as Appendix A. COMMENTS GENERAL Development of Bus Shelter and Bench Policy A detailed Information Report has been authored by Engineering and Transportation Division which outlines the policy to be followed for the evaluation of existing and new transit stops. Please reference Report to Council 3371 for the complete details and strategic direction surrounding this policy. CK TRANSIT CHATHAM CONVENTIONAL SERVICE Operational Analysis of Existing CK Transit Routes Annually, Engineering and Transportation Division staff conducts a ridership survey of the CK Transit Chatham Conventional routes. Analysis of existing 2010 ridership survey data has identified the following:
Table 4: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Summary of Data Analysis of 2010 Ridership Survey Results Total Percentage of Percentage Revenue Transfers Boardings Transfers Passengers 397 113 28% 72% 287 91 32% 68% 231 56 24% 76% 299 105 35% 65% 1,214 365 30% 70%
Route Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Overall
Boardings per Hour 30.5 22.1 17.8 23.0 23.4
Revenue Passengers per Hour 22.0 15.0 13.5 15.0 16.3
Several service issues and potential mitigation measures associated with the conventional system have been identified and are provided in the following table:
Table 5: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Summary of Service Issues Identified and Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by Consultant Service Issues Identified Potential Mitigation Measure Identified by Consultant The radial loop system subjects transit riders to C: Eliminate the existing one-way loop system unnecessary, out of direction travel. and adopt a two-way loop pairing as illustrated in Passengers travelling inbound and beyond the downtown Figure 1. Pair Route 1 with Route 3 and Route 2 must transfer to another route if travelling to another with Route 4. quadrant of Chatham. C: Route 1 service to the Provincial Courthouse / Route 1 Northwest travels into the Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services Complex could be eliminated and terminate at the YMCA. and requires the longest travel time of all routes. Alternately, service to the Courthouse could be limited to normal business hours. This would Route 2 Northeast requires additional travel time due to save 1 minute of travel time. the provision of service to the North Maple Mall. C: Modify Route 2 Northeast to reduce the Route 3 scheduled time is well below the system overall travel distance without compromising average primarily due to the need to have extra time for walking distances as illustrated in Figure 1. the one trip per day where train delay is experienced. C: For the approximate 5:00PM Route 3 delays Route 3 Southeast is impacted by train crossings in the caused by railway crossings, CK Transit should PM; transfers can be missed or unduly delayed to provide free taxi service (on-call basis) for those accommodate transfers. riders who miss their connection. C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment
Figure 1 CK Transit Chatham Conventional - Recommended Service Change
Discussion points related to each potential mitigation measure are presented in the table below:
Table 6: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Discussion Points Regarding Potential Mitigation Measures Potential Mitigation Measure Discussion Points C: Adoption of the two-way loop pairing route alignment as illustrated in Figure 1 will reduce but not eliminate the number of transfers between transit vehicles at the downtown terminal. Eliminate the existing one-way S: A modification of this magnitude should only be made in consultation with all loop system and adopt a twostakeholders. Such a consultation could be held prior to the transition to the next way loop pairing as illustrated transit contract in January 2013. If appropriate, such a modification could then be in Figure 1. Pair Route 1 with adopted and written into the next transit contract. On the surface, this change does Route 3 and Route 2 with not appear to carry an associated cost as revenue vehicle hours appear to be the Route 4. same pre- and post-modification. Adoption of the two-way loop pairing route alignment will not eliminate the delay issues experienced by Route 3 in the afternoon hours, rather it will reduce the impacts from all four routes down to only two routes. C: This change would save 1 minute of travel time. Route 1 service to the S: Appendix A illustrates that the greatest number of boardings / alightings are made Provincial Courthouse / at the Courthouse stop. A portion of the riders who use this stop may actually Chatham-Kent Centre for patronize other services in this immediate area. As such, a portion of the ridership Community Services could be may not support or have the physical ability to sustain the additional walk required. A eliminated and terminate at modification of this magnitude should only be made in consultation with all the YMCA. Alternately, stakeholders. Such a consultation could be held prior to the transition to the next service to the Courthouse transit contract in January 2013. If appropriate, such a modification could then be could be limited to normal adopted and written into the next transit contract. On the surface, this change does business hours. not appear to carry an associated cost as revenue vehicle hours appear to be the same pre- and post-modification. C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment Table 6 (continued): CK Transit Chatham Conventional Discussion Points Regarding Potential Mitigation Measures Potential Mitigation Measure Discussion Points Modify Route 2 Northeast to C: This modification will reduce the overall run time of the route. reduce the overall travel S: Agreed. This minor realignment could be implemented immediately by staff and distance without accompanied with appropriate notices et cetera to convey this modification to the compromising walking ridership. distances as illustrated in Figure 1. C: The associated financial impact is estimated to be in the range of $4,000 to $6,500 per year. These estimates are subject to the number of riders who require taxi shuttle service and the frequency of occasions per day / per week that the taxi shuttle service is required. S: Although the proposed taxi shuttle service deals with inconvenienced riders, it For the approximate 5:00PM may not address the root of the issue. Perhaps the first step is to review the Route 3 delays caused by alignment of the route through the Community of Chatham and identify other areas railway crossings, CK Transit which may be optimized to harvest additional time. A change in alignment should provide free taxi immediately in the vicinity of the terminal (shift from Wellington Street over to King service (on-call basis) for Street) would eliminate the need to cross two rail crossings on the outbound of every those riders who miss their trip while maximizing right hand turns. Similarly, optimization of use of signalized connection. intersections combined with minor realignments may improve times in the Queen Street and Park Avenue East areas. A modification of this magnitude should only be made in consultation with all stakeholders. Such a consultation could be held prior to the transition to the next transit contract in January 2013. If appropriate, such a modification could then be adopted and written into the next transit contract. C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment
Although the HDR|iTrans report did not specifically address the impact that the above modifications may have on ridership levels, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will be greeted with improved ridership. Should a more conservative stance be chosen, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will maintain current ridership levels. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the operational analysis of the existing CK Transit Conventional routes: 1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on operational modifications to the existing routes and services in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013. a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for the service while conducting a series of Public Information Centres to gather public opinion. 2. Investigate the truncation of Route 1 in the vicinity of the YMCA located on Courthouse Lane. This shall include consultation with area stakeholders. Engineering and Transportation Division will return to Council with recommendations. Preliminary consultation has indicated a potential adverse impact to other entities offering services in this area. 3. Implement the modification to the alignment of Route 2 as identified in Table 6 above and as recommended by HDR|iTrans. 4. Investigate the possible realignment of Route 3 in the vicinity of the Downtown Terminal to reduce railway crossing events on outbound runs. CK TRANSIT INTERURBAN SERVICE Operational Analysis of Existing CK Transit Routes The interurban transit service has not yet been fully implemented in Chatham-Kent. As illustrated in Appendix C, three (3) of the four (4) potential primary interurban routes have been rolled out. As part of the 2011 budget process, the final remaining route (suggested as serving the Communities of Chatham, Thamesville and Bothwell) was identified as supplemental pending this service review. Annually, Engineering and Transportation Division staff conducted a ridership survey of CK Transit Interurban Transit routes. 2010 Ridership data is provided in the following table:

Table 7: CK Transit Interurban - Summary of 2010 Ridership Data Month Route A Route B Route C Route D Route S1 Comments January 374 100 267 February 433 189 188 March 546 287 258 April 557 281 206 No service on Good Friday May 469 238 211 No service on Victoria Day (except S1) June 651 406 264 July 691 314 250 372 No service on Canada Day (except S1) August 732 323 284 714 No service on Civic Holiday (except S1) September 715 303 271 54 No service on Labour Day (except S1) October 685 314 316 No service on Thanksgiving November 667 326 273 December 533 309 236 No service on Christmas Total 7,053 -3,390 3,024 1,140 Note A: Route S1 was commenced July 1, 2010. In 2011, the route was commenced Victoria Day in May.
Several service issues and potential mitigation measures associated with the interurban system have been identified and are provided in the following table:
Table 8: CK Transit Interurban Summary of Service Issues Identified and Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by Consultant Service Issues Identified Potential Mitigation Measure Identified by Consultant Interurban transit riders are not allowed to be dropped off C: Interurban buses and customers could be or picked up within Chatham except at selected stops allowed to use existing bus stops in the such as the downtown bus terminal, Chatham-Kent Community of Chatham which are common to Health Alliance Public General Campus, Riverview their current alignment. Gardens et cetera. S: Fare integration is addressed later on in this Customers want to transfer between interurban transit report. routes and conventional transit routes without paying an additional fare. C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment
Although the HDR|iTrans report did not specifically address the impact that the above modifications may have on ridership levels, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will be greeted with improved ridership. Should a more conservative stance be chosen, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will maintain current ridership levels. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the operational analysis of the existing CK Transit Interurban routes: 1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on operational modifications to the existing routes and services in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013.
a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for the service while conducting a series of Public Information Centres to gather public opinion. 2. Implement a process whereby interurban transit runs may board and alight riders at existing conventional transit stops common to interurban routes. 3. Conduct a Public Information Centre in the Community of Thamesville and the Community of Bothwell to gauge public opinion on the need for the provision of interurban transit to these communities and return the results of this consultation in a Report to Council in anticipation of the 2012 budget process. CK TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE SERVICES By shifting some riders from specialized services to the conventional transit services, it enables some specialized transit riders to use conventional transit for some of their trips without having to reserve their ride. As the population ages, there will be an increasing reliance and need for accessible transportation services. Reliance will be critical since medical and shopping trips will be required to accommodate the very basic needs of these residents. The issue is even more pronounced in rural areas and communities without affordable transportation options. To provide lower cost accessible services, urban transit fleets and their bus infrastructure are becoming more accessible. Todays standard transit fleets consist of low floor, wheelchair accessible buses. The review has identified the following items: no show rides need to be discouraged so as to make more efficient use of transit infrastructure, a travel training manual should be developed to encourage and educate appropriate use of the transit system, prior to implementing any additional resources for accessible transit, consultation needs to be undertaken to quantify the demand currently not being met by the accessible services, a central booking agency may prove beneficial in making efficient use of transit resources in that customers may be matched up with the appropriate mode of transportation (accessible, conventional or even available outside agency volunteers), evaluation of the need for accessible services in areas not currently receiving the benefit of such a service.
Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the operational analysis of the existing CK Transit Interurban routes:
1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on accessible services in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013. a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for the service while conducting a series of Public Information Centres to gather public opinion. 2. Conduct Public Information Centres in the urban communities currently not receiving the benefit of an accessible service to gauge public opinion on the need for the provision such services and return the results of this consultation in a Report to Council in anticipation of the 2012 budget process. It should be noted that a supplemental request regarding increased service hours was made as part of the 2011 budget process and deferred pending this service review. Engineering and Transportation Division will present this supplemental item again for consideration during the 2012 budget process. Should Council wish to direct the implementation upon receipt of this report, extended hours could be funded from the MTO Gas Tax funds (until exhausted) and the Transit Reserve. INTEGRATION OF TRANSIT FARES The various forms of public transportation require municipal investments to enhance the quality of life of all residents of Chatham-Kent while enabling the Municipality to be competitive in attracting businesses. Transit fares must be affordable and fare policies need to be conducive to promoting ridership all while balancing the level of service and the need for fiscal responsibility. Cost Per Revenue Passenger For the information of Council, the table below identifies the net cost per passenger carried (total less fare revenues received) during the 2009 service year.
Table 9: CK Transit System Summary of Cost Per Revenue Passenger Annual Net Operating Cost Annual Revenue Cost Per Revenue ( = Costs Revenues) Passengers Passenger $559,540 $359,880 $281,140 $99,570 257,853 8,528 18,919 4,559 $2.17 $42.20 $14.86 $21.84
Service
CK Transit Chatham Conventional CK Transit Interurban CK Transit Chatham Accessible CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible
The above table is provided to puts fares within the CK Transit system into perspective. Although the interurban service appears costly on a per passenger basis, the service frequency is minimal (four round trips per transit day) while providing residents affordable
10
access to goods and services within Chatham-Kent. Similarly, it can be seen that improvements to the accessibility of conventional transit vehicles may decrease costs as riders may migrate from use of the accessible service (at a cost of $14.86 per revenue passenger) to using the conventional service (at a cost of $2.17 per revenue passenger). Existing Fare Structure In 2009, the CK Transit Chatham Conventional service carried 257,853 urban passengers and collected $380,456 in fare. This translates into an average fare of $1.48 per passenger. Currently, CK Transit Chatham Conventional operates using the following fare structure.
Table 10: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Fare Structure Multi-Ride Pass Cost Cash Fares Multi-Ride Pass Cost per Trip $2.00 $35.00 $1.59 $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $1.75 $1.00 n/a $27.00 n/a $120.00 $1.23 n/a $0.90 Multi-Ride Pass Discount 20% 30% 30% 30% n/a n/a
Category Adult Senior High School Student Elementary School Student Child (Under 5) St. Clair College
The table below illustrates a summary of revenue passengers and annual revenues by fare media type.
Table 11: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Revenue Passengers and Annual Revenues by Fare Media Type Surveyed Percentage Annual Annual Fare Media Revenue of Revenue Revenue Revenue Passengers Passengers Passengers Generated Cash 244 30.7% 79,140 $158,280 Ticket 0 0.0% Multi-Pass 239 30.1% 77,518 $123,324 Cash 30 3.8% 9,730 $17,028 Ticket 0 0.0% Multi-Pass 83 10.4% 26,921 $33,039 Cash 35 4.4% 11,352 $19,866 Ticket 6 0.8% 1,946 $3,406 Multi-Pass 66 8.3% 21,407 $26,272 Cash 13 1.6% 4,216 $7,379 Ticket 1 0.1% 324 $568 Multi-Pass 14 1.8% 4,541 $5,573 Pass 22 2.8% 7,136 $6,422 Cash 42 5.3% 13,622 $13,622 795 100.0% 257,853 $414,778
Category
Percentage of Annual Revenues 38.2% 0.0% 29.7% 4.1% 0.0% 8.0% 4.8% 0.8% 6.3% 1.8% 0.1% 1.3% 1.5% 3.3% 100.0%
Adult
Senior Highschool Student Elementary Student College Child Total
Adult fares account for nearly 68% of all fare revenue collected by CK Transit. Conversely, multi-ride pass tickets are relatively more popular with seniors and students. Free transfers are only permitted between CK Transit Conventional routes. Transfers may only be used to transfer onto another route at the Downtown Terminal. Transfers
11
may not be used for a return trip on the same route. Transfers account for approximately 30% of all riders boarding passengers of the conventional service per Table 1. The following issues have been identified regarding fares: System wide, no fare increases have been imposed since 2006 despite rising system costs, CK Transit Conventional transfers are valid only in one direction and must be used on the first transfer bus, Transfers between CK Transit Conventional and CK Transit Interurban are not permitted, Multi-ride passes require the transit vehicle operator to physically punch the pass adding unnecessary boarding time detracting from route efficiency, Chatham-Kent Council has requested an investigation of deep discount annual passes specifically for seniors.
New Fare Strategies There are two fare pricing strategies which will grow system ridership. These are: the introduction of time-based transfers, the allowance of free transfers between CK Transit Interurban and CK Transit Conventional.
Time-based transfers allow customers to transfer to any bus and in any direction for a fixed period of time from the time of issuance. Time-based transfers are currently in place in other transit systems across Canada and are considered revenue neutral in that the resulting reduction in collected fares is offset by the collection of additional fares due to increased ridership upon implementation of a time-based transfer program. As a complementary strategy, there should be free transfers for riders moving from the interurban service to the conventional service. Riders moving from the conventional service to the interurban service could pay the fare premium (the difference between the interurban fare and the conventional fare) when boarding. All transfers should be valid for 60 minutes. Transit Fare Pricing Policies Fare policies should be designed so that the cost structure is easy to understand and enforce and pre-paid customers are rewarded. Concession Fares When recommending fare increases, there should be a common approach that staff can follow in developing the annual budget. As a starting point, the adult exact cash fare
12
(ECF) should be the basis of all concession transit fares. Discounted fares should be low enough to attract pre-paid discounts but not too low of a price point. Based on the consultants experience, pre-paid media should be charged at 80% of the ECF. Currently, prepaid media discounts are as follows: Adult: $1.59 per ride versus $2.00 ECF = 20% discount Seniors: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount Students: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount Deep Discount Annual Senior Pass There is no question that a deep discount annual senior pass (in this instance the request was made to have senior annual unlimited passes available for only $25) will prove popular. Under current conditions, it is simply a lost revenue opportunity which will reflect in the CK Transit budget variance. A preliminary investigation of the financial impacts associated with this request has been estimated to be in the range of $23,000 to $29,000 annually. Should Council wish to direct the implementation of deep discount passes for seniors, the associated revenue loss should be considered during the 2012 budget process and identified in the CK Transit budget as a grant extended by Chatham-Kent Council to ensure that this net reduction does not unfairly or negatively impact the net transit cost of service nor the Engineering and Transportation Division budget. It is critical for Council to recognize that the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) would likely result in the need to extend a similar deep discount to seniors travelling via the Chatham and Wallaceburg Accessible services. As the operational costs per rider are approximately $15 and $22 for these services, a passenger using a deep discount pass more than one or two times represents zero cost recovery to the system. Furthermore, some senior riders may shift their transit habits from the conventional system to the accessible system which may result in additional, unmet ride obligations and possibly additional operating cost requirements. Consultants Recommended Fare Structure There has been no increase to CK Transits schedule of fares since 2006. The consultant has identified the following Fare Pricing Policy: increases should be tied to the adult exact cash fare, multi-pass discount for adults should be based on 22 trips at the exact cash fare, multi-pass concession fare for seniors and students shall be based on a discount of approximately 15% of the adult multi-pass cost, annual fare increases should keep pace with inflation and be applied uniformly across all fare categories, children under age 5 who are accompanied by an adult ride free.
13
The consultant has identified the following Fare Increase Strategy: the suggested exact cash fare (for all CK Transit riders) should be increased to $2.25 on September 1, 2011, the suggested exact cash fare (for all CK Transit riders) should be increased to $2.50 on September 1, 2012, the cash fare for interurban service riders should be increased to $6.00 for all passengers except children under 5 years of age, the cash fare for children riding the interurban service should be set at $3.00.
The consultants proposed fare schedule is summarized in the following table:

Conventional Category Adult Senior HS Student Elementary Student Child (U5) St. Clair College Interurban Category Adult Senior HS Student Elementary Student Child (U5) Cash Fare $5.00 $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 $2.50 Table 12: Summary of Consultants Proposed Fare Schedule Existing Proposed Multi-pass Multi-pass Cash Fare Multi-pass Cost per Cash Fare Multi-pass Cost per Trip Trip $2.00 $35.00 $1.59 $2.25 $40.50 $1.84 $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 $1.75 $1.00 N/A $27.00 N/A $120.00 Existing Multi-pass $100 $90 $90 $90 N/A Multi-pass Cost per Trip $4.55 $4.10 $4.10 $4.10 N/A Cash Fare $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $3.00 $1.23 N/A $0.90 $2.25 Free N/A $34.50 N/A $120.00 $1.57 N/A $0.90
Multi-pass Discount 18% 30% 30% 30% N/A N/A
Proposed Multi-pass Multi-pass Cost per Trip $108.25 $4.92 $92.40 $4.20 $92.40 $4.20 $92.40 N/A $4.20 N/A
Multi-pass Discount 18% 30% 30% 30% N/A
The impact on revenue has been reviewed and a sensitivity analysis has been conducted by the consultant on each of the proposed fare increases. Please reference Appendix A. Adoption of any sort of change to the fare schedule warrants further coordination and investigation in the form of a business plan. Smart Card Technology In 2010, CK Transit carried 270,000 riders who paid a fare; whether exact cash or fare media. A smart card system could be implemented to replace all fare media save and except cash. Smart cards essentially act like an electronic purse which may be loaded by the transit rider and used in place of cash, passes and transfers.

Benefit to Riders Include: eliminates the need to carry cash, tickets or passes eliminates the need to obtain and carry paper transfers provides security against lost or stolen passes opportunity for more custom-designed fare discounts Table 13: Benefits of Smart Card Technology Benefit to Transit System Include: greater flexibility in implementing new fare structures reduces boarding times potential increases in ridership due to ease of payment eliminates the need to print and distribute passes ease of tracking of revenue and ridership data, including transfer tracking reduces the cost of revenue handling potential link to GPS-based technologies eliminate underpayment of transit fares
14
Benefits to Municipality Include: potential interactions with other municipal services equipped with smart card readers (parking facilities, recreational facilities, sports complexes, libraries, et cetera) reduction of cash handled by staff
Fare Transaction Processor located near farebox in vehicle interacts with the epurse smart card provides an audible signal to the bus operator that the fare has been paid
Table 14: Components of Smart Card System Electronic Purse Smart Card Sales Outlets / Kiosks proximity card of can be located approximately the throughout the same size as a Municipality credit card enable loading interacts with the of smart cards fare transfer processor on a proximity basis no magnetic swipe required can be registered by users to track if lost or stolen
Central System all transactions are managed centrally and recorded in a central database capable of tracking ridership statistics
It is anticipated that a Smart Card System could be implemented within Chatham-Kent for at or below $100,000. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the integration of system fares: 1. Implement a time-based transfer system for the conventional and interurban routes. Transfers shall be valid for 60 minutes. 2. Implement a free transfer system for riders moving from the interurban transit system to the conventional transit system. Transfers shall be valid for 60 minutes. 3. Implement a fare premium transfer system for riders moving from the conventional transit system to the interurban transit system. Transfers shall be valid for 60 minutes. 4. An evaluation of fares be integrated into activities necessary to update the existing Transit Business Plan and that proposed plan be brought forward for the consideration of Council.
15
5. An investigation of available Smart Card technologies and costs be completed and the potential for integration with CK Transit and other municipal services be reported back to Council for consideration during the budget process. ASSESSMENT OF TRANSIT VEHICLES Current Fleet A summary of the fleets operated by CK Transit is provided below: CK Transit Chatham Conventional operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited Six (6) twenty-two (22) foot Ford diesel buses (4 routes + 2 backup vehicles) Nineteen (19) passenger seat capacity One (1) wheelchair list and tie-down position Circa 2004 and need to be replaced at the end of the current contract 2012 CK Transit Interurban operated by P.J. Weaver Industries Three (3) Champion buses circa 2000 (3 routes) One (1) Ford diesel bus circa 1999 (backup vehicle) Twenty (20) seat capacity One (1) wheelchair list and tie-down position CK Transit Chatham Accessible - operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited Three (3) Ford diesel buses (4 seats plus 4 wheelchair tie-down positions) One (1) bus (5 seats plus 3 wheelchair tie-down positions) One (1) accessible van (spare 4 seats plus 1 wheelchair tie-down position) One (1) bus circa 1999 owned by Chatham-Kent (currently needs to be replaced) CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible operated by Cadillac Cabs One (1) accessible van circa 2005 owned by Cadillac Cabs (3 seats plus 3 wheelchair tie-down positions) One (1) accessible van circa 2001 owned by Chatham-Kent (3 seats plus 3 wheelchair tie-down positions) Vehicles will need to be replaced at the end of the current contract 2012 Alternative Fleet Current municipal direction reflects a desire not to own transit vehicle infrastructure. It has been suggested that provincial and federal funding programs be monitored to assess whether ownership of transit vehicles may be of financial benefit to Chatham-Kent. Current transit industry standards for conventional fleets reflect usage of low floor buses to accommodate wheelchair accessibility. This type of vehicle also provides the following benefits to the transit system:
16
wheelchair accessible with no need for operation of a lift (time consuming and detracts from route efficiency), wheelchairs can be accommodated via a rear-facing position with little or no need for a tie-down, boarding times are reduced for all riders due to the elimination of steps at the bus entrance, may divert some accessible patrons to the conventional system (and recognize a lower operating cost per ride), easier access for parents with children.
Due to vehicle load issues, a longer twenty-eight (28) foot to thirty (30) foot vehicle has been recommended. The floor plan of a sample low floor bus is shown in Appendix D. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the transit vehicle fleet: 1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on the proposed low floor transit vehicles in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013. a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for such vehicles. COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations in this report support the following objectives and strategic directions: A. Health We are a healthy community A1: Provide sufficient capacity to sustain community health and economic growth B. Economy We are a prosperous community B3: Maintain and enhance new and existing infrastructure to support economic and smart growth opportunities Desired Outcomes Provide safe, accessible, convenient and efficient public transportation Support new infrastructure investments and modernize existing infrastructure
17
The recommendations will not adversely impact on the remainder of the Community Strategic Plan. CONSULTATION No public consultations were held related to the preparation of this report. Budget and Performance Services was also consulted regarding the content of this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implication associated with the preparation of the HDR | iTrans report is $20,900 + HST. The preparation of this report has been funded by the Engineering and Transportation Division budget (transit budget section) and includes funds encumbered from prior budget years.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
____________________________ Stephen Jahns, P.Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Engineering and Transportation Division Infrastructure and Engineering Services
_____________________________ Gary Northcott, P. Eng. Director Engineering and Transportation Infrastructure and Engineering Services
Reviewed by:
____________________________ Leo Denys, P. Eng. General Manager Infrastructure and Engineering Services
Attachments:
Appendix A CK Transit Service Review authored by HDR | iTrans Appendix B CK Transit Chatham Conventional Route Maps Appendix C CK Transit Interurban Route Maps Appendix D Sample Low Floor Bus Layout Plan
(RTC:\Infrastructure & Engineering\I&ES\2011\3358 CK Transit Service Review 2011.doc)
Municipality of Chatham-Kent Infrastructure and Engineering Services
CKTransit Service Review Final Report (Revised)
Chatham, ON
July 27, 2011
Municipality of Chatham-Kent Infrastructure and Engineering Services
CKTransit Service Review Final Report (Revised)
Chatham, ON July 27, 2011
HDR | iTRANS
100 York Blvd., Suite 300 Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 Tel: (905) 882-4100 Fax: (905) 882-1557 www.hdrinc.com www.itransconsulting.com Project # 6479
Municipality of Chatham-Kent
CKTransit Service Review
Client Project Team

Project Manager Stephen Jahns, P.Eng
HDR | iTRANS Project Team

Principal Project Manager Technical Team Advisors Quality Control Wally Beck, C.E.T. Wally Beck, C.E.T. Conor Adami, B. A.Sc.
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 C-Ktransit Chatham Conventional Service ................................................................ 4 2.1 Route Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4 CKTransit Interurban service ................................................................................... 10 Proposed Service Changes .......................................................................................... 12 4.1 Service Issues and Potential Mitigation Measures .............................................. 12 4.1.1 Route Design and Schedule Adherence ..................................................... 12 4.2 Integration of Interurban and Chatham Conventional Transit Services .............. 14 4.2.1 Issues .......................................................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 14 4.2.3 Impact of Proposed Changes on Ridership ................................................ 14 4.3 Transit Fares ........................................................................................................ 14 4.3.1 Existing Fare Structure ............................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Recommended New Fare Strategies .......................................................... 18 4.3.3 Transit Fares Pricing Policies..................................................................... 18 4.3.4 Smart Card Technology Overview and Benefits ....................................... 22 Specialized Transit Overview ..................................................................................... 25 5.1 Service Description .............................................................................................. 25 5.1.1 Handi-Bus .................................................................................................. 25 5.1.2 Wallaceburg Accessible ............................................................................. 25 5.2 General Comments and Observations ................................................................. 26 Transit Fleet Strategy ................................................................................................. 28 6.1 Existing Fleet ....................................................................................................... 28 6.2 Alternative CKTransit Conventional Fleet .......................................................... 28 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................... 30
5.
6. 7.
Appendices
A. B. C. Project Initiation Memorandum Bus Stop, Shelter and Bench Guideline Memorandum Detailed Analysis and Calculations
Tables
Table 2-1: Boardings per Hour ................................................................................................. 9 Table 2-2: Ridership Breakdown .............................................................................................. 9 Table 2-3: Revenue Passengers per Hour ................................................................................. 9 Table 3-1: CKTransit Interurban Services Monthly Ridership............................................... 10 Table 4-1: Cost per Revenue Passenger.................................................................................. 15 Table 4-2: CKTransit Chatham Conventional Transit Fare Structure .................................... 15 Table 4-3: Revenue Passengers by Fare Media Type ............................................................. 16
July 2011 i
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Table 4-4: Annual Revenues by Fare Type ............................................................................ 16 Table 4-5: CKTransit Interurban Transit Fare Structure ........................................................ 17 Table 4-6: Proposed Fare Structure ........................................................................................ 21 Table 4-7: Annualized Revenues based on Proposed Fare Structures .................................... 21
Exhibits
Exhibit 2-2: Route 1 Operations Summary............................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2-3: Route 2 Operations Summary............................................................................... 6 Exhibit 2-4: Route 3 Operations Summary............................................................................... 7 Exhibit 2-5: Route 4 Operations Summary............................................................................... 8 Exhibit 4-1: Conventional Transit Recommended Service Changes ...................................... 13
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
1.
INTRODUCTION
In November 27, 2010 HDR | iTRANS met with Chatham-Kent staff to prioritize a number of tasks related to improving schedule reliability, bus stop design policies, potential integration of urban and interurban services, transit fare policies, and fleet design. On January 27, 2011 a notice to proceed was given to undertake the following assignments: Assignment 1: Project Initiation and Review of Documentation (completed) Assignment 2: Bus Shelter and Bench Policy (completed) Assignment 4: Route Operating Analysis Assignment 5: Route and Service Redesign Assignment 6: Transit Fare Integration Assignment 7: Vehicle Assessments Assignments 4 through 7 are addressed in this report while Assignments 1 and 2 were completed and summarized in separate technical memorandums for staff reference purposes. Assignments 1 and 2 can be found in this document under Appendix A and Appendix B respectively. Upon completion of the tasks, a review of the existing business model relative to the respective roles of the municipal and private sectors would be undertaken in advance of the expiry of the existing service provider contracts with Aboutown and WindRide. To address the tasks and expedite the time lines, best practices were brought to the study. The report is designed to be presented to Council for consideration and, upon approval in principle, be presented to public stakeholders for input.
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
2.
C-KTRANSIT CHATHAM CONVENTIONAL SERVICE
The CKTransit Chatham conventional service has four routes offering 30 minute all day service from 6:15am to 7:15pm Monday through Saturday, excluding statutory holidays. CKTransit operates a radial route network with all buses travelling in a one-way, clockwise direction (i.e. loop service), meeting at the downtown terminal at half-hour intervals to enable timed transfers. Route 1 Northwest Route 2 Northeast Route 3 Southeast Route 4 Southwest The urban C-K Transit routes are illustrated in Exhibit 2-1.
NM
CK
NP
CC P
C
TVL
CH H L
MC
TL SC
CC
CL
CC
JM
CL
Exhibit 2-1: Existing CKTransit Chatham Conventional Routes
2.1
Route Analysis
Each autumn (November), transit boarding/ alighting (on/off) and travel time data are documented by means of a one day transit survey. HDR | iTRANS obtained the 2010 operating statistics which are summarized in Exhibit 2-2 through Exhibit 2-5.
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
200
100
10
15
20
25
30
35
5 163
Exhibit 2-2: Route 1 Operations Summary

Total Daily Boardings Total Daily Alightings Average Weekday Passenger Load
Route Distance 12.7 km Travel Time Scheduled 30 min Actual 28.3 min Average Travel Speed Scheduled 25.4 km/h Actual 26.9 km/h
134
Terminal Fifth at King Street West Victoria at Barthe Street Barthe at Calvary Church Barthe at Kent Street Barthe at Denomy's Audio Grand at St. Clair Grand west of McKeough Park Grand at the Pines (shelter) Grand at 155 Grand Ave East Grand at Woods Street Grand at St. Agnes Church Grand at Lucky Inn Grand at Skatepark (shelter) Grand at Courthouse (shelter) Grand at former TVL Grand at Burger King Grand at Staples (shelter) Grand at Thames Lea Plaza Grand at Zellers (shelter) Grand at 805 Riverview Drive Apts (shelter) Grand at Professional Building (shelter) Grand at River Row Apts Fergie Jenkins at Kids Stuff Daycare Fergie Jenkins at College driveway (shelter) Fergie Jenkins at soccer field McNaughton at University Drive McNaughton at Keil Drive McNaughton east of Keil Drive McNaughton at Crane Drive McNaughton at Lutheran Church McNaughton at Plaza Baldoon at Plaza (side entrance) Baldoon at Parry Drive Baldoon at Balmoral Road Baldoon north of Balmoral Road Oxley at Andrea Drive Oxley at Joanne Street Oxley at Parry Street Oxley at Northland Drive Oxley at Thornhill Crescent Oxley at Sandys Street Timmons Crescent at Oxley McFarlane at 100 McFarlance (shelter) McFarlane west of Timothy Crescent McFarlane east of Timothy Crescent St. Clair at Northtown Plaza-CIBC (shelter) McNaughton at Blockbuster Video McNaughton at 99 McNaughton (shelter) Sheldon at Emmual Baptist Church Sheldon at Brock Street Sheldon at DeGraeve Drive Sheldon at Cornhill Street Sheldon at Poplar Street Poplar at Hazel Street Poplar at Meadow Park Nursing Home Sandys at Access Fire & Safety (shelter) Grand at Hospital Parking Lot (shelter) Grand at Ursuline Avenue St. Clair at 7Eleven Third at Police Station Wellington at St. Joe's Church Terminal
200
100
10
15
20
25
30
35
5 143 55

84
Terminal King at Fourth Street King at Third Street St. Clair at Grand Avenue St. Clair at Selkirk Street St. Clair at H & R Block St. Clair at Stan's Flower Market St. Clair at Poplar Street St. Clair at Cornhill Street St. Clair at Maple Street St. Clair at McNaughton Avenue St. Clair at McDonald's St. Clair at Wiltshire Drive St. Clair at Hakim Optical St. Clair at Jackson Drive St. Clair at Paxton Drive (shelter) St. Clair at Crerar Drive St. Clair at Gregory Drive St. Clair at Apple Auto Glass (shelter) St. Clair at St. Clair Estates St. Clair at TSC Store St. Clair at Walmart/Super Store St. Clair at Maryknoll Road St. Clair at Ellis Street St. Clair south of Gregory Drive St. Clair at Maple Art Gallery St. Clair at Paxton Drive (shelter) Jackson at Glenwood Drive Jackson at Victoria Avenue Victoria north of Henry O'Way Victoria at Henry O'Way Victoria at McNaughton Avenue McNaughton at Elizabeth Street McNaughton at Cedarwoods Crescent Delaware at McNaughton Avenue Delaware at Cox Avenue Delaware at Gladstone Avenue Delaware at Terra Vista Apts Delaware at 40 Delaware Avenue Apts Delaware at Forest Avenue Forest at Bedford Street Forest at Coverdale Street Forest at Taylor Avenue Taylor at Taylor Court Apts Taylor at north of Taylor Court Apts Taylor at 83 Taylor Avenue Taylor at McNaughton Avenue McNaughton at Carolinian Place McNaughton at CSX Tracks McNaughton at Monarch Drive McNaughton at Michener Road Michener at Valley Road Michener south of Viscount Michener at Valley Road Michener at Vanier Drive Michener at Aberdeen Street Michener at Meadowbrook Plaza Grand at Vanier Drive (shelter) Grand at Kinsway Avenue Grand at Grandview Apts. Grand at Taylor Avenue Grand at Van Allen Avenue Thames at Salter Street Thames at Chatham Street Thames at Victoria Avenue Fifth at King Street West Fifth at H & R Block Terminal
200
10
15
20
25
30
35
100
5 84 48

78
Terminal Wellington at Buns Master William at Judy LaMarsh Building William at King and William Square William at Granite Club William at Cultural Centre (shelter) Stanley at William Street Stanley at Adelaide Street Stanley at Seventh Street Stanley at Prince Street North Prince at Ellwood Avenue Murray at Former CCI driveway Murray at Princess Stree North Princess at Colborne Street Colborne at CSX Tracks Colborne at Henry Heynick Sass at Colborne Street Sass at Polly Street Sass at OPP Station (shelter) Park Avenue at Lenovers Park Avenue at Park Street Park Avenue at Wilkenson Street Park Lane at St. Anthony Street Park Lane at Mocca Concrete Park Lane at Southend Crescent Park Lane at Tweedsmuir Avenue East Tweedsmuir at Burton Avenue Tweedsmuir at John Street John at Mercer Street John at Jasper Avenue John at Freeland Avenue Tissiman at Pavey Street Tissiman at Allen Street Tissiman west of Allen Street Tissiman at Queen Street Cecile at Chippewa Drive Cecile west of Mohawk Court Cecile at Wyandott Street Cecile at Lacroix Street Lacroix at Indian Creek Road West Indian Creek at Faubert Drive Indian Creek at McGregor High School Indian Creek west of McGregor High School St. Michael at Indian Creek Road West St. Michael at Holland Drive St. Michael at Sylvester Avenue Sylvester at Vanderpark Drive Sylvester at Daleview Crescent Sylvester north of Daleview Crescent Sylvester at Regal Place Sylvester at Tweedsmuir Avenue Tweedsmuir at Faubert Drive Tweedsmuir west of Lacroix Street Tweedsmuir at Kinsmen Auditorium Tweedsmuir at Rotary Park Tweedsmuir at Queen Street Foreman at McGeorge Avenue Pine behind KFC Pine at Maple Court Apts (shelter) Pine at Elm Street (mini shelter) Park at Coca Cola Building St. George at Merritor St. George at White Knight Auto Glazing St. George at Park Street Park Street at Baxtor Street Park Street at Adelaide Street South William at Liquidation World Wellington at Downtown Chatham Centre Terminal
200
100
10
15
20
25
30
35
Terminal Wellington at Forsyth Second at Police Lot King at YMCA King at Lacroix King at Riverview Gardens King west of Phyllis Avenue King at Phyllis Avenue King at Winston Churchill School King at Merritt Merritt at Earl Street Merritt at Riverview Drive Merritt at Senior's Centre Merritt at Meadow Park Apts Riverview at Riverbend Towers (shelter) Riverview at Riverway Court Riverview at Regal Towers (shelter) Riverview at Keil Drive Riverview at Tim Hortons/Car Wash Riverview at Irwin Street Riverview at Riverview Bingo Riverview at Community Living Heritage at Plaza (opposite Riverview Bingo) Heritage at Keil Drive Keil at Rice and Noodle Resturant Keil at 180 Keil Drive (shelter) Richmond at former Maple City Tire Richmond at Pinnacle Finishing (shelter) Richmond at Irwin Street South Richmond across from Jake's Bearings Richmond at Franklin Square Bloomfield at Comfort Inn/Car Wash Bloomfield at Oriole Parkway Park Avenue West at Parkfield (shelter) Park Avenue West at Howard Drive Park Avenue West at Artic Ice Park Avenue West west of Keil Drive Park Avenue West east of Keil Drive Park Avenue West at DaSilva Bakery Park Avenue West at St. Paul's Church Park Avenue West at Wedgewood Avenue Park Avenue West at Baker Street (shelter) Park Avenue West at Berry Street Park Avenue West at Houston Avenue Lacroix at stairs at Edgar Street Lacroix at Spensor Street Lacroix at Gray Street Lacroix at Lorne Street Richmond at Domino's Pizza Richmond at Raleigh Street Queen at Harvey Street Terminal
148

109
The average travel time and passenger load is calculated for the 25 trips each route makes during the course of the day. The average actual (surveyed) travel speed is calculated by dividing the total route distance by the average actual (surveyed) travel time. The scheduled average travel speed utilizes the scheduled travel of time of the route (30 minutes) rather than the surveyed travel time. A by time of day and by location detailed analysis of the same statistics are provided in Appendix C. Table 2-1 summarizes the boardings per hour for all four routes. Route 3 is the least utilized route with 17.8 boardings per hour. Route 1, which serves St. Clair College, is the most utilized route with 30.5 boardings per hour. Table 2-1: Boardings per Hour Route
Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 CKTransit Overall
Boardings per Hour

30.5 22.1 17.8 23.0 23.4
As shown in Table 2-2, about 30% of CKTransits boardings represent passengers transferring between two routes. The data shows that the total boardings for all four routes are composed of comparable levels of transfers and revenue passengers. The timed transfer system where all buses connect downtown is appropriate given the radial route design typical of small to medium-sized transit systems. Table 2-2: Ridership Breakdown
Route 1 Total Boardings Transfers % Transfers % Revenue Passengers 397 113 28% 72% Route 2 287 91 32% 68% Route 3 231 56 24% 76% Route 4 299 105 35% 65% Total 1,214 365 30% 70%
From the above passenger ridership breakdown, it is possible to determine the number of revenue passengers each route generates. This information is presented in Table 2-3. The number of revenue passengers per hour ranges from 13.5 (Route 3) to 22.0 (Route 1), with an overall average value of 16.3 for CKTransit. Table 2-3: Revenue Passengers per Hour Route
Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 CKTransit Overall
Revenue Passengers per Hour

22.0 15.0 13.5 15.0 16.3
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
3.
CKTRANSIT INTERURBAN SERVICE
CKTransit also provides service for three interurban transit routes linking the community of Chatham with its surrounding outlying rural communities. These routes are operated by WindRide. Due to the rural-urban blend of the service area, the demand generated along these routes is lower compared to the conventional service in the Community of Chatham. All three routes provide two round trips in the morning (6:15 AM to 11:15 AM) and two round trips in the afternoon (4:15 PM to 9:15PM), Monday to Saturday. The three routes are: Route A Chatham/Wallaceburg/Dresden Route C Chatham/Blenheim/Ridgetown Route D Chatham/Tilbury/Wheatley The monthly ridership by route is given below in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: CKTransit Interurban Services Monthly Ridership
There is an additional seasonal route, Route S1, which operates May to September, connecting the communities of Mitchell Bay, Grande Point, Pain Court, Blenheim, and Erieau with Chatham. Similar to the year-round routes described above, four round trips per day are provided. In 2010, Route S1 carried a total of 1,095 passengers. Weekly ridership ranged from 33 to 107 passengers with the exception of the week of the July 30 when 610 passengers were carried. This was attributed to free weekend service approved by Council. The routes are operated by WindRide which owns, maintains and operates the three 20-seat compressed natural gas vehicles, along with a smaller, spare vehicle in order to provide the service for the municipality. The communities of Thamesville and Bothwell, situated northeast of Chatham, currently have no service and have been identified by staff as potential communities where service could be expanded based on feedback received during CKTransit staff public consultation.
July 2011
10
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
While the interurban service is offered by CKTransit, the $5 cash fare for these services is higher than that compared to the conventional, and it does not currently offer a transfer to the conventional routes in Chatham. Riders originating from the interurban services are required to pay the full fare for CKTransits Chatham Conventional services.
July 2011
11
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
4.
PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES
Based on HDR | iTRANS analysis and observations, and input from municipal, Aboutown and WindRide staff, a number of issues have been identified. Foregoing actions may be taken to mitigate these issues, which are summarized in this section.
4.1
Service Issues and Potential Mitigation Measures
A summary of the issues identified, and the proposed mitigation measures described at a high level has been compiled below. 4.1.1 4.1.1.1 Route Design and Schedule Adherence Issues
Route 2 Northeast requires additional travel time due to the provision of service to North Maple Mall. Route 3 Southeast is impacted by train crossings in the PM; transfers can be missed or buses unduly delayed to accommodate transfers. The radial loop system subjects transit riders to unnecessary, out of direction travel Passengers travelling inbound and beyond the downtown must transfer to another route if traveling to another quadrant in Chatham. The Route 3 scheduled time is well below the system average primarily due to the need to have extra time for the one trip of the day after 5:00pm to accommodate train delays. If this was not the case then the route can be extended to serve other areas without adding additional contract costs. Route 1 Northwest travels into the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services complex. This complex is open weekdays from 8:30am-5:00pm. Route 1 requires the longest travel time of all routes (28.3 minutes average, leaving only 1.7 minutes for layover) Proposed Mitigation Measures
4.1.1.2
The current one-way loop system where each route terminates downtown can be improved upon by interlining all routes into two figure 8 two-way loop pairings as illustrated in Exhibit 4-1. The following pairings may be made: o Route 1 with Route 3 o Route 2 with Route 4 Route 2 Northeast can be modified to reduce the overall travel distance without compromising reasonable walk distances. (see Exhibit 4-1). For the approximate 5:00pm Route 3 delays caused at railway crossings, CKTransit should provide for taxis to be on call (see Note* below) at the downtown to transport customers who miss the timed connection at the downtown terminal.
12
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Route 1 service to the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services complex can be eliminated and terminate at the new YMCA. Alternatively, service to the Courthouse could be limited to normal business hours. This will save about one minute in travel time. Note*: It is suggested that CKTransit enter into discussions with taxi operators to standby at the downtown terminal during the time that trains cause delays for Route 3 Southeast when the bus would not be able to connect with Routes 2 and 4. The unique issue with Route 3 is one that cannot be fixed unless at-grade crossings were eliminated, which is not likely. When Route 3 experiences a long train delay, buses waiting for the train will compromise their schedule integrity and delay passengers on their bus. If the buses depart on time, those route 3 passengers needing to transfer must wait for the next bus. In either situation, passengers are inconvenienced. One option to consider is to enter into discussions with the taxi industry to accept delayed transfer passengers from the Route 3 bus and take them to the nearest bus stop to their destination. The agreement with the taxis could be for a flat fee of, for example, $15-$25 per occurrence or per day. This would cost about $4,000 to $6,500 per year based on 260 weekday occurrences per year and is considered nominal..
Exhibit 4-1: Conventional Transit Recommended Service Changes These mitigation steps will: Reduce the travel time for those that are near the downtown by eliminating out-ofdirection travel for some of the customers Reduce the amount of customers transferring between routes
July 2011 13
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Eliminate buses that are held up by Route 3 train crossing delays (i.e. two buses are impacted rather than three buses since Route 3 would be interlined with Route 1)
4.2
4.2.1
Integration of Interurban and Chatham Conventional Transit Services

Issues
Interurban transit customers are not allowed to be dropped off or picked up within Chatham except at select stops such as the downtown bus terminal, the hospital and the Riverview Gardens retirement home Customers want to transfer between interurban and conventional buses without paying an additional fare Proposed Mitigation Measures
4.2.2
Interurban buses and customers could be allowed to use existing bus stops along the Chatham urban area The issue of free transfers between local and interurban services are addressed in Section 4.3: Transit Fares. Impact of Proposed Changes on Ridership
. 4.2.3
The study did not specifically address ridership levels since other recommendations in this report that will impact ridership demand were addressed. It can be hypothesized that the proposed service changes are positive and that there would be no lost ridership as a result of the changes recommended. As such, assuming existing ridership would remain at existing levels is a conservative approach.
4.3
Transit Fares
When dealing with the issue of setting transit fares, the decision is ultimately political. Recognizing that most transit users are captive and have little or no access to an automobile, transit fares must be affordable and fare policies should be conducive to promoting ridership. Generally, trade-offs will be needed to balance the service provided with the need for fiscal responsibility. Transit management needs a fare policy to provide guidance to recommendations during the budget process so that it is perceived to be fair and fiscally responsible. The various forms of public transportation require municipal investments to enhance the quality of life of residents in both the urban and rural communities and, in particular, to enable the urban area of Chatham to be competitive in attracting businesses. To this end, the investments made have been summarized on a net cost per passenger carried by the various forms of transportation:
July 2011
14
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
The 2009 net cost per passenger carried (total cost less fare revenues) has been provided for comparison purposes in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Cost per Revenue Passenger
Service CKTransit Chatham Conventional* CK Transit Interurban Chatham Handi-Bus Wallaceburg Accessibile Annual Net Operating Cost (Costs Revenues) $559,540 $359,880 $281,140 $99,570 Annual Revenue Passengers 257,853 8,528 18,919 4,559 Cost per revenue passenger $2.17 $42.20 $14.86 $21.84
The purpose of the comparison above is to put fares into perspective between the various service providers. Although the interurban service is costly on a per passenger basis, the service frequency provided is only minimal (i.e. every two hours) and it enables rural residents to have affordable travel to access goods and services in Chatham-Kent, and it enables Chatham residents to access goods and services elsewhere in the municipality. Another point that can be considered is that as local urban buses become more accessible for those with mobility aids, there is an opportunity to attract some Handi-Bus patrons to the urban transit service at a much lower cost ($2.17 versus $14.86 per passenger). HDR | iTRANS reviewed the current fare structure to assess improvements that can be made based on best practices to achieve the following: Increase ridership Increase ridership revenues Be considered fair Enable bus fares to keep pace with inflation 4.3.1 Existing Fare Structure
In 2009, the CKTransit Chatham Conventional service carried 257,853 urban passengers and collected $380,456 in fares, representing an average fare of $1.48 per passenger. The CKTransit Chatham Conventional fare structure is summarized below in Table 4-2. Table 4-2: CKTransit Chatham Conventional Transit Fare Structure
Category Adult Senior H.S. Student Elementary Student Child (U5) St. Clair College July 2011 Cash Fare $2.00 $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 $1.00 N/A Multi-Pass Cost $35.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 N/A $120.00 Multi-Pass Cost per Trip $1.59 $1.23 $1.23 $1.23 N/A $0.90 15
1
Multi-Pass Discount 20% 30% 30% 30% N/A N/A
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
1
Cost per trip obtained from CKTransit 2010 Conventional Service Survey
Based on ridership surveys conducted in November 2010, the percentage of revenue passengers who utilize the different types of fare media can be calculated. This information is illustrated in Table 4-3. Table 4-3: Revenue Passengers by Fare Media Type
Category Fare Media Cash Adult Ticket Multi-Pass Cash Senior Ticket Multi-Pass Cash H.S. Student Ticket Multi-Pass Elementary Student St. Clair College Child Total Cash Ticket Multi-Pass Pass Cash Surveyed Revenue Passengers 244 0 239 30 0 83 35 6 66 13 1 14 22 42 795 % of Revenue Passengers 30.7% 0.0% 30.1% 3.8% 0.0% 10.4% 4.4% 0.8% 8.3% 1.6% 0.1% 1.8% 2.8% 5.3% 100.0%
Along with 2009 CUTA ridership statistics, it is possible to forecast the total annual ridership for each fare media type from the above summarized survey data.. The 2009 fare revenues collected by customer classification and fare type are estimated in Table 4-4 below. Table 4-4: Annual Revenues by Fare Type
Category Fare Media Cash Adult Ticket Multi-Pass Cash Senior Ticket Multi-Pass Cash H.S. Student Ticket Multi-Pass July 2011 Annual Revenue Passengers 79,140 77,518 9,730 26,921 11,352 1,946 21,407 16 Annual Revenue Generated $158,280 $123,324 $17,028 $33,039 $19,866 $3,406 $26,272 % of Annual Revenues 38.2% 0.0% 29.7% 4.1% 0.0% 8.0% 4.8% 0.8% 6.3%
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Category Elementary Student St. Clair College Child Total

1
Fare Media Cash Ticket Multi-Pass Pass Cash
Annual Revenue Passengers 4,216 324 4,541 7,136 13,622 257,853

1
Annual Revenue Generated $7,379 $568 $5,573 $6,422 $13,622 $414,778

2
% of Annual Revenues 1.8% 0.1% 1.3% 1.5% 3.3% 100.0%
Annual Revenue Passengers obtained from CKTransits 2009 CUTA statistics 2 Annual revenue generated is higher than value reported in CUTA statistics, the discrepancy is due to small survey sample size to determine initial fare breakdown given in Table 4-3.
Adult fares account for nearly 68% of all fare revenue collected by CKTransit. Meanwhile, Multi-Ride tickets are relatively more popular with seniors and students as they tend to be more cost conscious. Table 4-5 illustrates the fare structure for CKTransits Interurban Services. Table 4-5: CKTransit Interurban Transit Fare Structure
Category Adult Senior H.S. Student Elementary Student Child (U5) Cash Fare $5.00 $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 $2.50 Multi-Pass Cost $100.00 $90.00 N/A N/A N/A Multi-Pass Cost per Trip $4.55 $4.09 N/A N/A N/A Multi-Pass Discount 9% 9% N/A N/A N/A
Free transfers are provided between CKTransit local routes, accounting for about 30% of all boarding passengers. Transfers are valid between local routes only, which meet at the downtown terminal but cannot be used on the same route for a return trip (i.e. valid in one direction only). Transfers are not valid between local and interurban buses. Based on transit best practices and requests from CKTransit staff, the following issues have been identified: Although transit costs have increased, all public transit services local, interurban and Handi-Bus have not seen a fare increase since 2006 Transfers are valid in one direction only and must be used on the first transfer bus Multi-Pass cards require the bus operator to punch passes; this adds unnecessary boarding time (i.e. assume 15 passengers per trip x 4 seconds more than a cash fare deposit = 60 seconds) There is a request from Chatham-Kent council to investigate a deep discount annual pass for seniors
July 2011
17
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
4.3.2
Recommended New Fare Strategies
There are two fare pricing strategies to grow ridership introducing time-based transfers and providing interurban customers with the ability to transfer free to CKTransit urban bus routes. 4.3.2.1 Time-based Transfers
Timed-based transfers allow customers to transfer to any bus and in any direction for a fixed period of time from the time of issuance. The policy will allow, for example, a parent to take their pre-school child to a daycare centre by bus, then board the bus in the same direction to continue their journey to work without paying an additional fare. Time-based transfers are currently in place in other transit systems across Canada and are considered revenue neutral. This means that any reduction in fares collected per trip from passengers who would have had to pay an additional fare to make the return trip within a fixed time period, is expected to be offset by the revenue increases from additional ridership following the introduction of the time-based transfer. In addition to increasing ridership, having a single colour transfer and design for all routes, will significantly decrease fare disputes and the fare structure will be simplified for the benefit of the customers. It should be noted that even if there is measurable loss of revenue following the introduction of the time-based transfer, the loss can be offset by increasing fares to compensate. 4.3.2.2 Free Transfers between Interurban and Conventional Bus Routes
As a complementary strategy to enabling interurban transit customers to board and alight at local Chatham bus stops, fare integration between transit service providers can be implemented. This is common place in the industry since it is considered a ridership growth strategy. Transfers should be free from interurban buses to CKTransit buses while customers travelling from CKTransit to interurban transit could pay the fare premium when travelling out of Chatham (interurban fare less the local fare paid). Transfers can be issues to interurban customers upon alighting the bus in Chatham. It is suggested that the transfer be valid for 60 minutes. 4.3.3 Transit Fares Pricing Policies
Fare policies should be designed so that the cost structure is easy to understand and enforce and pre-paid fare customers are rewarded at the expense of less frequent transit customers. In addition, discounted fares, also known as concession fares, are provided in varying degrees throughout Canada. The bottom line is that the municipalitys cost to carry a passenger, regardless of classification, is the same.
July 2011
18
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
4.3.3.1
Concession Fares
When recommending fare increases, there should be a common approach that CKTransit staff can follow when developing the annual transit budget. Costs do go up and if it is Councils expectation to off-set additional costs, fare increases will be needed. As mentioned earlier, there has not been a fare increase since 2006. As a starting point, the exact cash fare (ECF) for adult customers should be the basis of all concession transit fares and as such, it will be the highest cost fare category. Discounted fares should be low enough to attract pre-paid discounts but not too low a price point. Based on the HDR | iTRANS work in the area of smart card technology and our own municipal experience in setting fare policy, the pre-paid fare media should be at a price point that is 80% of the exact cash fare. The ECF for pre-school children (i.e. under 5 years old) is $1.00, which is 50% of the adult cash fare. In many transit systems across Canada, pre-school children ride for free. In the case of the local CKTransit service, it would make sense to follow suit. Combined with a 60minute free transfer policy, a parent can board with their child and make a return trip from shopping for one adult fare. This strategy is customized for the single parent, who in many cases, must be able to obtain as much value as possible given their limited monetary resources. Currently, the single ride discounts are as follows for the 22-ride Multi-Pass card: Adult: $1.59 per ride versus $2.00 ECF = 20% discount Seniors: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount Students: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount The current discount in the ECF for students and seniors relative to the adult fare is 12.5% ($1.75 vs. $2.00); however, the Multi-Pass discount is greater, at 22.9% ($27 vs. $35) The 20% ECF discounts for those adults buying the Multi-Pass is considered reasonable; the relatively high 30% discount for the Multi-Pass for seniors and students could be lowered to about 10% to 15%, assuming the discount is to be universal (i.e. more consistency). 4.3.3.2 Deep Discount Annual Senior Pass
Another issue that was to be addressed at a high level is the request for a deep discount annual senior pass, which very few transit systems across Canada have in place. There is no question that the pass will prove popular; however, under current conditions it is simply a lost revenue item that will be reflected in the CKTransit budget. It is ultimately a political decision. If a deep annual pass discount is offered to seniors, CK staff estimated the lost revenue at $23,860 to $28,635 per year. If this is the case, the amount lost should be identified as a grant provided by Chatham-Kent council in a CKTransit line budget item so that the reduction in revenue does not unfairly or negatively impact the net transit cost of service. Another
July 2011 19
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
consideration that is not reflected in the lost revenue estimate is the impact on costs and revenues that could be incurred when the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians Disability Act (AODA) legislation takes effect. A similar deep discounted senior pass would likely have to be applied for seniors using specialized transit services. If a passenger takes the Handi-Bus service a few times, there would be zero cost recovery for this user. The net cost (total cost less total revenues) to carry a CKTransit customer is $2.13 per trip while the net cost to carry a Handi-Bus customer is $14.86 per trip a difference of $12.73 per trip. Encouraging eligible seniors to use Handi-Bus, instead of CKTransit for some trips will likely result in more unmet requests for Handi-Bus, increasing the need to expand service resource levels. It should be noted that in Section 6: Transit Fleet Strategy, HDR | iTRANS recommends that CKTransit purchase low-floor wheelchair accessible vehicles only. They are designed to attract Handi-Bus customers without the need to reserve service to increase their mobility and to increase conventional transit use. 4.3.3.3 Recommended Fare Structure
Given there has been no fare increase since 2006, a new fare strategy based on industry best practices, is proposed. The following is a summary of the recommendations: 1. Fare Strategy Policies: a. CKTransit local buses should have a time-based transfer that is valid for 60 minutes b. Interurban customers should be allowed a free transfer to Chatham bus routes, while local Chatham bus route customers can board interurban buses at a reduced cost c. The only cash fare that will be paid is the adult cash fare 2. Fare Pricing Policy: a. All fare increases should be tied to the adult exact cash fare b. The Multi-Pass discount for adults shall be based on 20 trips at the exact cash fare. c. The Multi-Pass concession fare for seniors and students shall be based on a discount of approximately 15% of the adult Multi-Pass cost d. Annual fare increases should keep pace with inflation and be applied uniformly across all fare categories e. Children under 5 years of age accompanied by an adult shall ride free 3. Recommended Fare Increase: a. The suggested exact cash fare (for all transit customers in the CKTransit service within Chatham) should be increased to $2.25 on September 1, 2011 and $2.50 on July 1, 2012 b. The cash fare for interurban service can be increased to $6.00 for all passengers, except children under 5 years of age c. Children under 5 years of age on the interurban service can pay a fare of $3.00
July 2011
20
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
4.3.3.4
Impact of Proposed Fare Structure
The proposed fare scheme under the $0.25 cash fare increase and $0.50 cash fare increase, along with the other proposed fare structure changes discussed in Section 4.3.3.3 is shown below in Table 4-6. Table 4-6: Proposed Fare Structure
$0.25 Fare Increase MultiPass MultiCost Pass Cost per Trip $40.50 $1.84 $34.50 $1.57 $34.50 $1.57 $34.50 N/A $120.00 $1.57 N/A $0.90 $0.50 Fare Increase MultiMultiMultiPass Pass Pass Cost Discount Cost per Trip 18% $45.00 $2.05 30% $38.30 $1.74 30% $38.30 $1.74 $38.30 N/A $120.00 $1.74 N/A $0.90 30% N/A N/A
Category Adult Senior H.S. Student Elementary Student Child (U5) St. Clair College
Cash Fare $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 Free N/A
MultiPass Discount 18% 30% 30% 30% N/A N/A
Cash Fare $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Free N/A
Given the fact that fares have not increased since 2006, HDR | iTRANS has estimated the ridership and revenue impacts using 2010 ridership statistics and by applying two assumptions to provide a range. Assumption 1 (Low Range): Apply the Simpson-Curtin Fare Elasticity Formula, which is the fare elasticity formula used extensively by transit systems across Canada. SimpsonCurtins Formula estimates ridership changes based on various changes such as fares or level of service. The formula theory points to a 3% decrease in ridership for every 10% increase in fares. This principle was applied to all passenger classifications with the exception of the St. Clair College Pass. Fare revenues have been forecasted for both cash fare increases ($0.25 and $0.50) and presented below in Table 4-7. Since the first proposed cash fare increase of $0.25 is not an overall, across-the-board increase in that the concession ECFs have a proportionally greater increase compared to the adult ECF, it is necessary to forecast the decreases in ridership for each individual category before revenues can be re-calculated. The detailed calculations are available in Appendix C. Assumption 2 (High Range): This assumption assumes that ridership will remain constant. Table 4-7: Annualized Revenues based on Proposed Fare Structures
Fare Structure Existing $0.25 Fare Increase $0.50 Fare Increase July 2011 Scenario 2010 Forecast Assumption 1 - Low Range Assumption 2 - High Range Assumption 1 - Low Range Assumption 2 - High Range 21 Annualized Revenues $414,7781 $441,826 $467,019 $474,076 $518,116
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
1
Obtained from section 4.3.1, this value shall be used to be consistent with calculated forecasted revenues associated with fare increases.
The proposed fare structure under a $0.25 cash fare increase is estimated to increase the annualized revenues by 6.5% to 12.6%. A $0.50 cash fare increase will rise about 7% from levels generated by the $0.25 increase, or a 14% to 25% increase in revenues compared to the existing fares structure and policy. 4.3.4 Smart Card Technology Overview and Benefits
In 2010, CKTransit carried in the area of 270,000 passengers that paid a transit fare exact cash fare or Multi-Pass cards - upon boarding and, if required, they obtain a transfer to board second bus. A fare card, known as smart card, could replace all fare mediums except cash and paper transfers for cash-paying customers. The smart card would essentially act like an electronic purse (e-purse) that would be loaded with value by the transit customer and used in place of cash, passes and transfers. 4.3.4.1 Benefits to Transit Customers
Benefits to the smart card user include: Eliminates the need to carry exact cash fare, tickets or passes. Eliminates the need to obtain and carry paper transfers. Provides increased security against lost or stolen passes. Opportunity for more custom-designed fare discounts (e.g. loyalty card). 4.3.4.2 Benefits to Transit System
A successful smart card implementation will positively change the way business is conducted and provide numerous transit system benefits that can be realized immediately or over a period of time: Greater flexibility in implementing new fare structures such as, o one-cent multiples rather than 5-cent o fare by distance for interurban travel o automatically apply fare integration between urban and interurban services Reduces bus boarding times. Increased ridership and revenues (i.e. ridership growth strategy) due to ease of payment. Eliminates the need to print and distribute passes. Ease of tracking of revenue and ridership data, including transfer tracking. Reduces the cost of revenue handling (can be reduced to one day per week from five) Potential link to GPS-based technologies (to see where customers get on and off buses) Eliminates the underpayment of bus fares 4.3.4.3 Other Municipal Benefits
The ability to use the smart card for applications at other municipal services equipped with smart card readers is possible, such as payment at parking facilities, recreational facilities / sports complexes, municipal libraries, etc.
July 2011 22
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
4.3.4.4
Smart Card Components
The primary components of smart card solutions are outlined below. Fare Transaction Processor (FTP), which would be located near the existing farebox, is the unit that interacts with the e-purse smart card. The FTP is modular with no moving parts and has solid-state construction, requiring little or no maintenance. If the unit is malfunctioning (rare), it can simply be replaced en-route. As the person boards, the FTP can signal both visually and audibly whether or not a discount fare is being deducted (e.g. student). Electronic Purse Smart Card (i.e. e-purse) can come in the form of a proximity smart card similar in size and thickness of a credit card or a lower cost e-ticket. The e-purse smart card will have a microprocessor embedded to store data. As the customer boards the bus with their smart card, the proper fare is deducted from the smart card as it is passed by in close proximity to the FTP. The smart card-FTP transaction takes less than a second, which contrasts in comparison to the magnetic swipe card, most commonly used by the public (e.g. debit cards, etc.). Smart cards could be registered or unregistered. If registered, a smart card that is reported as lost or stolen by the smart card user can have the remaining value loaded onto a replacement card the next day. In contrast, an unregistered smart card that is lost or stolen cannot be replaced, which is similar to losing monthly passes or multi-passes. Point of Sales Outlets / Kiosks Sales outlets located throughout the region would have point of sales terminals that enable smart card users to conveniently load value on their smart card. There are other methods of paying adding value to smart cards such as auto reload whereby a registered user can have value automatically loaded onto their smart card when the value of the smart card reaches a threshold as determined by the user. Central System The smart card transactions must be managed centrally and automatically. The financial and transit user transactions inherent to the smart card system will be recorded in a central database system. This provides CKTransit with detailed ridership information by time of day and route. Ridership can be tracked by card. Also, not unlike the sales of monthly passes and tickets, when a smart card is loaded with value, the money is transferred to CKTransit automatically. This would mean that the region would have additional income from the Transit rider since cash passengers that adopt the smart card will provide an additional pre-paid revenue source for short-term investment opportunities. 4.3.4.5 Smart Card System Costs
The cost of the smart card technology has been decreasing over the last 10 years and it is becoming a better understood and accepted method of payment. Although cash will continue as a form of fare payment, the use of smart card technology industry-wide will become the
July 2011
23
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
transit norm, primarily because it is customer-focused, reduces the cost of revenue management, and it provides an incentive to increase an individuals use of transit. Subject to a more detailed assessment, a conservative estimate for a smart card system implementation of CKTransits Chatham Conventional and Interurban services only would probably be less than $100,000.
July 2011
24
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
5.
SPECIALIZED TRANSIT OVERVIEW
Chatham-Kent provides wheelchair accessible transit to eligible residents that reside and travel within Chatham and Wallaceburg. The Chatham service Handi-Bus - is provided by Aboutown while the Wallaceburg service Wallaceburg Accessible is provided by Cadillac Cab. The focus of the HDR | iTRANS assignment was on the local and interurban transit services, however specialized transit is now becoming more tied to regular transit service across the country as conventional transit is more affordable and less costly per passenger. By shifting some riders from specialized services to the conventional transit service, it enables some specialized transit customers to use conventional transit for some of their trips without having to reserve their ride. A high-level overview was undertaken of the specialized transit service to identify issues that may be addressed in the near future.
5.1
5.1.1
Service Description
Handi-Bus
The following provides a summary of the Handi-Bus service: The existing agreement between Chatham-Kent and Abouttown states that service is provided to accommodate trips originating and terminating within Chatham only For destinations outside Chatham, Aboutown charges a minimum 2-hour charter rate of $123 plus $62.50 per hour thereafter (this is outside of the existing agreement with Chatham-Kent) Service is provided curb to curb only One-way fare of $3.00 ($1.00 higher than the local CKTransit adult fare) 1,454 passengers were carried in 2010 544 passengers using mobility devices (wheelchair, scooters) 387 ambulatory 523 attendants (free) Service is provided: Monday Saturday 8:00 am - 6:00 pm (Note: service sometimes commences at 7am to accommodate requests) Friday Evening 6:00 pm - 11:00 pm Sunday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Priority is given to eligible residents (i.e. those that cannot access or use CKTransit service) travelling for work, school, medical trip purposes while those travelling for shopping and socio-recreational purposes are accommodated, when possible 48 hours advanced booking is required 5.1.2 Wallaceburg Accessible
Cadillac Cab operates the Wallaceburg service with one para-transit van. The service can be described as follows:
July 2011 25
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
The existing agreement between Chatham-Kent and Cadillac Cabs states that service is provided to accommodate trips originating and terminating within Wallaceburg only Service is provided curb to curb only For destinations outside Wallaceburg, a $2.00 per kilometre rate is charged by Cadillac Cab to the passenger (this is outside of the existing agreement with Chatham-Kent) One-way fare of $3.00 ($1.00 higher than the local CKTransit adult fare) Service is provided Monday Friday 8:00 am - 6:00 pm Saturday-Sunday, excluding holidays 9:00am 5:00pm 584 passengers were carried in 2010 144 passengers using mobility devices (wheelchair, scooters) 273 ambulatory 167 attendants (free) Priority is given to eligible residents (i.e. those that cannot access or use CKTransit service) travelling for work, school, medical trip purposes while those travelling for shopping and socio-recreational purposes are accommodated, when possible 48 hours advanced booking is required
5.2
General Comments and Observations
As the population ages, there will be an increasing reliance on accessible transportation services as those that age will not, at some point, be able to drive or have access to personal transportation. Yet their reliance will be critical since medical and shopping trips will be required just to accommodate their very basic needs. The issue becomes more pronounced in the rural areas and communities without affordable accessible transit. The desire to age-in-place will continue but without access to transportation or volunteers, residents could be forced to move. This theme is not uncommon and the problem will accentuate over time. To provide lower cost accessible services, urban transit fleets and the bus infrastructures are becoming more accessible. Todays standard urban fleet now consists of low-floor wheelchair accessible buses. Discussions with the CK staff and Handi-Bus staff revealed the following: There are no-shows whereby an eligible customer does not cancel a Handi-Bus trip. This should be discouraged and the bus fare should be charged to the customer. Getting seniors to know what public transportation is available to them and knowing how to use it would be a big step to using CKTransit services. In this regard, a travel training manual would be beneficial There is a need to both identify and quantify the demand that is not being met, particularly in the more rural areas and communities. This can start off by undertaking surveys of the more than 6,000 members of the seniors centres where transportation is very key A central booking agency would go a long way to matching a customer up with the appropriate transportation available to them (e.g. volunteers, etc)
July 2011 26
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
There needs to a better coordination of transportation services to prevent overlap due to the many operating silos that exist; this approach recognizes there is only one taxpayer who should not pay for duplicated services.
In other rural municipalities, consideration is being given to the provision of service on select days, perhaps one or two days a week, in order to accommodate medical and shopping trips for both physically disabled and on disabled residents. It can be surmised that more work would be needed in the area of expanding access to public transportation services and addressing the latent demand in more detail.
July 2011
27
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
6.
6.1
TRANSIT FLEET STRATEGY

Existing Fleet
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent does not desire to own or maintain its CKTransit urban, interurban or specialized transit fleets (Handi-Bus and Wallaceburg Accessible). A summary of the fleets operated are provided as follows: CKTransit local service operated by About Town: Six 22-foot Ford diesel buses (4 in service + 2 spares) 19-seat capacity + wheelchair lift and one tie-down position 2004 model, needing to be replaced at the end of the contract (December 2012) CKTransit interurban service operated by WindRide: Three 1999 Champion buses in revenue service One 2000 Ford F450 spare bus 20-seat capacity Wheelchair lift + one tie-down position Handi-Bus provided by About Town: Three vehicles with 4 seats plus 4 wheelchair tie-down positions One vehicle with 5 seats plus 3wheelchair positions One spare vehicle (van) with 4 seats plus 1wheelchair tie-down positions 2004 model, needing to be replaced at the end of the contract (December 2012) Wallaceburg Accessible operated by Cadillac Cab: One 2005 Chevy Express owned by Cadillac Cab One 2001 Dodge Van spare owned by Chatham-Kent Each accommodates 3 wheelchair plus 3 seated passengers Both vehicles will need to be replaced at the end of the contract (December 2012)
6.2
Alternative CKTransit Conventional Fleet
The capital cost in purchasing the transit fleet rolling stock (buses and vans) is reflected in the transit operating agreements. It can be assumed that with ownership vested with the operator, the preventative maintenance undertaken is designed to maximize the life of each vehicle. Although the risk associated with ownership of the rolling stock is avoided, the cost is reflected in the transit operating agreements. With municipal ownership, there would likely be savings, particularly if external provincial or federal funding is provided. For the purpose of this assignment, it will be assumed that the current fleet ownership policy will not change, although it should be explored further.
July 2011
28
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
The current transit industry standard for conventional transit fleets is to have low floor buses with wheelchair accessibility. This is a customer-focussed design that also benefits transit as follows: Wheelchair accessible without the need for a time consuming lift Wheelchairs can be accommodated through a rear-facing wheelchair position (i.e. little or no tie-down required) Boarding times are reduced for all customers since there are no steps Enables some Handi-Bus customers to use conventional transit without the need to reserve ahead (i.e. dynamic trip making) Reduced cost per passenger to the municipality for Handi-Bus customers Easier access for parents with strollers and the ambulatory disabled The following is a cost summary for each vehicle option that can be considered for the local CKTransit urban service, the manufacturers design life: 22 (6.7 metre) existing community bus with steps and wheelchair lift o $90,000 capital cost per vehicle o Life cycle of 5 years or more (equates to $18,000 per year over 5 years) o Seating capacity of 15 - 20, with up to 10 standees (assumes 50% of seated capacity) 30 (9.1 metre) low floor community bus o $185,000 capital cost per vehicle o Life cycle of 7 years or more (equates to $26,500 per year over 7 years) o Seating capacity of 25 - 30, with up to 15 standees (assumes 50% of seated capacity) 40 (12.2 metre) heavy duty transit vehicle o $540,000 o Life cycle of 12 years or more (equates to $45,000 per year over 12 years) o Seating capacity of 40 , with up to 20+ standees (assumes 50% of seated capacity) The life cycle of all buses can be extended through rebuilds or by increasing the spare ratio to reduce the average mileage travelled by buses. A larger low floor local transit vehicle will better accommodate existing customers, meet the needs of an aging community, attract some Handi-Bus customers, and accommodate a larger bus load. Although the cost is double that of the current vehicles that will need to be replaced, the design life is greater; this minimizes the financial impact. Given the aforementioned, it is recommended that the Municipality of Chatham-Kent specify as a minimum, the larger (i.e. 28-30) low floor bus be supplied by the successful bidder. In doing so, the contract should be longer than the standard 5-year contracts in order to reduce the risk for the successful bidder. Alternatively, the Municipality of Chatham-Kent could purchase the vehicles.
July 2011
29
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
7.
NEXT STEPS
The CKTransit Service Review is a high-level document that provides specific recommendations relative the transit route design concepts, a way to address the problem of missed connections due to rail crossing delays, the integration of urban and rural transit services, the need for larger low-floor community buses, and a new fare pricing policy and complementary fare strategies, As a next step, it is proposed that the recommendations of the report be discussed in their entirety with the transit service providers for their input and then presented to the public at an open house in Chatham. There are other tasks that need to be addressed, namely: The expansion of some service to the rural area and communities not currently being served. A review of the current public transportation business model and transit agreements in place. A review of AODA requirements and its impacts on transit related infrastructure and transit services. The recommendations of this report were not intended to increase transit services and as such, if service expansion is to be considered, enhanced community input to obtain service priorities could be obtained and incorporated.
July 2011
30
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Appendix A Project Initiation and Documentation Review
HDR | iTRANS 100 York Blvd. Suite 300 Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 Tel: (905) 882-4100 Fax: (905) 882-1557 www.hdrinc.com www.itransconsulting.com
File:
2.0
Project # 6479
Memorandum To: Cc: From: Date: Re: Jan Metcalfe, Engineering Technologist, Municipality of ChathamKent Gary Northcott, Director of Engineering and Transportation Stephen Jahns, Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Jerry Corso, Engineering Technologist Wally Beck, HDR | iTRANS March 22, 2011 Transit Assignment #1 Project Initiation and Documentation Review
1.
BACKGROUND
HDR | iTRANS met with the Municipality of Chatham-Kent staff on November 27, 2010 to prioritize our assistance relative to various traffic, transportation and transit assignments. On January 27, 2011 notice to proceed was given to undertake the following assignments: Assignment 1: Project Initiation and Review of Documentation Assignment 2: Bus Shelter and Bench Policy Assignment 4: Route Operating Analysis Assignment 5: Route and Service Redesign Assignment 6: Transit Fare Integration Assignment 7: Vehicle Assessments The objective of this assignment is to provide a high level overview of the public transportation services provided within the Community of Chatham and services that link other communities within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent to Chatham
2.
OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT SERVICES
A review of the services provided was summarized based on consultations conducted with ChathamKent staff and the transit service providers.
2.1
Local C-Ktransit Service
The local CKtransit system has four routes offering 30 minute all day service from 6:15am to 7:15pm on weekdays and Saturdays, excluding statutory holidays: Route 1 Northwest Route 2 Northeast Route 3 Southeast Route 4 Southwest CKtransit operates a radial route network with all buses travelling in a one-way, clockwise direction (i.e. loop service), meeting at the downtown terminal at half-hour intervals to enable timed transfers. A summary of the discussions and issues identified by C-K staff and About Town (service provider) are provided as follows: Route travel times are varied by time of day for each route Route 1 serves the college while Route 2 serves Walmart; they are the longest and busiest routes Route 2 has the most difficulty in meeting scheduled times all day due to its length Route 3 is the shortest route and requires the least travel time except in the late afternoon when trains are passing through town. Route 3 must traverse railway crossings at 9 locations and as such, this has the following implications: Route 3 is delayed by about 7-8 minutes, missing the timed transfer downtown All other routes may need to wait if passengers are needing to transfer to their bus; bus operators call ahead to let other operators know if customers need to transfer to their bus Although Route 3 has the most difficulty meeting scheduled times when trains pass through Chatham, it has the easiest time catching up on the next run. The train delay on Route 3 has the greatest impact on Route 1 and 2; since these runs are the longest distance they have the hardest time making up for the added delay. This degrades system reliability and customer service for the balance of the day. Transit Signal Priority is provided to help buses meet schedules (an additional assignment is underway to address this component) There is no fare integration between the rural community bus service and C-K Transit; passengers wishing to transfer between local and rural buses must pay the full fare for each service The adult cash fare for CKtransit is $2.00 while the rural community bus fare is $5.00, regardless of distance travelled There have been no service increases or fare increases in over 5 years At 4:15pm, the inter-urban buses leave the terminal. If C-K buses are late, transfers between C-K and inter-urban buses are not met About Town owns, maintains and operates a fleet of seven (7) buses described as follows: 19-passenger equipped with wheelchair lift 4 in-service, 2 regular spares, 1 emergency spare The buses cost about $80,000 and have been in place since 2004; they will need to be replaced
July 2011 ii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Concern about the lack of coverage along Queens Line/ Richmond Street was identified by About Town About Town also owns, maintains and operates four Handi-bus paratransit vehicles that accommodate four wheelchair positions Handi-bus service is only provided within Chatham and Wallaceburg. Diamond fareboxes are used, with revenues counted by C-K daily by route except on Friday and Saturday, which are combined The first trip of the day, at 6:15am, data indicates there are no more than 3 passengers on any of the bus routes About Town also operates Handi-Bus with two accessible vehicles Handi-bus only operates within the community of Chatham and the Community of Wallaceburg; service to residents is complemented by the availability of three wheelchair accessible taxis Accessible Service (Handi-bus) in Chatham is operated by Aboutown; the Accessible Service (Handi-bus) in Wallaceburg is operated by Cadillac Cabs.
2.2
Inter-Urban CKtransit Service
A summary of the discussions and issues identified by C-K staff and Windride (service provider) are provided as follows: There are three year-round routes: Route A: Wallaceburg and Dresden (2am and 2 pm trips) Route C: Blenheim, Ridgetown and Charing Cross (2am and 2 pm trips) Route D: Tilbury and Wheatley (2am and 2 pm trips) There is one summer route, Route S1, that operates June through September, connecting Mitchell Bay, Grande Point, Pain Court, Chatham, Blenheim, and Erieau (4 trips per day) Two of the three routes (Tilbury route being the exception) are used well Transit customers from outlying communities would like to be able to travel to destinations within Chatham Windride owns, maintains and operates three 20-seat compressed natural gas vehicles (25-26) plus a smaller vehicle spare NE county area has no service (e.g. Thamesville: population 1,000) A recent delegation went to council requesting seasonal service between Rondeau and Ridgetown be reconsidered
2.3
Observations and Preliminary Suggestions
Based on the input received a number of observations and preliminary suggestions were discussed with Chatham-Kent and Aboutown with respect to the local CKtransit: The one-way route design should be replaced with two-way service with consideration given to a figure 8 two-way loop design (i.e. combining two routes to reduce the number of transfers required)
July 2011
iii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Route 2 could be reconfigured to reduce travel time while meeting acceptable, industry standard walk distance thresholds (e.g. 90% of residences within 400 metre walk to bus stop) The high floor CKtransit buses should be replaced with larger, low-floor accessible buses Although Route 3 has the shortest distance and travel time of all routes, it is affected most by rail traffic. Missed Route 3 connections with buses for the late afternoon trip (approximately 5pm) are a significant irritant that requires a unique solution since current efforts are not working in a consistent manner. The first trip in the morning is lightly loaded and could probably be accommodated by taxis. The approximately 10 revenue hours saved per week could be used to extend service by 30 minutes at the end of the day or used to provide a skeleton Sunday service (2 buses 10am-3pm) The $2.00 cash fare for adults is reasonable. CKtransit should consider a single timebased transfer (e.g. 60 minutes) to allow passengers to stop over and board on the next bus in the same direction or make the return trip at no additional cost. CKtransit should consider the use of smart card technology, which is considered a ridership growth strategy The existing public timetables for all services could be standardized and developed into a booklet form (this can be contracted out to private sector). Costs can be off-set through selling of the advertising space or charging a nominal fee to customers (e.g. $0.50 or $1.00) Chatham-Kent should consider owning the fleet given external funding programs that may return, thereby reducing the cost of contracted services since it will mitigate the financial risk of the contractor. An Excel based worksheet could be used to provide monthly performance statistics on each route for planning purposes Applying walk distance criteria to route design may help provide expanded coverage at no additional cost
Based on the input received, a number of observations and preliminary suggestions were discussed with Chatham-Kent and Windride staff with respect to the rural community service: Windride buses are not allowed to pick up or drop off customers within Chatham except at the downtown terminal (e.g. a person cannot be allowed to get off at Walmart forcing passengers to board the CKtransit Route 2 in the downtown, paying an additional fare and travelling longer). Bus fares for the rural communities are relatively inexpensive and, in many cases, costing less than the fuel cost to operate a private automobile. A fare by distance pricing strategy (e.g. two zones) may be reasonable for the rural community service in addition to providing free transfers to CKtransit and allowing Windride to use local bus stops. There should be fare integration between the local and inter-urban bus routes.
July 2011
iv
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
2.4
Next Steps
Given the findings and level of detail addressed during the project initiation, it is suggested that the following three assignments be combined since the subject matter overlaps: Assignment 4: Route Operating Analysis Assignment 5: Route and Service Redesign Assignment 6: Transit Fare Integration Assignment 2 Bus Shelter and Bench Policy can be undertaken independently.
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Appendix B Bus Stop, Shelter and Bench Guideline
HDR | iTRANS 100 York Blvd. Suite 300 Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 Tel: (905) 882-4100 Fax: (905) 882-1557 www.hdrinc.com www.itransconsulting.com File: 2.0
Project # 6479
Memorandum
To: Cc: From: Date: Re: Gary Northcott, Director of Engineering and Transportation, Municipality of Chatham-Kent Stephen Jahns, Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Jan Metcalfe, Engineering Technologist Wally Beck, HDR | iTRANS Conor Adami, HDR | iTRANS June 23, 2011 Transit Assignment #2 Bus Shelter and Bench Guidelines
1.
INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this assignment are: 1. Provide a best practices technical review that is intended to serve as a policy guide that will aid the Municipality of Chatham-Kent (herein referred to as Chatham-Kent) in how to manage, install and maintain existing and future bus stops associated with the transit network. 2. Provide a high level overview of CKtransits existing bus stop infrastructure including aspects such as stop spacing, bus stop geometry and the provision of amenities such as shelters, sign posts and benches. It is intended that this document will be used by Chatham-Ken staff involved in transportation and land use planning, transportation engineering, traffic operations and transit operations within the municipality. This document is organized in a manner that discusses each aspect of a bus stop zone (e.g. spacing, positioning, components such as shelters and benches) one-by-one. This discussion includes a brief description of the terminology, the options available and the associated technical (physical and operational) requirements. These technical requirements have been compiled on a review of best practices across the continent and summarized in a manner that will allow for simple understanding and implementation. It should be noted that there is no set formula when assessing the spacing, positioning or the amenity requirements for a bus stop. It is a process that requires a best fit situational approach balancing the needs of the passengers of CKTransit, traffic operations and any additional political considerations.
Where appropriate, each aspect of bus stop zones will be given in a local context specific to Chatham-Kent. This includes describing existing conditions, compliance with this best practices review and opportunities for improvement.
2.
BUS STOP ZONE GUIDELINES
A bus stop zone or, simply a bus stop is the area designated exclusively for the boarding and alighting of CKTransit customers. The definition of bus stop zone refers not only to the actual point at which people board and alight, but also to the physical space required for a bus to approach, align parallel to the curb and leave from a stopped position. When buses are absent, other vehicles may treat this area as part of a travel lane but not as a parking, standing or loading zone. Bus stop guidelines will enable CKtransit to better serve passengers and function better in the overall transportation system. Bus stop zones that are poorly integrated in the road network reduce levels of service for all road users. Transit accessibility improvements are undertaken to attract new riders, provide universal accessibility to transit, and ultimately reduce dependency on the automobile. Fullaccessibility improvements include hard-surfaced (preferably concrete) pedestrian links to sidewalks (bus stop pads), benches, shelters and, possibly, unique and highly visible bus stop identification markers. Proposed legislation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) will require all municipalities to meet bus stop design criteria which allow all riders, regardless of mobility, access to transit services.
2.1
Location Factors
Typically, bus stop zones are located near intersections and any facilities that generate significant transit trips. These facilities include malls and clinics, as well as others. This practice seeks to minimize walk distance and potential traffic conflicts. Spacing of bus stops should be based on a number of criteria, including safety considerations and to meet walk distance guidelines from nearby developments to bus service. The average distance between bus stops varies with land use, population density and pedestrian access but is generally no less than 250 m in urban areas and 200 m in downtown areas. Back-lotted arterial roads may dictate the need for longer spacing between bus stops. Typical maximum stop spacing is roughly between 500 m and 600 m for a conventional bus service, depending on the population or market segment it is intended to serve. Proper bus stop spacing balances the needs of transit accessibility with transit operations and traffic management. Existing CKTransit practices support bus stops in Chatham-Kent have been placed in a manner that ensures that a pedestrian located along the route has no more than a five minute
July 2011
ii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
walk to a bus stop. In effect, this ensures that spaces are no more than 600 m apart, which is within the recommended maximum stop spacing. The location of a bus stop may be adjusted to minimize the impact on an adjacent residence or business; however, safety, operation standards and accessiblity must take priority. A variety of factors influence the feasibility of establishing a bus stop zone. In general, the criteria set out in Attachment 1 can be used as a checklist guide to determine where bus stops should be placed.
2.2
Guidelines for Positioning of Bus Stop Zones
Bus stop zone positions are defined by their relationship to intersecting streets. The three possibilities are nearside, farside (in relation to the direction of travel), and midblock. The most suitable position in any given case depends on many of the above-mentioned factors. However, intersection geometry can constrain the placement of a bus stop to one type or another. For example, near-side bus stops can interfere with the sight distance of approaching traffic if a bus is present loading or unloading passengers. The advantages and disadvantages of each position are described in Table 8.
July 2011
iii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Table 8: Comparison of Stop Positions Advantages

Facilitates transfers between routes when combined with a farside bus stop on an intersecting route Less walk distance to/from some destinations/origins Transit customers served closer to the intersection Bus may stop for traffic signal & passengers at the same time Least impact on intersection traffic level of service Pedestrians cross intersection behind bus Passengers encouraged to leave by rear doors Bus stop zone length minimized Best accommodation of bus turning movements Buses get a re-entry gap in traffic flow at signalized intersections Particular facilities served, if on-site pedestrian corridor near bus stop Convenient for passengers
Disadvantages
Pedestrians may cross street in front of a bus (dangerous if not signalized) Stopped bus can obstruct visibility of intersection and traffic controls
Nearside
Farside
Limited space if more than one bus uses it Traffic approaching (straight or turning onto) bus stop must wait (possibly in intersection) or move around bus
Midblock
Walk distance from intersecting streets is increased Bus manoeuvring is difficult if reentering traffic from a turn-out (bus bay) Greater linear curb space is needed, taking away from street parking availability Street capacity reduced if no turn-out provided Encourages pedestrian crossings at mid-block and may create warrant for pedestrian cross-over
2.3
Bus Stop Zone Dimensions
A bus stop zones length depends on its position. Nearside and midblock zones require the greatest amount of curb space (35 linear metres). Farside zones need less (26 metres) because the bus approaches in the curb lane then moves through the intersection without having to manoeuvre past a parking lane. These dimensions are derived from current traffic engineering practice and have been tested in several jurisdictions. Exhibit 2 through Exhibit 4 shows typical stop placement applications.
July 2011
iv
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
2.3.1 On-Street Bus Turn-out (Bus Bay) From the viewpoint of transportation systems management, bus turn-outs privilege occupants in automobiles at the expense of those in buses. In many cases, transit operators do not recommend bus turn-outs because of the difficulty of re-entering the traffic stream. This situation has been improved since the Province of Ontario followed Quebecs lead and implemented the changes to the Highway Traffic Act, that give priority to buses signalling to exit a bus turn-out. The traditional warrant for establishing a bus turn-out is as follows: There is no parking in the curb lane. Traffic volume is less than 500 vehicles per hour in the curb travel lane during peak periods. Bus frequency is at least 10 per hour and/or dwell times normally exceed 10 seconds (not the case in Chatham-Kent). Posted speed limit of 60 km/h or greater. Bus turn-outs may be used for layover points such as a route terminus. An example of a bus turn-out, or bus bay, is shown in Exhibit 5. 2.3.2 Bus Curb-Out In addition to the above-noted bus stop locations, another style is sometimes used. It typically would be found in a downtown or new urbanism development where parallel or angled parking is provided. The curb-out is a reverse bus bay instead of an area whereby the bus moves out of the travel lane, the curb projects out past parking areas and the bus stops in the travel lane. Curb-outs are advantageous as: Less parking area needs to be removed to allow the bus to have adequate space to serve passengers. the bus will not get trapped in a bay by heavy traffic congestion Regular bays are often unavailable for buses due to automobiles and couriers using them illegally for parking. A curb-out style of stop is often promoted as a method of traffic calming. By using a curb-out when a stop is needed, the roadway at the intersection can be narrowed in order to slow movement and improve safety. An example of a bus curb-out stop arrangement is shown in Exhibit 6.
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Exhibit 2: Typical Nearside Stop Arrangement
Exhibit 8: Typical Farside Stop Arrangement
July 2011
vi
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Exhibit 4: Typical Midblock Stop Arrangement
Exhibit 5: Typical Bus Turn-Out (Bus Pad)
July 2011
vii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Exhibit 6: Typical "Curb-Out" Bus Stop
Exhibit 12: Typical Fully-Accessible Bus Stop

July 2011 viii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
2.4
Bus Stop Components
Exhibit 12 illustrates elements that should be included in a fully-developed accessible bus stop. The fixtures and furniture included at a stop will depend on the amount of use, the space availability and traffic safety considerations. The addition of special features should be done in a manner that does not interfere with passengers boarding, alighting, waiting, snow clearing operations and visibility of passengers waiting at the stop (specifically, when an advertising shelter is installed). They should enhance the stop, not clutter it. Amenities such as shelters, benches, garbage containers, newspaper vending boxes and landscaping must remain clear of the boarding and alighting areas. 2.4.1 Bus Stop Zone Identification and Related Traffic Signage Bus stop zones are marked by a sign bearing the route number. This sign denotes the point of boarding, which the operator will align the front doors of the bus. As shown in Exhibit 12, the stop marker should be mounted so the bottom is between 2 and 3 metres (7 and 10 feet) from the ground. When mounted on a wide pole (such as a hydro pole or light standard) it should be mounted on the side of the pole with a bracket so that it visible from both directions along the street and pedestrians can easily see the closest bus stop. Mounting should be away from the road whenever possible to avoid it being hit by a bus or other vehicles mirror.
Exhibit 13: Existing Bus Stop on Grand Avenue West
July 2011
ix
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Bus stops in Chatham-Kent are usually marked with signs that have their own posts or they are attached to light standards or hydro poles depending on availability and approval from the appropriate bodies. Exhibit 13 illustrates an existing bus stop in Chatham as found on Grand Avenue West. Although the stop marker sign is posted on a light standard, it is placed at an acceptable height from the sidewalk and it is far enough back from the roadway to avoid being clipped by traffic. More importantly, the sign is positioned in a manner so that a pedestrian approaching from either side can see the stop marker. Where parking demand is heavy and there is the potential for parked vehicles to encroach on the bus stop zone, supplementary bus stop zone NO PARKING signs may be installed to mark the zone boundaries. Municipalities typically include provision in their traffic and parking by-law prohibiting parking within 30 metres either side of a bus stop. By-law enforcement of No Parking areas is generally provided by the area municipality. 2.4.2 Landing Pads When there is no curb-face sidewalk, a concrete pad (landing pad) should ultimately be built at all stops as they ensure safe and convenient waiting and alighting at stops. They also facilitate snow clearing procedures and improve the aesthetics of bus stop zones. The pads should be 9 m long to accommodate both the front and rear doors of a conventional 12.2 metre bus. Although CKTransit does not operate 12.2 m conventional transit vehicles, provision should be made to all for future potential and to avoid the costly need to retrofit. The boulevard width and the likelihood of a shelter being located at that stop will determine the width of the pad. Exhibit 14 illustrates the basic configuration of the pad. In the Community of Chatham, landing pads are only available for stops that have bus shelters. This corresponds to only 28 of the 245 system wide bus stops possessing their own sidewalk lead-ins. However, many stops are located along curb-face sidewalks, which serve in and of themselves as the concrete landing pads. The priority for adding new pads should be based on factors such as: Safety (i.e. sightlines) Activity at the stop Accessibility and AODA Condition of boulevard If a curb is already in place Road reconstruction schedule (make use of opportunities to tie in stop improvements with other public works activities) Permanence of routing (i.e. is route intended to remain as is for a reasonable length of time In the fullness of time, all stops should have concrete pads included in their design. The factors above simply outline how to best allocate limited resources to the construction of pads.
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Exhibit 14: Bus Stop Landing Pad
July 2011
xi
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
2.4.3 Shelters The location of transit shelters are determined on the basis of: Boarding volumes (generally heavier on the inbound direction) Adjacent land use (e.g. seniors centres, institutional buildings, etc.) Average wait times Exposure of bus stop to inclement weather conditions Whether or not a shelter can be accommodated physically Political requests All shelter installations must be approved by the appropriate authorities to ensure traffic sightline issues are not created by the shelter. Where necessary, encroachment agreements will need to be sought with adjacent landowners. This will occur when a shelter is warranted, but there is insufficient room to safely place a shelter on the public right-of-way. Unless there is a very wide boulevard, shelters should be placed behind the sidewalk as this improves safety and visibility. Two openings in the shelter, when feasible, reduce entrapment areas although it can reduce weather protection. Openings preferably face the sidewalk, especially if the shelter is between the road and the sidewalk. This reduces road splash and snow clearing problems. Advertising shelters should be located in such a position as to avoid waiting passengers being blocked from view of the bus operator by the ad panel. Chatham-Kent has a total of 28 bus shelters. Half of which these shelters have advertising panels as illustrated in Exhibit 15. Save and except for one, all of Chathams shelters are located within the municipal road allowance, which ensures that modifications or maintenance procedures can occur without any impedance. All of Chatham-Kents shelters are behind the sidewalks with their openings facing the sidewalk to allow for efficient and safe boarding. The bus shelter the openings must meet the minimum AODA requirements to accommodate wheelchair mobility devices. A bus shelter inventory, as provided by municipal staff, is located in Attachment 2. 2.4.4 Benches Benches are a component which improves the environment for transit customers waiting for a bus. Some shelters include benches inside them. At other stops, benches may be added where there is a warrant for them. Often they will be used at stops that do not warrant a shelter but do warrant extra services. Both benches and shelters may be installed at busy stops, assuming there is adequate room and sightlines are not restricted. As much as possible, benches should be placed so that the passenger will face or have a clear view in the direction of the approaching bus.
July 2011
xii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Exhibit 15: Typical Bus Shelter in Chatham-Kent In order to maintain clear paths for pedestrian travel and adequate space for queuing, benches should be placed as follows: 1. With the exception of benches placed in the border area (which is the area between the sidewalk and the abutting property line see point 2 below) benches should be kept: At least 1.5 metres from the border edge of the sidewalk or bus stop pad At least 1.5 metres from the curb edge of the sidewalk or bus stop pad 2.0 metres (plus or minus 0.25 metres) measured as a linear projection along the length of the bus stop zone from the bus stop identification sign 2. Benches placed in the border area between the sidewalk and abutting property, or benches placed in an area with no sidewalk, should be kept 1.5 metres from the curb edge (or vehicular roadside where no curb exists) and 2.0 metres measured as a linear projection along the length of the bus stop zone from the bus stop identification sign. 3. Benches may be placed at an angle, in order to face traffic, only if the above-noted conditions are met. Chatham-Kent does not currently maintain any bench within its inventory of stops.
2.5
Bus Stop Planning Procedures
2.5.1 Existing Bus Stops Bus stop zone changes occur in response to service improvements, land redevelopment, traffic conflicts, public suggestions, and geometric design or traffic control problems reported by bus operators. CKtransit staff should perform an initial review of requests or
July 2011
xiii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
suggestions for any bus stop zone changes, followed by the necessary internal and municipal approval process. 2.5.2 Future Bus Stops It is also recommended that bus stops be identified on all subdivision lot plans where service will be warranted to ensure future residents are aware ahead of time of potential bus stop locations and can make a lot purchase decision accordingly. This should minimize future complaints when bus stops are established.
2.6
Bus Stop Zone Inventory
A comprehensive database should be compiled to list all appropriate information about each stop. With the advent of GPS-based technologies, CKtransit should consider a digitized database that can provide all the necessary data about a bus zone, which would be inserted as a layer in the Municipalitys GIS database (e.g. latitude, longitude, etc.). It is possible that up to 30 data fields may be needed as determined by CKtransit. It is also recommended that the database consist of a link to digital photographs of the bus stop zone that could have up to four pictures, as follows: Approach to the bus stop from a bus operators perspective View from downstream towards the bus stop The view from the bus stop zone to the area across the street The view from across the street to the bus stop zone The bus stop zone attributes, measurements and photos taken could be used for future accidents investigations or they could eventually be viewed online by the transit customer to determine whether or not the bus stop is accessible or whether or not the bus stop is linked closely to nearby destinations. As changes occur to the bus stop, the database can be easily updated.
2.7
Current State of Accessibility and the Accesibility for Ontarians with Disbalities Act (AODA)
Since low-floor wheelchair accessible buses were first introduced in Canada and North America in 1994, more seniors and those requiring mobility aids were more often able to travel by conventional bus. It is also recognized that, as the population ages, the need for accessibility will become more pronounced. As the population ages and the transit fleet becomes more accessible with the introduction of low floor buses, there is a need to ensure that those with mobility problems can physically use conventional transit vehicles by being able to access bus stops. A number of strategies are available. They include: Retrofitting, where practical, all existing bus stop areas for wheelchair accessibility
July 2011 xiv
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Ensuring that all new bus stops are fully accessible Conducting a bus stop accessibility audit in the CKtransit service area, which includes photos of the bus stops so that they can eventually be linked to the audit database for use on the customer website (i.e. bus stop inventory) Expansion of bus stop accessibility audits to include the identification of accessibility requirements beyond the bus stop area The need to inform landowners of accessibility requirements within their site (e.g. from bus stops to main building entrances) That bus stop area retrofit priorities reflect a combination of bus stop customer demand and safety rather than bus stop demand only That the costs associated with improving accessibility infrastructure should be identified in a line budget item(s) in order to quantify the Chatham-Kents commitment to accessibility The bus stop retrofit program funding should reflect financial strategies that enable more stops be retrofitted earlier rather than later (i.e. debenture financing rather than capital from current) Ensure snow clearing priority and enforcement is given to bus stops and sidewalks/walkways leading to bus stops
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requirements relative to transit accessibility will have to be met. By recognizing and addressing the issue early with respect to the retrofit of new bus stops or the installation of new stops, CKtransit will have taken due diligence by setting up and implementing a bus stop area retrofit program once the bus stop inventory has been undertaken.
3.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, there are a number of different parameters and guidelines that need to be incorporated when planning and constructing a bus stop. There are traffic, passenger accessibility, transit vehicle operation and spatial components that must be considered. It is a trade-off between these components in order to come up with the best fit for a particular location or route. However there are underlying themes associated with this aspect of transit service and they are summarized below: With respect to stop spacing along the route, the planning agency must understand that there is a trade-off between in vehicle travel time and access (walking) time for the customer. The decision on whether a stop is will be built as near side, far side, or midblock stop is a function of adjacent land uses, meeting transit walk distance guidelines (i.e. ensuring 90% residents are no more than 400 metres from a bus stop), intersection geometry, and traffic flow conditions. Special attention should be paid to sight distances for intersection approach volumes. Bus turn-out pads (or bus bays) favour automobile traffic instead of transit vehicles since it is difficult to re-enter the flow of traffic. However The Province of Ontario has amended
July 2011
xv
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
the Highway Traffic Act to enable municipalities to give transit vehicles the right of way in order to merge to improve this situation. Bus stop signage must be legible and visible for all pedestrians and vehicles. It should also be positioned in a manner that will ensure that it will not get damaged by passing traffic. No Parking signs may be required in bus stop zones to ensure that parked cars do not block the movements of transit vehicles. The signs should be installed on an as needed basis based on local observations and experience. Landing pads should be constructed where a grass boulevard separates the roadway and sidewalk. This will ensure that passengers will know where to wait and that their boardings and alightings can occur safely. Bus shelters and benches located at bus stops can greatly improve the customers experience, and in turn, their satisfaction with the transit service. However they must be placed in a manner that does not interfere with pedestrian circulation. The instalment of a bus shelter is based on many factors such as average waiting times, the number of boardings and surrounding land uses Accessibility requirements and the AODAs transit requirements foresee the usage of low floor transit vehicles across the Province. An important aspect is that bus stops will need to be retrofitted to ensure that the new vehicles will be able serve passengers in a safe manner. With respect to these conclusions, it is worthwhile and prudent to put forth some recommendations or next steps for CKtransit to enact in the near future: The existing policy of No more than a 5 minute walk to a bus stop demonstrates clearly that CKtransit staff understands the industry standard principles. The existing policy results in an average stop spacing of 600m, which should continue when more service is planned. CKtransit and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent should construct landing pads, where necessary (i.e. where there is a grass boulevard, if there is space, etc.) Utilizing this guideline document as a basis, customize a shelter and bench warrant program (i.e. a checklist) for Chatham-Kent to deal with future requests for shelters and benches at certain bus stops. Essentially the warrant program will serve as an approval mechanism so that the municipality can record and track requests made and more importantly, the decisions relating to them and the municipalitys reasoning. CKTransit should implement a bus stop inventory program. This will include a database and photo(s) that tracks all of the features and components of each bus stop and their conditions. The inventory will assist in whether or not certain bus stop candidates for any accessibility-related retrofitting required. Att. Attachment 1 Bus Stop Location Factor Checklist Attachment 2 Bus Shelter Inventory
July 2011
xvi
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Attachment 1 Bus Stop Location Factor Checklist
FACTOR Adjacent Land Use Sidewalks Walkways Pedestrian Crossings Driveways Streetlights Transfers between routes Route Configuration Suitability for a shelter Traffic Control Hardware & Utility poles Traffic Controls Landscaping & other street furniture Roadway alignment/geometry Intersections
GUIDELINE
Preference is to place adjacent to major trip generators
CHECKED
Preference is where sidewalks exist Improves service coverage Controlled, supervised or assisted Bus should not block driveways Should be adequate illumination at the stop Minimize road crossings for transferring passengers Consider bus turning movements Room available; minimize sightline impacts Should not block bus doors or visibility Signalized intersection Stop Signs Planters & street trees should not block bus doors Maximize sightlines for operators, motorists and pedestrians Minimize impact on sightlines; impact of slip off lanes Avoid locating stops on upgrades or downgrades when possible due to noise of acceleration & slipping in winter All stops are No Parking zones (30 metres) Which locations can minimize impact from or on motorists
Gradients Street Parking Traffic Volumes
Attachment 2 Bus Shelter Inventory
ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS Intersection 1. Grand Avenue East 2. Grand Avenue West 3. Grand Avenue West 4. Grand Avenue West 5. Grand Avenue West 6. Grand Avenue West 7. Keil Drive South 8. McNaughton Avenue West 9. Park Avenue West 10. Richmond Street 11. Sandys Street 12. St. Clair Street 13. St. Clair Street 14. St. Clair Street SIDE North North East North North North West North South North West East West West At Ursuline College In front of Skate Park (beside Crabby Joe's) In front of Thames Lea Plaza (at Staples) In front of Thames Lea Plaza (at Zellers) West of Keil Drive (at Chatham Tower Apt Bldg) Opposite Wheels Plaza (at Minacs) West of Galbraith Street (at McNaughton Ave Apts) East of Bloomfield Road (at Parkfield/Community Living) Opposite YA Canada (at 715 Richmond) North of Grand Avenue West (at Access Fire & Safety) North of Gregory Drive (at Apple Auto Glass) North of Paxton Drive (at Clairvue Townhouses) In front of Nortown Centre (at Shopper's Drug Mart) Location East of Vanier Drive (at Flamingo Motel)
NON-ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS Intersection 1. Centre Street 2. Centre Street 3. Emma Street 4. Grand Avenue West 5. Grand Avenue West* 6. McFarlane Avenue 7. Park Avenue West 8. Park Avenue East 9. Pine Street 10. Pine Street 11. Riverview Drive 12. Riverview Drive* 13. William Street North 14. Fergie Jenkins Parkway* SIDE East East South North North South South North East East North North West East At Transfer Terminal At Transfer Terminal At Chatham-Kent Heatlh Alliance East of Campus Parkway (at Medical Bldg) At Provincial Court Facility West of Melrose Drive (at Linden Towers) At 340 Park Avenue West (Housing Project) At Sass Road (O.P.P. Station) Corner of Elm Street North of Eugenie Street (at Maple Court Apts) At Orchard Heights Boulevard West of Merritt Drive (at Riverbend Apts) North of Stanley Street (at Cultural Centre) At College/Day Care Location
Appendix C Detailed Analysis and Calculations
1.
ROUTE LOAD PROFILES
This section will demonstrate the route passenger load profiles based on location. The average passenger load for four periods, which are listed as below, is given along with a daily average load. This data is based on CKTransits November 2010 ridership survey. Early morning: 6:15 AM to 9:15 AM, Late morning: 9:15 AM to 12:15 PM Early Afternoon: 12:15 PM to 3:15 PM Late Afternoon/Early Evening: 3:15 PM to 7:15 PM
Exhibit 1-1: Route 1 Passenger Load Profile

July 2011 iii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Exhibit 1-2: Route 2: Passenger Load Profile

July 2011 iv
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479

July 2011 v
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479

July 2011 vi
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
2.
ROUTE TRAVEL TIME AND SPEED PROFILES
This section will demonstrate the route travel time and speed profiles based on the time of day. This data is based on CKTransits November 2010 ridership survey.
Exhibit 2-1: Route 1 Average Speed Analysis
Exhibit 2-2: Route 2 Travel Time Analysis

July 2011 vii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
July 2011
viii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
July 2011
ix
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
3.
FARE INCREASE SENSITIVITY CALCULATIONS
This section presents the calculations performed in order to calculate the annualized revenues for the proposed fare increases and other associated fare structure changes presented in Section 4.3.3.3. For each fare increase, a low range and high range is given. The low range calculations are based on the Simpson-Curtin Fare Elasticity formula, while the high range assumes no decrease in ridership. These calculations are presented below in Table Table 3-1: Annualized Revenues for $0.25 Fare Increase: Low Range (Simpson-Curtin Formula)
Category Fare Media Cash MultiPass Cash MultiPass Cash MultiPass Cash MultiPass Pass Cash Total
Ticket sales are included as Multi-Pass fares for this exercise
% Fare Increase 12.5% 15.7% 28.6% 27.8% 28.6% 27.8% 28.6% 27.8% 0.0% -100.0%
% Ridership Increase / Decrease -3.8% -4.7% -8.6% -8.3% -8.6% -8.3% -8.6% -8.3% 0.0% 30.0%
Annual Revenue Passengers 76,172 73,864 8,896 24,677 10,379 19,623 3,855 4,162 7,136 17,709 246,473
Annual Revenue Generated $171,387 $135,976 $20,017 $38,698 $23,353 $30,772 $ 8,674 6,527 $6,422 $ $441,826
% of Annual Revenues 38.8% 30.8% 4.5% 8.8% 5.3% 7.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 100.0%
Increased Revenue % 8.3% 10.3% 17.6% 17.1% 17.6% 17.1% 17.6% 17.1% 0.0% -100.0% 6.5%
Adult
Senior H.S. Student Elementary Student St. Clair College Child
Table 3-2: Annualized Revenues for $0.25 Fare Increase: High Range
Category Fare Media Cash Multi-Pass Cash Multi-Pass Cash Multi-Pass Annual Revenue Passengers 79,140 77,518 9,730 26,921 11,352 21,407 xi Annual Revenue Generated $178,065 $142,704 $21,893 $42,216 $25,542 $33,570 % of Annual Revenues 38.1% 30.6% 4.7% 9.0% 5.5% 7.2% Increased Revenue from Existing % 12.5% 15.7% 28.6% 27.8% 28.6% 27.8%
Adult Senior H.S. Student July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Category
Fare Media Cash Multi-Pass Pass Cash Total
Annual Revenue Passengers 4,216 4,541 7,136 13,622 255,583
Annual Revenue Generated $9,487 $7,121 $6,422 $467,019
% of Annual Revenues 2.0% 1.5% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Elementary Student St. Clair College Child
Increased Revenue from Existing % 28.6% 27.8% 0.0% -100.0% 12.6%
Table 3-3: Annualized Revenues for $0.50 Fare Increase: Low Range (Simpson-Curtin Formula)
Category Fare Media Cash MultiPass Cash MultiPass Cash MultiPass Cash MultiPass Pass Cash Total
Ticket sales are included as Multi-Pass fares for this exercise
% Fare Increase 11.1% 11.0% 11.1% 11.0% 11.1% 11.0% 11.1% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0%
% Ridership Increase / Decrease -3.3% -3.3% -3.3% -3.3% -3.3% -3.3% -3.3% -3.3% -3.3% 0.0%
Annual Revenue Passengers 73,633 71,423 8,600 23,862 10,033 18,974 3,727 4,025 7,136 23,022 244,434
Annual Revenue Generated $184,082 $146,092 $21,499 $41,541 $25,083 $33,033 $9,316 $7,007 $6,422 $474,076
% of Annual Revenues 38.8% 30.8% 4.5% 8.8% 5.3% 7.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 100.0%
Increased Revenue % 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.3% 7.4% 7.3% 7.4% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0% 7.3%
Adult
Senior H.S. Student Elementary Student St. Clair College Child
Table 3-4: Annualized Revenues for $0.50 Fare Increase: High Range
Category Fare Media Cash Multi-Pass Cash Multi-Pass Cash Multi-Pass Cash Annual Revenue Passengers 79,140 77,518 9,730 26,921 11,352 21,407 4,216 xii Annual Revenue Generated $197,849 $158,560 $24,326 $46,866 $ 28,380 $37,267 $ 10,541 % of Annual Revenues 38.2% 30.6% 4.7% 9.0% 5.5% 7.2% 2.0% Increased Revenue from Existing% 25.0% 28.6% 42.9% 41.9% 42.9% 41.9% 42.9%
Adult Senior H.S. Student Elementary Student July 2011
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
Category
Fare Media Multi-Pass
Annual Revenue Passengers 4,541 7,136 13,622 255,583
Annual Revenue Generated $7,905 $ 6,422 $518,116
% of Annual Revenues 1.5% 1.2% 0.0% 100.0%
Increased Revenue from Existing% 41.9% 0.0% -100.0% 100.0%
St. Clair College Child Total
Pass Cash
July 2011
xiii
HDR | iTRANS
Project # 6479
EG
PI
R EE
E IN
EL
S LI
ST
CRERAR DR
G
BA LD O O
RE
RY
DR
X PA
TO
DR
N O HT G D AU Y R RD C N LE M AL NT V U O SC VI
AV
R IV
RY
ER
DR
E G IV EN RD
L IN
RT RD
E
BE
PR IN CE AL
ST CL AI R ST
DR
SERVICE HOURS: 6:15 am to 7:15 pm

CO M
FREQUENCY: MON-SAT EVERY 30 MIN
L EY R XL C F A O M
N
N O
LO ND O N
TA YL
IA D R BR RD EN E ST
O
AV
O R TR AI L
INQUIRIES:
AT IO
436-3233
M UN
VA
GR
RD
D AN
AV
IC
M IC
G LE
E AN
HE NE
Fares - effective January 1, 2006:

Cash Adult Cash Senior Cash Student Child $2.00 $1.75 $1.75 $1.00 Multi-Pass Adult $35.00 Multi-Pass Senior $27.00 Multi-Pass Student $27.00 $120.00 per semester.
NW O D DR
RD
IE
AV R ST T O E S YL AL D TA RD O R DF AV
DE
CO
VI CT O RI A AV
LA W AR
VE
BE
JO
EL IZ AB ET
T H AM E S
ST
BA
LM
OR
AL
RD
R AR
DR
AV W
LO
ST
AN
ST T ES ST R K F O K IR L SE
AV
G
SI EM
LE
NM
AR
AV
LY
PL YN ST
NN
W O
St. Clair College Students
H ST
O D AV
ST
LE
L IN G
PU
PK
TE
Y
M CU
SE
RD
NG ST
W EL
AM
LA
RK
ST
AR
TO N
H DA
LI
ST W
RD
JO
AV ST N DS DO O EL O AV ST T W SH T YN ST S AR S EN Y M R ST D DY EW SE R BU L L R ST SAN E HI O N N T R C EV D CA HU C
DR
AV H H U G IN C F NA
TO
R TH LA N D D
EA
SA
SE PH ST
ST
Legend
ROAD NETWORK BUS TERMINAL ROUTE 1 (NORTHWEST) ROUTE 2 (NORTHEAST) ROUTE 3 (SOUTHEAST) ROUTE 4 (SOUTHWEST)
RD
SS RD
IV AN
LA W
EN
KEN T
W IL
PITT S
ST
RA Y
W AS AV M M D E
ST
ST RA Y MUR E ST O RN OL B C ST E K IN G ST E TO N L IN G W EL K ST PAR
DR
L IA M
W IP ST
R HA
ST
FIFTH T
EY ST
LE IG
ST N
PA
RK
AV
E
CR
ST
RA
D EG GE
ST T ER ST S BAX E L A ID AD E ST S L IA M
W IL
EE K
POINTS OF INTEREST
CALL CENTRE CHATHAM KENT HEALTH ALLIANCE
CREEK RD
PA ST R K LA
M AP LE
RD
PE
LE
E R IV
RV
IE W
L IN
BE AR LI NE RD
R IV
E
AF
TE R
DR
H ST
KI
I PH
LL
LO
RN
AV
PA
O
RK
AV
W
M
AC
AV
E AV AV IR R U PE IE SM S T A S EN E D ER J G E C EU T W ER M ST
ST
CHATHAM KENT SECONDARY SCHOOL CIVIC CENTRE COMMUNITY LIVING COURT HOUSE/SOCIAL SERVICES JOHN McGREGOR SECONDARY SCHOOL LIBRARY MAPLE CITY CENTRE FOR OLDER ADULTS NORTH MAPLE MALL NORTOWN PLAZA
IN SH
KE IL DR N
UE
ES AV
EN
CU RR
ER
W V IE
DR
W
ST
IL
LO
RI
CH
ON
ST
YA
TI
O TT ST
I SS
AN
AV
IN
N IA
E RE
RD
ST
JO
HN
LE ES
M ER
IE ST
BY NG
ST
AL
LE
O N
AV
KE IL
D R AV TT
ST
RI
IR W IN ST
DR S
TW
M FI EL D RD
EE
SM
IR
NE
AV
IL
ST D R T IX O ER CR UB LA F A
SY
E LV
ST
ER
AV
CE
E IL
AV
E RI
DR
C HI
W
KE
DR
EN
HI LL
LI
SH
N LI
ST CLAIR COLLEGE THAMESLEA PLAZA THAMESVIEW LODGE URSULINE COLLEGE - THE PINES VICTORIA RESIDENCE
BR IA R
BL O O LI NE
G
RD
AV K N D EE A LL C R H O IA N D IN
RD
CH AR IN G
E
UE
NS
E EV
NT
LI
NE
Disclaimer: The Municipality of Chatham-Kent takes every precaution to put up-to-date and correct information on all maps published by the Centre for GIS. However, it does not expressly warranty that the information contained in the map is accurate on the date of publication. All users may use this information at their own risk. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent will not entertain any claims arising out of the use of this map or information. This map was produced by the Centre for GIS. If you have any questions or comments regarding the information displayed on this map, or you require more information please contact us at: ckgis@chatham-kent.ca
RD D AR W DR H O ET N AR
CR O SS RD
0.25
0.5
1 Kilometers
1.5
Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
PR
RO IM
SE
N LA
T IL
E IR SH
DR
DF IN
LD IE
CR
ES
N LE G W O
AV R O YL ST TA ST E AL RD O RD DF VE BE CO ST LD AV NO E AR AR W AV LA AV AN DE T IC UR AV YD T ST ST O A H C LL E S H RI IR C EP ET O FA EN S AB CT IZ AV OR JO VI ST EL FL R AI CL
RA O EW NG O D O BL VD
D O
DR
EY XL O
DR
CF M A
E AN RL
AV
BR AL G TH AI
YD LL
IC
AN
BL VD
O RD
RE G
O N
O G
RY
DR
THAMES
UNNAMED 12 RD
UNNAMED 14 RD
BA
A OR LM
RD
PA
RR
DR AV
A CN M
UG
ST
A TT O
DR
SU
U DB
RY
DR
ST
L BA O DO N RD
AN JO NE ST
AL NE PI
O HT
AV
R FO
T ES
ST
LK SE
K IR
ST
RA G
ND
AV
ST
SH
E ST W AR T
D EL N O AV
AR PL
AL
N DE
ST
ST
PO
ST JAMES E ST BARTH R ST DOVE
WAT
ER S
T
V
AY S T
ST ST YS ST ND DS AV SA O O YN W
UR SU N LI
N STA
A LEY
CR AV EN DR
E AV
IS IR
CO
UR
T
D R
H DA
A LI
AR G
EN
PA
TH
PH
LA
S EA ST RK
T AN
DR
ON R DE V
RA G ST A M EM ST RY A M
ND
AV
EM
ST
TH FOU R
R MUR
L IAM WIL
CA CH UR CH L IL
M SE
ER NT
FIFTH
EN
BU RY
ST N
S THIRD
ST
WE L LI
KI NG
ST E
SM H IT
I KE L TR
ST
ST
ST
FIR S T
NG TO NS
ST
D EL FI RC CI
L AI
CE
TW
RA H IG LE
ST
RE NT
LE
L IAM WIL
HA
ST
R Y VE
ST
UE Q
KI
NG
ST
W
S IN HE
CH RI
ND O
ST
ST S
EN
C LA
ST
PH
UN E IV RS Y IT
IX RO
S LI YL AV
ST
PH
P LI IL
ST
RN LO
AV
ST AV AY O N R S G T E AV AT ER P NC PE S
ED
ER M
A BE R NE LI R D
CR
RIVERVIEW DR
DR I KE L DR N
TT RI AV
YS L TA
S AV
DR
AR G
ST EY
CU RR
RR KE
S
AV
L Terminal (northwest side) > AL AV N Wellington > Fifth > Thames > W O Victoria > Barthe > Grand (Pines, AV ES Courthouse, TVL & Thames Lea Plaza) > RK TT St. Clair College > McNaughton > PA PA Baldoon > Oxley > Timmins > McFarlane > St. Clair > McNaughton > Sheldon > Poplar > Sandys > Grand (Hospital) >Third > Wellington > Centre > Terminal.
AK O ST
E LE
N BY
IE
CG M
ST
AN G UI
I KE L DR
N SO DR
G AV
AV
NE O PI
ER
NE LI RK KI DR
DU
R G
O EG
RY
DR
E E
A CN M
UG
O HT
AV
E IV G N RD
LD ST A IE M S EF LLI E NC LA
K RY
LL NO
ST CL R AI ST R D
ND LO N O
IC M
PL
E AC
LAWSON DR
TA Y
LO
DR
EN
CRERAR DR
TR
AI L
VA
EY LL
RD
ER R
BB WE
ST
AY W O ST Y E NR E N HE RD IA BR
N LE G
X PA
N TO
DR
RE G
O G
RY
DR
W
DR LA EY AR XL CF O M DR RY U DB U S
NE AV
H TS IL
E IR
DR
GR
D AN
AV
W O D O DR
N VA
Y TA
IE
DE
VE CO
LO
AP M
C VI TO
W LA AR
R AV
RD
LE
ST
SE RO
LE DA
DR
A RI AV
E AL
D BE
A IZ EL T BE
AV AR LD NO ST
H
ST
RD FO
ST
AV
ST
NL EY
THAMES
O LM BA
RA
D LR
R PA
DR NE PI AV
PO
ST ST R WE A PL LO
ST A
ST W
LI NG TON
C M
U NA
KI NG
O HT
YD RO
ST W
L BA O DO N RD
AL
ST ST E H NC E P RE S O JO FL
ST ST E R ST FO RK I LK SE
ST
N R O TH N LA D
S SA
AV N DO EL SH ST ST S AV T ST OD AR YN ST O YS W E N RY EW M ND T ST BU L S SE SA RD N ER HIL NT C VO DE UR
TS ES AID D EL ST S N A H ST L IAM E NT WIL E ST SEV L AID AD E ST N
S RD
A IV
D R
DUK
N ST
NE TO S
AV W
AV
E ST BARTH R ST DOVE
L IAM WIL
R MUR
AY S
E ST
CR AV EN DR
CA
BO R COL
NE S
S FIFTH
CH
DUK
TH FOU R
AV
N O
ST
RA G T S A M T EM Y S R A M
ND
WEL
LA
RK
ST
SS RO
HA R
ST
ST
ST E TON I NG L WEL Terminal (northeast side) > Wellington > K ST Fifth > King > Third > St. Clair V E > North PAR Mall > St. Clair > Jackson > Victoria > A Maple K McNaughton > Delaware R (CKSS) > Forest > PA Taylor > McNaughton (CKSS) > Michener >
T BAX
KI NG
ST E
E ST
AR G DE N PA TH
I KE L TR L AI
ST
ST T RE N S NT E E CE QU
C LA IX RO
R PA
ER S
Y VE
Grand > Thames > Fifth > Centre > Terminal.
N LA
ST
DR A V E Y NE XL LA O AR CF M O HT N AV
A GR
ND
AV
DE W LA AR
A IZ EL
W ST CL
NL EY
RN
A CN M
L SE
GRANT S T THAMES ST
ST
UG
T ES R O F T S K IR
ST
SE RO
LE DA
DR
Y TA LO R
ST AV YN D O PL O JO NW
N LY
YD LL IC
AV
N LE G
AR
AV
V IR FA
W IE
N LI
E AV
ST AV A TH RI BE O CT VI AV
AN
PH SE JO T S R AI
AV
PO
S ST R WE LA LO P
ST A
YD RO
N O
ST
R G T S A M ST M E Y AR M
AV E N O ST ST W A M AV EM ND A
FIR S T
WAT
CO LB O
SH D EL N O AV
S EA
S SA S
AW TL
E SI
ST
RD
ER S
A IV
RR KE
CH RI
ST AV ST DS YS OO YN ST Y EN ND W T M UR L S SA RD SE RB L N E HI NT RC EVO U D
C TE
EN M
S KENT
RD
ST
L IAM WIL
DR
R MUR
AY S
CA CH
FIFTH
ST N
ST
C
C LA
SS RO H
ST EY ST
TON LI NG WEL K ST PAR

T BAX ER S
KI NG
ST E
S THIRD T
V AR
L AD E
ST E
ST GE DE G
PA
RK
AV
E
E
ST
AIDE
CE RE NT ST
RA H IG LE
D IN
N IA
E CR
EK
RD
CR
A LE LE AP M ST E N N O LA NS K KI R IL PA
L IAM WIL
ST S
EE K RD
ST S
UE Q
T PE
UM
H SE
RD
NG ST W P LI IL ST
IX RO ST S IN HE
EN ST
ER ST
DR
ST
KI
EA
AV
RL
DR
AV T S E RN A Y O GR L
PH
D ON
ST
ED R D
ED
TR
AV
L EL
G EW
Y AR G LE D AV E W AL RA AV D K AV AN AR AC AV EX P M AL W IDE L O YS IL N W UN V W A S DR R A UI EW SM PP ED HI E C TW
ST
E AV AV IR ER U P IE SM ST AS V EN J TA ED ER G E ES U W RC CR E L T E HIL M ST
CRE E
S AV
K RD
N PI E ST
CU RR IE
HN JO
E LE N SO
N BY G
ST
ST
N LE AL
ER M
ST N ST TO EIL ST US ON R Y R HO BE
AV
DR
TT RI
ST
I KE L DR S
SS TI
IM
AN
AV
AV
O O D AV
L SY
ST VE
ER
AV
C CE
E IL
AV
RD W
BR O
N IE
DR
DR
EN
SH LI G
N LI
AR M IO N
U FA
BE
RT
AV
DR
K
BR
E CK HI
R IA LL HI
Terminal (southeast side) > Centre > Harvey > Wellington > William (Cinema 6, Victoria Park, Cultural Centre) > Stanley (Victoria Residence) > Prince > Murray >Princess > Colborne (Wish Centre) > Sass (P.A.B.C. & Call centre) > Park Ave. > Park Lane > Tweedsmuir > John > Tissiman > Queen > Cecile > Lacroix > Indian Creek (John McGregor) > St. Michael > Sylvester > Tweedsmuir > Foreman > Pine > Park Ave. > St. George > Park St. > William > Wellington > Terminal.
UN NA ED M
UN NA
ED M UN NA
AV C ND IAN A D LL IN HO
E RE
RD
CH
11 RD
AR
ED M 8
G IN
W HO AR D RD
CR
RD
7 RD
SS O RD
e f
y w
2 v
22
fe
ri2
22 22
e f v h y y x 2 h 22
i2 hy
22
se vv s
g e x i 2h 22 g r g g e x i f
g w
2e
2e
y vf gy
i2
22
h
i w i x
r psp
22 2 22 h 2 x h 22 y y
w2
us x
q2
2i
ui
2 22
2x
e q h i x 2 e r
i u 2 sv e sv 22
2e
w i
2 e
22
22
2 yx sxq iv v
sx vv i se vv s
2 yx q
22
2i
r sv h i y x 2
2 2 2
22 h 22
2 v
22
2 y v
g i
g
i
e v
22
e w
ps 2
22
g
e v
22 22
u2
fe
e iv eh
22
i 2
22
g i

22
2 22
w2
2e
2i
22
i sh
22
si
i f
i v
r sq
s y
sx 2v
sx 2v i
22
sx u
2 q
e i
2h
22
r
v sv
e y v q
2e i
22
22
22
sx
22
22
22
22
2e
22
22 22 22
2h
i s
22
h i
e q
sx 2v
2 i2
2e
v e
i v
i q
si
22
2i
22
i u 2h sv 2x
2e 22
sx i 2
2e
g si
22
i w
22
g w
i v i x y 2h
f x q 2e
2 22
q e sq
i w
2e
i u
22
2e
si
2h
22
22
22
2h sv
x y
x y
22
sg
x y
22

v v
22
i h
2e
2e
2
y
s sx 2 22
2e
2
e i v v
i f
22 e w
q i
i sv

sy x
22
22
22
e x
s y
e p f
h y 2
2 22
y f r
y y h
22
22
2h
i h 2 h 22
v i
2e
f
v f y y
h v2
22
22
22
sy
v2
22
2e
i sv
2e
22
22
2 v 22
x x
v v y x
2e
22 2
p w si h v 2 h 22
e i w h
x x
2g
2 u
2 I 2I
x x e i w h
e i w h
2 2U
h 22
2 2V h
sx 2v
22
e w x x
sx
2h q
22
sx
se
22
h 22
r y e
22 2h
erminl2@southwest2sideA2b2gentre2b ellington2b2uing2@tF2toesA2b werritt2@wple2gity2gentreA2b2iverview2 @gommunity2vivingD2fingoA2b2reritge2b2 ueil2b2ihmond2@ll2entreA2b2floomfield2b rk2eveF2@gommunity2vivingA2b2 vroix2@ll2entreA2b2ihmond2b2 ueen2@virryA2b2hool2b2gentre2b2 ellington2b2erminlF
e q
g y
22
h 2 h 22
g sv y 2 22
St. Clair Estates
TO AND FROM WALLACEBURG

Riverside Mobile Home Park
CK Inter-Urban Route
ROUTE SCHEDULE:
MORNING BUSES Chatham Terminal Chatham Hospital Chatham Terminal Chatham Hospital Chatham Terminal End AFTERNOON BUSES Chatham Terminal Chatham Hospital Chatham Terminal Chatham Hospital Chatham Terminal End
A
6:15 AM 8:35 AM 8:45 AM 11:05 AM 11:15 AM 4:15 PM 6:35 PM 6:45 PM 9:05 PM 9:15 PM
Inter-Urban Transit Stop Daparture Times
Lynnwood Subdivision
HS H
NOTE: Buses will not depart from the above stop locations before the times as noted. FREQUENCY: Monday Through Saturday INQUIRIES: 519.354.7433
Fares - effective October 1, 2007:

Adults Seniors Students (with valid ID) Children (5yrs & under) $5.00 $4.50 $4.50 $2.50
Please note that riders will be required to present exact change! All fares as "per ride". No transfers will be issued for use on other CK Transit services.
ROAD NETWORK INTER-URBAN TRANSIT ROUTE (AND DIRECTION) INTER-URBAN TRANSIT STOP
O'Brien Subdivision
Wilsonwood Subdivision
INTER-URBAN TRANSIT STOP (DEPARTURE TIME SPECIFIED) REFER TO ROUTE SCHEDULE
T
Farmington Estates
HS H
BUS TERMINAL HIGH SCHOOL HOSPITAL
COMMUNITY OF CHATHAM
Municipality of Chatham-Kent General Disclaimer: The Municipality of ChathamKent makes no representation what so ever about the suitability or accuracy of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this document for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent hereby disclaims all representations and warranties. The documents and related graphics published on this document may include inaccuracies and/or errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent may make updates and/or changes in the information described herein at any time.
CK Inter-Urban Route
ROUTE SCHEDULE:
Inter-Urban Transit Stop Departure Times MORNING BUSES County Fair Mall Wallaceburg Hospital Dresden Arena Wallaceburg Hospital County Fair Mall Chatham Terminal County Fair Mall Wallaceburg Hospital Dresden Arena Wallaceburg Hospital County Fair Mall Chatham Terminal AFTERNOON BUSES County Fair Mall Wallaceburg Hospital Dresden Arena Wallaceburg Hospital County Fair Mall Chatham Terminal County Fair Mall Wallaceburg Hospital Dresden Arena Wallaceburg Hospital County Fair Mall Chatham Terminal
TO AND FROM WALLACEBURG TO AND FROM DRESDEN

HS
HS C
6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 7:50 AM 8:05 AM 8:45 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:20 AM 10:35 AM 11:15 AM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 5:50 PM 6:05 PM 6:45 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:20 PM 8:35 PM 9:15 PM
SC P L
ES M CO
A RT
CC
COMMUNITY OF DRESDEN
TO AND FROM CHATHAM
A
6:45 PM
4:15 PM
SC
8:45 AM
6:15 AM
NOTE: Buses will not depart from the above stop locations before the times as noted. FREQUENCY: Monday Through Saturday INQUIRIES: 519.354.7433
ROAD NETWORK INTER-URBAN TRANSIT ROUTE (AND DIRECTION) INTER-URBAN TRANSIT STOP INTER-URBAN TRANSIT STOP (DEPARTURE TIME SPECIFIED) REFER TO ROUTE SCHEDULE ARENA LIBRARY PARK HOSPITAL MALL HIGH SCHOOL
ES SC RT CO CC C
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SERVICE CENTRE RACE TRACK CASINO CALL CENTRE COLLEGE
COMMUNITY OF WALLACEBURG
Ridership Tip ! Riders are encouraged to consult the Revenue Canada website for information regarding available tax credits for public transportation riders (www.fin.gc.ca).
L P H M HS

CK Transit Service Review 2011

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CK Transit Service Review 2011

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION INFORMATION REPORT

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Route Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Overall

Boardings per Hour 30.5 22.1 17.8 23.0 23.4

Revenue Passengers per Hour 22.0 15.0 13.5 15.0 16.3

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Figure 1 CK Transit Chatham Conventional - Recommended Service Change

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Senior Highschool Student Elementary Student College Child Total

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

The consultants proposed fare schedule is summarized in the following table:

Multi-pass Discount 18% 30% 30% 30% N/A N/A

Multi-pass Discount 18% 30% 30% 30% N/A

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

(RTC:\Infrastructure & Engineering\I&ES\2011\3358 CK Transit Service Review 2011.doc)

Municipality of Chatham-Kent Infrastructure and Engineering Services

CKTransit Service Review Final Report (Revised)

July 27, 2011

Municipality of Chatham-Kent Infrastructure and Engineering Services

CKTransit Service Review Final Report (Revised)

Chatham, ON July 27, 2011

CKTransit Service Review

Client Project Team

HDR | iTRANS Project Team

CKTransit Service Review

CKTransit Service Review

CKTransit Service Review

CKTransit Service Review

C-KTRANSIT CHATHAM CONVENTIONAL SERVICE

Exhibit 2-1: Existing CKTransit Chatham Conventional Routes

Exhibit 2-2: Route 1 Operations Summary

Exhibit 2-3: Route 2 Operations Summary

Exhibit 2-4: Route 3 Operations Summary

Exhibit 2-5: Route 4 Operations Summary

CKTransit Service Review

Boardings per Hour

Revenue Passengers per Hour

CKTransit Service Review

CKTRANSIT INTERURBAN SERVICE

CKTransit Service Review

CKTransit Service Review

PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES

Service Issues and Potential Mitigation Measures

CKTransit Service Review

CKTransit Service Review

Integration of Interurban and Chatham Conventional Transit Services

CKTransit Service Review

Multi-Pass Discount 20% 30% 30% 30% N/A N/A

CKTransit Service Review

CKTransit Service Review

Category Elementary Student St. Clair College Child Total

Fare Media Cash Ticket Multi-Pass Pass Cash

Annual Revenue Passengers 4,216 324 4,541 7,136 13,622 257,853