HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006 - Transit Development Plan Final ReportJefferson City
Transit Development Plan
FINAL REPORT
~
I
I
I
I
.. 1 !-!-'1/~J -
.s I
I
CITY OF JEFFERSON
I n
I
II ;;
W EDGEW1<JD OR
~:t
/J ·~·· rt
II
.J!
·'
(l
-.! ....
0 <• •J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
Section 1: Final Report
Section 2: Study Area Data Inventory
Section 3: Operating and Maintenance Facility Evaluation
Section 4: Bus Replacement
Section 5: Transfer Center Report
Section 6: Service Alternatives
Section 7: Paratransit Evaluation
Section 8: Public Involvement
Section 9: Steering Committee Meeting Summaries
Section 10: Financial Analysis
Section 11: Implementation Plan
Section 12: Marketing Plan
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 1:
Final Report
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
Prepared for
CITY OF JEFFERSON
Prepared by
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Phone: (816) 329-8600
In Association with
ETC Institute
T J Brown and Associates
Revised March 15, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March 2006
Table of Contents
LIST OFT ABLES .•••..•...•........••.......•••.....•.•.........•.•........................•.....•••....•....•...•.•••..•.•..•..........•...•..•.•• III
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. IV
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
STUDY PROCESS ........................................................................................................................ 1
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 2
ABOUT JEFFTRAN ······································································· ············································ 2
SECTION 2: STUDY AREA INVENTORY ......................................................................................... 4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.8.1
2.8.2
DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................................................... 4
Population Demographics ..................................................................................................... 4
Employment ............................................................................................................................ 4
Growth Forecasts ................................................................................................................... 4
Trip Generators ...................................................................................................................... 5
EXISTING FIXED ROUTE SERVICE ..................................................................................... -....... 5
Current Fixed Route Structure ............................................................................................... 5
Schedules ................................................................................................................................ 7
Running Time Check .............................................................................................................. 7
Transfers ................................................................................................................................ 7
EXISTING PARA TRANSIT SERVICE .........................................................•................................... 8
PASSENGER COUNT ................................................................................................................... 8
Data and Maps ....................................................................................................................... 9
Ridership Trends .................................................................................................................... 9
PASSENGER SURVEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 11
PEER AGENCY REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 12
INVENTORY OFF ACILITIES & EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 13
Operating and Maintenance Facilities ................................................................................ 13
Fleet Inventory ..................................................................................................................... 13
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................ 14
Public Involvement Components .......................................................................................... 14
Summary of Input ................................................................................................................. 14
SECTION 3: TRANSFER CENTER •.•............•.•.••..••••••••••.•....•.•.•....••••....................•..••••••••••••••••••...... 17
SECTION 4: TRANSIT SERVICE REVIEW .................................................................................... 20
4.1 TRANSIT SERVICE EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 20
4.1.1 Service Evaluation Conclusions ........................................................................................... 21
4.2 TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 22
4.3 FLEXIBLE ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICES ..................................................................................... 22
4.4 POTENTIAL TRANSIT SERVICE MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 23
4.4.1 Extend Transit Service Hours .............................................................................................. 23
4.4.2 Modifications to Existing Routes ......................................................................................... 24
4.4.3 New Service Areas ............................................................................................................... 24
4.4.4 Other Potential Service Modifications ................................................................................. 25
4.5 PARA TRANSIT EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 27
4.5.1 ADA Eligibility ..................................................................................................................... 27
4.5.2 Driver Training and Certifications ...................................................................................... 27
4.5.3 Vehicle Inventory ................................................................................................................. 27
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcb2006
4.5.4 Handi Wheels User Information .......................................................................................... 27
4.5.5 Trip Scheduling .................................................................................................................... 28
4.5.6 Demand Analysis .................................................................................................................. 28
4.5. 7 Other Paratransit Providers ................................................................................................ 29
SECTION 5: FUTURE TRANSIT DEMAND AND MOBILITY NEEDS ••.•.••...•..••....•.•.•..........•.... 30
5.1 FUTURE TRANSIT DEMAND ..................................................................................................... 30
5.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 30
5.2.1 Revenue Sources .................................................................................................................. 30
5.2.2 Future FTA Funding ............................................................................................................ 31
5.2.3 Financial Projections -Operating Costs and Revenues ...................................................... 32
5.2.4 Financial Projections for Service Increase Scenarios ......................................................... 32
5.3 FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 34
5.3.1 Facilities Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 34
5.3.2 Bus Replacement Program ................................................................................................... 36
5.4 DRIVER AND SUPERVISORY STAFFING .................................................................................... 38
5.4.1 Drivers ................................................................................................................................. 38
5.4.2 Dispatchers and Supervisors ................................................................................................ 39
5.4.3 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 39
5.5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .......................................................................................................... 39
5.6 MARKETING PLAN ................................................................................................................... 41
5.7 SYSTEM MONITORING ............................................................................................................. 42
5.7.1 Performance Measures ........................................................................................................ 42
5.8 LONG RANGE TRANSIT PLANNING .......................................................................................... 44
5.8.1 Future Transit Service Levels .............................................................................................. 44
5.8.2 Geographic Expansion and Transit System Structure ......................................................... 44
5.8.3 Operating Facilities ............................................................................................................. 45
5.8.4 Transit Land Use and Development Planning ..................................................................... 45
5.8.5 Community Partnerships ...................................................................................................... 45
5.8.6 Transit Funding .................................................................................................................... 45
SECTION 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 46
6.1 TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE ................................................ 46
6.2 FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................. 46
6.3 PARA TRANSIT SERVICE ........................................................................................................... 49
6.4 PASSENGER FARES .................................................................................................................. 51
6.5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 51
6.6 DRIVER AND SUPERVISORY STAFFING .................................................................................... 53
6.7 MARKETING ............................................................................................................................. 53
6.8 LONG RANGE PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 54
List of Tables
TABLE 1: STEERING COMMITTEE ..................................................................................................... 2
TABLE 2: POPULATION PROJECTIONS .............................................................................................. 4
TABLE 3: PART OF LIST OF POSSIBLE TRANSIT GENERATORS ........................................................... S
TABLE 4: TRANSFER COUNT SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 8
TABLE 5: FIXED ROUTE DAILY RIDERSHIP ........................................................................................ 9
TABLE 6: DAILY RIDERSHIP HISTORY ............................................................................................. 10
TABLE 7: PEER AGENCY SYSTEM COMPARISON ............................................................................. 13
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
TABLE 8: JEFFTRAN REVENUE VEHICLE FLEET SUMMARY ........................................................... 14
TABLE 9: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................•................ 14
TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT .....•......•.........................••••..........••........•..................•........ 15
TABLE 11 : FIXED ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY ................•.....................................••••..............•......•••...... 20
TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ••.......•.......................................................•...................... 26
TABLE 13: HANOI WHEELS VEHICLE ROSTER •.•..................•.••.•..........................•...........•••............. 27
TABLE 14: BASELINE PROJECTIONS OF JEFFTRAN RIDERSHIP •....................................•............... 30
TABLE 15: JEFFTRAN 2006 BUDGET OPERATING REVENUE SOURCES ......................................... 31
TABLE 16: APPORTIONMENTS AND ESTIMATES OF FTA FORMULA FUNDING .........•..•.............•......... 32
TABLE 17: BASELINE PROJECTIONS OF JEFFTRAN OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES .........•...... 32
TABLE 18: PROJECTIONS OF JEFFTRAN OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES-H IGH INVESTMENT 33
TABLE 19: PROJECTIONS OF JEFFTRAN OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES-MEDIUM INVESTMENT
.•••....••••..............••••••.•...•...........•..•••••••.••••.........•........•••..•.......•..............••.......•...•.....•••................ 34
TABLE 20: PROJECTIONS OF JEFFTRAN OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES-LOW INVESTMENT .34
TABLE 21: JEFFTRAN REVENUE VEHICLE FLEET ROSTER ..•••.•.•••..•••••••..........................••............ 37
TABLE 22: JEFFTRAN REVENUE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ..•.•...•...•...............••.•.•.......... 38
TABLE 23: CHECKLIST FOR TRANSFER CENTER MOVE AND TRANSIT SERVICE MODIFICATIONS ..•... .40
TABLE 24: CHECKLIST OF FARE INCREASE IMPLEMENTATION ......................••......•...•....................... 41
TABLE 25: TYPICAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ........................................................................•... 42
TABLE 26: SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .....................••.•.•••.....•.........................•.••............... 48
TABLE 27: SERVICE EXPANSION PROGRAM .........................•..................•.•••••...•...................••....... 49
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: REGULAR TRANSIT ROUTES •••.................•...................••................................•.••.•....••..•... 6
FIGURE 2: DAILY RIDERSHIP TRENDS .......••.....•••..................................................•.......••............••• 1 0
FIGURE 3: TRANSIT SURVEY SYSTEM RATING ..••••.......•.•..........••........................•..•••••••.•.............••. 11
FIGURE 4: TRANSIT SURVEY SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS .•••.•.............•••......••.........•.......••••••••...... 12
FIGURE 5: BUS STATION AT 620 WEST MCCARTY .......................................................................... 17
FIGURE 6: BUS STATION CONCEPT DESIGN ................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 7: DAILY DEMAND FOR HANOI WHEELS TRIPS .................................................................... 29
FIGURE 8: RECOMMENDED TRANSIT ROUTES ............................................................................... .47
I V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
Section 1: Introduction
Marcb2006
The Jefferson City Transit Development Plan (TDP) was initiated to evaluate and develop
recommendations for the future of transit within Jefferson City and the surrounding urbanized
area.
The Transit Development Plan (TDP) was prepared for the City of Jefferson and the Capital
Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. A comprehensive analysis of the transit system was
conducted. Existing transfer, operations, maintenance and storage facilities as well as all fixed
routes and paratransit service were assessed for adequacy and effectiveness.
Recommendations for improvements and associated costs were developed.
The study included a transfer center evaluation, initiated in part due to interest in moving the
transfer location elsewhere due to operational issues for some bus maneuvers at the existing
site and in order to provide an indoor waiting area for passengers.
Service alternatives were developed for the route network. Solutions were identified and
provided to address existing problems and develop creative and innovative alternatives for
serving the community. The study considered unserved areas where there is potential demand
for public transportation and opportunities for possible expansion of service in the urbanized
area surrounding the City.
Public involvement was very important in the development of the Transit Development Plan.
The study involved focus groups, public meetings and surveys to gather public input. A five-
year operations and capital investment plan was developed to assess the status of the existing
transit system and to set in place the framework for providing an improved transit system over
the next five years. An implementation plan and a marketing plan were developed to put the
recommended improvements into place in order to provide a successful transit system in the
Jefferson City area.
Beyond the immediate term of the next five years, long range planning was also discussed to
address the development of transit within the Jefferson City area well into the future. The list of
long range planning elements included future transit levels, geographic expansion and transit
system structure, operating facilities, transit land use and development planning, community
partnerships and transit funding.
1.1 Study Process
The study involved meetings with City staff; Steering Committee meetings; focus groups with
riders, employees and stakeholders; public meetings and community surveys. Work products
were submitted as technical memorandums for review and approval by the City incrementally
throughout the project. This final report is a summary of the interim work products.
The Steering Committee was comprised of key community stakeholder representatives.
Members of the Steering Committee are shown in Table 1.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
1.2
Name
Billings, Steven
Bonnot, Missy
Carroll, Carrie
Casey, Jim
Crane, Councilman Brian
Ferguson, Councilman Ken
Kindrick Hartsfield, Dr. Paula
Martin, Councilman Dean
Robinett, Bill
Schroder, Bonnie
Schroeder, Roger
Wekamp, Brian
Table 1: Steering Committee
Affiliation
Missouri Dept. of Transportation -Multi-modal Operations
Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce
Jefferson City Downtown Association
Cole County Residential Services
City of Jefferson City Council
City of Jefferson City Council
Jefferson City Public School District
City of Jefferson City Council
Missouri Dept. of Transportation -Transit Section
Jefftran Rider/City of Jefferson Admin
Jefferson City Chief of Police/Jefftran Rider
Jefferson City Chapter, National Federation of the Blind
Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives were identified at the outset of the study. The following lists the goals and
objectives that were developed:
GOALS
1. To provide convenient, reliable, comfortable, accessible, and safe transportation for the
public.
2. To promote the advantages of Transit.
3. To support the City's objectives for increased transit ridership.
OBJECTIVES
1. Expand the transit route network where appropriate.
2. Improve transit by expanding service hours and increasing frequency.
3. Improve cost-efficiency.
4. Adopt measures to ensure the adequacy of future revenues and funding.
5. Provide an efficient paratransit service.
6. Provide clear transit information to customers.
1.3 AboutJEFFTRAN
The Jefferson City Transit Division is responsible for providing convenient, reliable, comfortable,
accessible, and safe transportation for the citizens and visitors of Jefferson City. The Jefferson
City Transit System operates fixed route transit service and paratransit service -Handi Wheels,
for people with dis abilities.
The Jefferson City Transit Division is commonly referred to as "JEFFTRAN." JEFFTRAN has a
revenue fleet of 26 vehicles and currently operates seven regular fixed routes, four commuter
school tripper routes and two state shuttle routes that provide transportation for state employees
from state parking lots. JEFFTRAN also provides a complementary paratransit service called
"Handi Wheels." More detail regarding JEFFTRAN's existing services is provided in Section 2.2
of this report.
JEFFTRAN is a division of the City's Department of Community Development. Pat Sullivan,
Department Director and Janice 0. McMillan, AICP, Deputy Director for Planning and
Transportation Services for the Department of Community Development have responsibility for
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
FiDal Report Marcbl006
JEFFTRAN. Richard Turner, Division Director is directly responsible for JEFFTRAN operations.
The Division is managed by the Division Director, Mr. Turner, two operations assistants and two
dispatchers.
As a City division, JEFFTRAN is accountable to the City Council through the Department of
Community Development and receives funding for capital and operations at the discretion of the
City Council. JEFFTRAN receives operating assistance (FTA Section 5307) directly from the
Federal Transit Administration. JEFFTRAN also receives transit operating assistance through
the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and MoDOT administers federal transit
capital project grants on JEFFTRAN's behalf.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcb2006
Section 2: Study Area Inventory
Information on the transit system, its facilities, passengers, the service area and attitudes in the
community was assembled for the Jefferson City Transit Development Plan. The purpose was
to collect and assemble baseline data that was thorough and of sufficient detail in order to
effectively develop future transit improvement alternatives.
2.1 Demographics
This section summarizes the compilation of the demographic data assembled for the Transit
Development Plan. The data includes population demographics, employment data, growth
forecasts and existing and proposed transit trip generators.
2.1.1 Population Demographics
Demographic data included population, housing, elderly and low-income was compiled and
mapped. The mapped data was examined to determine how well the existing transit system
was serving that population group. For the most part, current routes serve high population
density areas. However, some routes serve lower density areas of the community. The current
system does a good job in serving areas with high housing densities. The current route
structure serves some areas with high percentage of senior citizens well while other areas are
not served as well. All of the routes serve low income areas well. Most of the current routes
serve the areas with households without vehicles. The areas with higher concentrations of
persons with disabilities within the urbanized area are being served well by the current transit
routes. In general, current routes serve the areas of the comm unity most in need of transit.
2.1.2 Employment
Employment data provided by City staff was compiled by census block group and mapped.
Most of the employment is concentrated in the downtown area. Medium concentrations extend
west along Missouri Boulevard and to the southwest.
2.1.3 Growth Forecasts
Population projection data was provided by the city and is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Population Projections
Projected population change f
2000 2005 2010
Holts Summit 2,935 3,001 3,749
Lake Mykee 326 336 348
St Martins 1 ,023 1 ,073 1 ,335
Jefferson City 39,636 42,072 45,193
Cole County* 71,397 75,680 80,179
*Includes populations of all Cole County cities.
2020
4,683
370
1,701
50,919
90,041
2030
5,850
392
2,166
57,370
101,116
tease year is U.S. Census 2000 data. Projections provided by the city based on
current annual growth rates.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
2.1.4 Trip Generators
March 2006
The study team with help from City staff generated a comprehensive list of existing land uses
that could generate transit demand within the study area. The list also shows which locations
are already being served by transit. Table 3 shows a portion of the list. The complete list is
included in the Study Area Data Inventory technical memorandum.
Table 3: Part of List of Possible Transit Generators
Type
Shopping Malls
Groceries
Hospitals &
Medical Centers
Name
Capital Mall
Kmart
Target
Wildwood Crossings
Jefferson Shopping center
Mart Shopping Center
Wai-Mart
Gerbea Family Shopping Center East
Gerbes Family Shopping Center West
Gerbes Super Store
Masers
Rainbow Market
Schnucks Supermarkets
Schutte's Fresh Foods
HyVee
Wai-Mart
Capital Region Medical Canter
Capital Region Medical Center
CapHal HeaHh Network
Central Medical Park-Surgical Center
St. Mary's HeaHh Canter
Jefferson CHy Medical Group
Cole County HeaHh
Cole County Health
Address
3600 Country Club Or.
2304 Missouri Blvd.
735 W. Stadium Blvd.
3535 Missouri Blvd.
1406 Missouri Blvd.
2305 Missouri Blvd.
724 W. Stadium Blvd.
1226 E. McCarty St.
2805 W. Truman
2101 Schotthill Woods Or.
2411 Missouri Blvd.
4404 Rainbow Or.
1801 Missouri Blvd.
1904 Southwest Blvd.
3721 West Truman Blvd.
724 W. Stadium Blvd.
1125 Madlaon St.
1500 Southwest Boulevard
1411 Southwest Blvd.
1705 Christy Or.
100 St. Mary's Medical Plz
1241 W. Stadium Blvd.
16161ndustrial Or.
398 Olx Rd
2.2 Existing Fixed Route Service
Probable tl'llmc
generation scala
Larva Medium Small
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Current
Transit
Service
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
JEFFTRAN currently operates seven regular fixed routes, four commuter school tripper routes
and two state shuttle routes that provide transportation for state employees from state parking
lots.
2.2.1 Current Fixed Route Structure
The seven fixed routes are shown in Figure 1. An existing transfer site is centrally located
within the downtown area. Six of the seven fixed routes converge at the transfer location at the
same time, as the routes operate on a "pulse scheduling system." A "pulse" operation has all
routes "meeting" at a common point at the same time. Most of the routes operate in a "loop"
pattern, with vehicles traversing a route in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction. The
Missouri Boulevard and Capital Mall routes actually operate as a single route. The current route
structure has been in place for approximately ten years.
5
-
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Fiul Report
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
le9end -R~r Transrt Rout~
--~!Moll
--M~DI¥4
Soul~-..
-H~~gh Str..t E.i•t
--Htgh Shet West
-R~n AddCio"
-eus.r-.50Eost
Q Adjuotod Urb<lnrzod Area
·-Cl'fl!ound"'Y
0.5 0 ---,,....,
' ·+·
'
•
~~~ ;;;
-
.-_..,_
~~
\
-
Figure 1 : Regular Transit Routes
...., ')
' ~
'!I ,,
.• -
~
-
I ..
March 2006
' J
-~-~~
\i
':\-A ... ' .. ~
~
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
2.2.2 Schedules
Mareh2006
Fixed route service is available from 6:45 AM to 5:45 PM Monday through Friday except
holidays. The JEFFTRAN fixed routes operate on a "pulse" system with all routes except the
Capital Mall route converging at the downtown transfer location at the same time on either 30 or
60 minute intervals. During peak periods all routes operate every 30 minutes. During the
midday, only the Southwest route continues to operate every 30 minutes. Other routes operate
every 60 minutes during the midday. A bus operating along the High Street East and High
Street West routes alternates between routes during the midday. Similarly a bus operating on
the Renn Addition and Business 50 East routes alternates between these two routes during the
midday.
The commuter school tripper routes operate one trip per day on school days. The Southside
Morning Route is the only commuter school tripper route that operates in the morning. The
other three commuter school tripper routes operate in the afternoon. The shuttle routes operate
from state parking lots to state office buildings . The shuttles operate between 7:00 a.m. and
5:30 p.m. The Truman shuttle has a frequency of every 7 Y2 minutes and the East Side
Shuttle's frequency is every 10 minutes.
2.2.3 Running Time Check
A running time check was conducted on June 6, 2005 at the Jefferson & High transfer location
to assess tight running times. The time check showed that buses arrive up to 6 minutes late
resulting in up to 11 minute late departures.
Due to the operation of JEFFTRAN regular routes on the pulse system, the late arrival of a
single bus or several buses may require some of the other buses that may have arrived on time
(or at least earlier) to wait for the buses that have transfers for them. A maximum wait time of 5
minutes has been set. The result, however, can be a ripple effect that may worsen throughout
the shift depending on the circumstances. The Missouri Boulevard/Capital Mall route has the
worst departure time record from 5 to 6 minutes late on average, which occurs twice daily.
However, this bus route makes two passes by the transfer location inbound and passengers
transferring from the route (except those boarding at the Dulle & Hamilton Towers) are able to
catch transfers to other routes by alighting at the transfer location at the first pass.
2.2.4 Transfers
A transfer count was conducted to assess transfer activity between the routes. Transfer
information is important in the development of service alternatives to ensure that existing riders
are not inconvenienced by a recommended change. Table 4 shows the transfer count
summary.
7
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
Table 4: Transfer Count Summary
Issuing Route
3: w 1: w
Iii .!2 0
Receiving Route a; Qj ~ ~ 10
t ~ -o ~ -o 1/)
Ci5 > <( 1/)
Qj en iD uj Q)
.s:: .s:: 1: 1: a. ~ 1: ·c;; a. Cl Cl 0 Q) ::::l ~ I I ~ w a:: m
High Street W 2 -3 -1 3 -
High Street E 5 -24 4 2 --
MO Blvd Mall 9 --3 17 5 -
EllisS.W . 7 -17 -3 7 -
Renn Addition 2 -4 11 -5 -
Business 50 E --7 1 5 --
Tripper
Total Issues 25 -55 19 28 20 -
Source: Transfer data as comptled by TranSystems.
Marcb1006
w ~
Qj
~ 1:
Ci5 Q) ~
Ci 0
.s:: :;::; 1: Total .><: Cl "S c I ~ :::1 Rcvd
---9
2 1 1 39
4 4 -42
3 --37
7 --29
-3 -16
-
16 8 1 172
The data show a lot of transfer activity between all the routes with the most activity on the
Missouri Boulevard and the least transfers to or from the High Street West route.
2.3 Existing Paratransit Service
In addition to fixed route service, JEFFTRAN also provides a complementary curb-to-curb
paratransit service called "Handi Wheels ." Complementary paratransit is a transportation
service required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 for individuals with
disabilities who are unable to use fixed-route transportation systems.
Handi Wheels services operate within the boundaries of Jefferson City, and all eligible residents
can use the service. Handi Wheels provides service beyond that which is required by ADA
because the service area is larger than required. Trips can be scheduled Monday through
Friday by contacting the Handi Wheels office. The service operates from 6:45AM to 5:45 PM
weekdays , the same hours as JEFFTRAN fixed route service.
Handi Wheels currently has eight vehicles, six operating vehicles and two spares, and six
drivers dedicated to the Handi Wheels service. The service uses modified Ford E-450 chassis
mini-buses. All vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts and are ADA compliant.
Handi Wheels carries about 200 to 220 passenger trips per day. Passengers rate the service
very high in all performance areas .
Handi Wheels is funded by a mix of sources, including passenger fares, local funding and FTA
funding.
2.4 Passenger Count
A complete passenger count was conducted on every route in the system for a typical weekday.
A bus stop list was prepared from data provided by JEFFTRAN. The study team trained
checkers and organized the passenger count. The objective of the count was to understand
how bus riders use the current system and to determine where boardings and alightings occur .
8
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
Using the passenger count, areas with no activity or with minimal activity were identified to
determine if the optimal route is being used.
2.4.1 Data and Maps
Maps were developed from the passenger count to show the outbound and inbound portion of
each route to identify those areas with limited activity. The individual route passenger count
maps are shown in the Study Area Data Inventory technical memorandum.
Overall, the fixed routes have daily ridership of approximately 800. Individual route ridership is
shown in Table 5. The Missouri Boulevard route has the highest ridership.
Table 5: Fixed Route Daily Ridership
Route
Capital Mall
Missouri Blvd
Southwest
High Street East
High Street West
Renn Addition
Business 50
Total
Ridership
90
220
120
120
80
120
60
810
The Truman Shuttle averages about 160 passengers per day and the Eastside Shuttle averages
more than 400 passengers per day.
2.4.2 Ridership Trends
Data shows a growth in ridership on most routes for the past five years except the Business 50
East route and most of the commuter school tripper routes which show a slight decline. The
largest ridership increases were on the Missouri Blvd/Capital Mall route and the Truman Shuttle.
The Eastside Shuttle was put into operation in March of 2005 and has been getting more than
400 riders per day. Table 6 shows the ridership history. The data is also represented in Figure
2.
9
I Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Flaal Report March2006
I Table 6: Dally Ridership History
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Missouri Blvd/Capital Malr 288 301 325 306 336 429
I Southwest 123 130 120 119 127 128
High Street East 110 113 110 116 113 122
High Street West 89 92 100 99 84 97
Renn Addition 76 76 73 86 97 106
Business 50 East 87 76 69 63 57 53
Handi-Wheels 177 181 181 196 201 206
Hutton lane Commuter 27 21 20 19 16 17
Tanner Bridge Commuter 12 8 2 0.1
Southside Commuter 35 36 31 27 25 19
High Street East Commuter 30 40 34 31 30 33
High Street West Commuter•• 2
Truman Shuttle 188 137 145 176 174 218
Eastside Shuttle 400
Syatem Total 1,241 1,212 1,208 1,242 1,259 1,829
Source: JEFFTRAN ridership data as compiled by TranSystems.
Note: Year is from November 1 through October 31 except for 2005 which is from November 1 to May 31 .
•JEFFTRAN ridership records combine Missouri Boulevard and Capital Mall routes.
-High Street West Commuter Route was incorporated into High Street West regular route .
Figure 2: Dally Ridershi p Trends
500
450
400 /
' / 350 ~Misaouri BlvdiCapital Mall .... ~ ---Souttrwest f~ -----High S1nlet East ---High S1nlet West
--Renn Addllon
~250 ~Business 50 Ent
a -+-Handi-Wheell
I
!200
-Hutton lMW Convnuter
-Tanner Bridge Commuter
I ~ Southalde Commuter I
High S1nlet Eat Commuter
150 ....-High S1nlet West Commuter .. • • .. ~ :::7,::::::::
100 ~ I
....,....
50
~--................. . -I
0
I 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Y•r
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
2.5 Passenger Survey Findings
Marchl006
Perceptions of the Overall Quality of Public Transportation in Jefferson City . The overall quality
of public transportation services in Jefferson City was rated highly by persons currently using
the service. More than three-fourths (82%) of those surveyed rated the overall quality of public
transportation service in Jefferson City as either "excellent" or "good"; only three percent (3%) of
the respondents rated the quality of public transportation services as "poor" (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Transit Survey System Rating
Overall , How Would Y ou Rate the Quality of Public
Transporation Services in Jefferson City?
Sonrce. ETC il~'>lih~•lOO~
by percente~ of respondents
Excelle nt
42%
P oor
3%
Service Characteristics Rated Best. The service characteristics that were rated best (based on
the percentage of respondents who were "very sati sfied" or "satisfied") were:
• Courtesy of drivers
• Feeling of safety using bus
• Bus fees
Service Characteristics Rated Worst. The service characteristics that received the lowest ratings
(based on the percentage of respondents who were ·very sati sfied" or •satisfied") were:
• The hours bus service is offered
• Availability of bus shelters
• Availability of bus service on weekdays
Other Findings
• The top three reasons respondents were using public transportation services in
Jefferson City were: to get to/from work (51%), to conduct personal business (27%), and
to go shopping (26% ).
• The top three items that would encourage current riders to use public transportation
services more often were: having more service offered on weekends (66%), having
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcb2006
service offered later in the evening (54%), and providing more frequent service (35%).
Figure 4 shows the suggested improvements.
• 84% of those surveyed thought they would still be using public transportation services in
Jefferson City in 12 months.
• Bus drivers were the top source of information about public transportation services for
current users.
• 62% of those surveyed indicated that a bus stop was located within one block of their
home.
Figure 4: Transit Survey Suggested Improvements
What Would Get You to Use Public Transportation
More Often?
by percentage of respondents (mJIIiple responses e~)
Services offered on weekends 111!!1!!11
Services offered In ever*lgs
More frequent service
More covered sheMers
Service to more destinations
Faster travel time
Services offered earlier
Stops closer to horne
Nothing
Buses being on-tine
More information
Drivers more helpful
More comfortable buses
Cleaner/better buses
Fuel prices Increase
S01ne: IITC lu<bh~c 200.<
0% 20% 40'11. 60%
66%
80%
The study team was also noted that approximately 51% of those surveyed were using transit to
get to work. In addition, approximately twenty-five percent of the transit riders ride by choice.
2.6 Peer Agency Review
A peer review was conducted to see how the level of transit service in Jefferson City compares
to the level of transit service in similar cities within the region and across the country.
JEFFTRAN was compared to peer agencies in terms of urban area population, size of transit
system, operating cost, service and productivity. The peer review was conducted to establish a
benchmark to determine if services in Jefferson City compare favorably to other transit
operations. The agencies included as peers were selected in part based on the level of service
provided. Table 7 shows both sets of peer groups.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March 2006
Table 7: Peer Agency System Comparison
Population of Service Level Annual Peak Operating Revenue
City Urbanized Area (Annual Vehicle Unlinked Vehicles ExpenaH1
Miles per Ridership per
(2000) Revenue Miles) Trips Capita Capita
z Columbia, MO 98,779 420,508 1,850 9 4.3 4.8
0 Springfield, MO 215,004 1,062,195 5,400 20 4.9 6.4 (5 w St. Joseph, MO 77 ,231 771,824 1,300 18 10.0 4.3
a: T!!2!ka 1 KS 1421411 833,922 4,800 23 5 .9 8.6
Dubuque, lA 85,251 341,980 1,800 8 5.2 7.0
Jackson, TN 65,086 557,541 1,800 8 8.6 7.1 z Middletown, OH 94,355 212,650 700 4 2.3 1.9 0 ~ Oshkosh, WI 71,070 575,478 3,500 13 8.1 12.6
Pocatello, ID 62,498 259,913 1,700 8 4.2 6.9
Port Arthur, TX 114,656 246,067 500 6 2.1 1.1
Ra idCi so 66 780 182 397 600 4 2.4 2.3
53,714 382,983 1,200 11 .1 5.7
Compared to transit systems in other similar cities in Missouri and Kansas, JEFFTRAN ranks
high in terms of service miles per capita, an indication that the level of service provided in
Jefferson City is reasonable from the perspective of other similar cities. The per capita ridership
statistic is about average for systems within the peer group. In comparing Jefferson City with a
broader peer group, the conclusions are about the same as for the Regional peer group
comparison. Transit service level per capita in Jefferson City is higher than the levels in this
peer group, and the riders per capita statistic in Jefferson City is in the middle of the peer group.
2. 7 Inventory of Facilities & Equipment
JEFFTRAN's facilities and fleet were evaluated as part of this study. A description of the
operation and maintenance facilities and the fleet is included in this section.
2.7.1 Operating and Maintenance Facilities
The buildings located at the Charles E. Robinson Transit Maintenance Facility consist of several
functional divisions and include the site, administration area, operations area, maintenance
area, fueling facility, vehicle wash building and bus garage.
The combination of buildings at the Charles E. Robinson Transit Maintenance Facility is
generally well organized on the site. The buildings are pre-engineered structures with metal
wall and roof panels. The administration wing is clad in brick veneer.
The buildings are approximately 20 years old, a significant milestone in the life of pre-finished
roof and wall panels which typically have 20 year finish warranties. The buildings appear to
have been well maintained and with proper maintenance should be able to serve the transit
needs for years to come.
2. 7.2 Fleet Inventory
JEFFTRAN has a revenue fleet of 26 vehicles as shown in Table 8.
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
Table 8: JEFFTRAN Revenue Vehicle Fleet Summary
Operating Spares Total
Fixed Route 7 2 9
Trippers 3 1 4
Shuttles ~ 1 §
Total 14 4 18
Paratransit 6 2 8
TOTAL 20 6 26
March2006
Currently JEFFTRAN has a mixed fleet with several different manufacturers and models. The
fixed route fleet (including commuter school trippers and shuttles) includes new transit coaches
purchased in 2005 and medium-duty buses purchased in 1999, 2003 and 2004 .
In 2005 JEFFTRAN acquired five new heavy-duty transit coaches manufactured by the Gillig
Corporation. These new buses are the first heavy-duty buses purchased in Jefferson City in
decades, and feature low floor technology. Low floor buses are popular with the public because
of the one-step entry into the bus interior and the wheelchair access via a ramp rather than a lift
device. The new buses have been well received in Jefferson City.
2.8 Public Involvement
Public involvement was very important in the development of the Transit Development Plan.
Public input into identification of future transit and mobility needs was an important element for
developing the plan. In addition, it was critical to solicit public comment and review of
alternatives and recommendations developed through the pia n process.
2.8.1 Public Involvement Components
In accordance with the Public Involvement Plan, the following public involvement activities have
been completed:
Table 9 : Public Involvement
Public Involvement Component
Passenger Survey
Stakeholder Meeting
Transit Riders Focus Group
Employees Focus Group
Public Meeting
Public Meeting Survey
Public Comments (via phone, email or mail)
Community Survey
Final Public Meeting
2.8.2 Summary of Input
Date Completed
27-Apr-05
10-May-05
10-May-05
10-May-05
14-Jun-05
14-Jun-05
Through March 9, 2006
Aug-05
20-Sep-05
The findings from each of the public involvement components are summarized on the matrix
that follows . Complete meeting summaries were developed, but are not included in this report.
14
I
I
I
I
I
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
General Comments
Stakeholder • Be sure routes are designed to meet
Focus Group the needs of the people.
Summary • Marketing is a big, big, issue.
• Need for diverse, all inclusive
options for public transportation.
• Need to make it easier for citizens to
walk to work or to walk to a bus stop.
Transit Rider • Keep service the same but add
Focus Group weekends.
• Obtain information from this study
and then, most importanUy, move
into implementation .
• Public transportation is very
important. Don't let this issue die-
keep up the dialogue.
Employee Focus • Rest Facilities need to be provided
Group along the routes.
• Vehicle storage facilnies are needed .
New buses are generally larger than
the current buses.
• Install bike racks .
Community • 36% of those surveyed indicated that
Survey they would be very or somewhat
likely to use public transportation if
their employer provided incentives to
use public transportation .
Table Continues/
March 2006
E Fares Funding Ideas
• Move from purchasing buses on an 80-20
to a 50-50 basis.
• Dedicated transportation tax.
• Use property tax for those with
developmental disabilities as do 85 out of
140 Missouri counties.
• Need an overview of what kinds of
dedicated taxes are available.
• Illinois uses general revenue and spends
20 times per capita what Missouri does.
That would take the pressure off of
localities trying to match funds.
yone believes • Suggested that the age of children who
11lent value is ride free should be changed from 7 to 5.
ived for the fare .
t of 8 participants
:ated that they
ld be willing to
up to $1.
e of the
cipants indicated
they would be
1g to pay more
.$2.
• Ge1
extE
• Rid
pan
• Ext
one
• Ext
inn
• Dri1
hou
ove
• Set
har
dur
• 92% of those surveyed thought it was very
or somewhat important for the City of
Jefferson City to fund public transportation ;
only 2% did not think it was important, and
6% did not have an opinion.
• 70% of those surveyed indicated that they
would be very or somewhat supportive of a
slight tax increase to fund improved public
transportation services in Jefferson City.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeft'enon City Transit Development Plan
FIDal Report
fT able Continued
General Comments
Public Meetings • The overwhelming opinion
expressed that JEFFTRAN's
services are very good but limited.
• Negative comments were mostly
directed at the limits of the service.
• One individual stated that she often
felt harassed due to her disability.
• One individual noted that she did not
ride the bus because the routes and
schedules are confusing .
Marebl006
E: Fares Funding Ideas
• Expt would be willing • Advertising on the buses.
incluay more $1-$1.50 • Allow businesses to purchase audible
for birip, partlcular1y if advertisements.
H~ were service • Partnerships with businesses.
• Ext~vements. • Private businesses help fund service on at
be s's noted that least one Saturday a month. • Se"' people paid • Cooperative agreement with University to
on s. per trip under allow student 10 use to access transit.
• MoSI=TRAN's reduced • Fundraisers
nott~ram. • State subsidies for bus passes.
una-e unlimited • Solicit participation by key businesses to
• BeMhly ride pass. help pay for shelters and amen~ies.
houroort a fare • Survey major employers to assess interest
evellase to 75 cents, and support
seMre not supportive
expa increase to
hoiJ'Q .
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
Section 3: Transfer Center
Marchl006
JEFFTRAN 's current transfer location is downtown at the intersection of Jefferson Street and
High Street, adjacent to the southeast comer of the State Capitol grounds. The transfer location
is the focal point for JEFFTRAN's fixed route services . Six of the seven regular fixed routes, all
but the Capital Mall route, converge at this location. Jefferson and High is the primary location
for patrons to transfer between bus routes . Bus stops are located on three of the four legs of
the intersection including the northbound near side, eastbound far side and westbound far side.
Buses arrive and depart at the same time, as the routes operate on a "pulse scheduling
system."
The Transit Development Plan (TOP) project for Jefferson City included an evaluation of
JEFFTRAN's transfer location. The evaluation was initiated in part due to interest in possibly
moving the transfer activity to another location. There are operational problems for some bus
maneuvers at the existing downtown site, and there are conflicts between JEFFTRAN
passengers and some nearby businesses. There is also interest in providing an indoor waiting
area for passengers to wait for transfers . One candidate being considered is the former
Greyhound or intercity bus station located at 620 West McCarty Street (see Figure 5). Other
possible locations include other off-street areas within the downtown or another on-street facility
in another location within the downtown.
Figure 5: Bus Station at 620 West McCarty
Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the old intercity bus station include state parking lots to
the south and east on McCarty Street; retail, industry and retail and apartment converted homes
to the west on McCarty Street and a fire station northwest of the site. Retail establishments, the
State Capitol and other state government offices would be less accessible from the bus station,
as compared to access to these land uses from the existing Jefferson and High transfer
location.
The sites were both assessed based on twelve factors pertaining to safety, convenience, cost,
operational functionality and flexibility/expandability. Several qualities of the existing facility at
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
Jefferson & High are advantageous for transit in Jefferson City, namely the location in the core
of downtown and the adjacency to key employment and civic destinations. Also, the presence
of transit operations in the core of downtown provides the appearance of transit as having a key
role in the community.
The assessment of both sites was presented to the project Steering Committee on July 19,
2005 . In discussion it was concluded that moving from the current location was preferable due
to the constraints and conflicts. It was concluded that a move to the intercity bus station would
resolve the current operating problems, but would represent only a fair solution for the transfer
center relocation. As such, it was concluded that the city should pursue a different location for
the ultimate long term solution.
The site changes required to make the bus station work as a transfer center are shown in Figure
6.
Figure 6: Bus Station Concept Design
so 0 so ---100
fEET ------SCAL£ ,. -w
A new transit center would require about an acre of land, cost in the range of $700,000 (not
Including land) to develop and require at least 4-5 years for total project development. This
amount of time is needed to secure funding, select a site design, and do other work that would
be required. Additional details regarding a new transit center including a conceptual layout are
included in the Transfer Center technical memorandum.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcbl006
The Steering Committee concluded that the preferred approach was to move to the intercity bus
station location as soon as practical as an interim measure. The city should concurrently begin
the initial work on developing a transfer center at a different location in the downtown area.
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
Section 4: Transit Service Review
March2006
As part of the Transit Development Plan, creative, innovative, and more cost-efficient means of
providing transit services to the Jefferson City community were evaluated. The process
considered alternative approaches including downtown circulator routes, cross-town routes,
employer express routes, University routes, additional connector routes, and general public
demand-response routes. The study also looked at the possibility of secondary transfer
locations. The study considered unserved areas where there is potential demand for public
transportation and opportunities for possible expansion of service in the urbanized area
surrounding the City. Preliminary cost estimates were also developed as part of the service
plan.
This section summarizes the development of various potential transit service modifications
including associated assumptions and service characteristics. The full details are provided in
the Service Alternatives technical memorandum dated September 21, 2005.
4. 1 Transit Service Evaluation
The fixed route services were evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Perhaps the most important indication of the JEFFTRAN routes' effectiveness is the
overwhelming satisfaction expressed by users. The on-board survey found that 83% of
respondents rated the se rvice as 'excellent' or 'good'.
Table 11 shows the perfonnance of the routes expressed in tenns of passengers per hour, a
common productivity measure used in the transit industry.
Table 11: Fixed Route Productivity
Route
Capital Mall
Missouri Blvd
Southwest
High Street East
High Street West
Renn Addition
Business 50
Total
Passengers
per Hour
12.0
29.3
11.4
16.0
10.7
16.0
8 .0
14.6
The Business 50 route is significantly below the system average in passengers per hour. A
route serving lower density suburban areas will typically have reduced productivity. Much of the
Business Route 50's service area is in the eastern suburban part of the City.
The Business 50 route also has much of its service area in the area east of the higher density
core. Ridership on this part of the route is low. The portion of the route along High Street and
McCarty is partly shared with two other routes.
The productivity statistics are characteristic of small urban transit systems like JEFFTRAN.
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
The JEFFTRAN system does provide service in all portions of the City that have characteristics
that indicate a need for transit service, areas with high population density, low incomes and low
auto ownership and high senior concentrations. JEFFTRAN routes also serve the majority of
the key destinations and traffic generators in the community. The Study Area Data Inventory
technical report documents these conclusions.
The routes employ loops as a means of providing greater coverage than would be possible with
more conventional two way routes. Transit routes using loop configuration can be deceptively
ineffective because they require transit passengers to travel out of direction around the loop
resulting in increased travel times and increased inconvenience. However, the JEFFTRAN
system does a good job of mitigating the negative effects of loop routing.
• Missouri Boulevard actually is a two way route for most of its length and the loop is fairly
tight and close to the downtown terminus.
• Southwest is a large clockwise loop, but shares service areas with both High Street East
and Missouri Boulevard which provide complementary service in the opposite direction.
• High Street East is another large clockwise loop, but shares service areas with
Southwest and Business 50 East.
• High Street West and Business 50 East are two way routes with a loop on the outer
suburban ends.
The two other routes, Capital Mall and Renn Addition, have loop configurations that introduce
significant out of direction travel, and therefore may be ineffective.
However, the routes are all short enough that the out of direction travel time is minimal.
Operationally, JEFFTRAN appears sound based on observations throughout the project with
one exception. Buses are often late arriving at (and leaving from) the transfer point at Jefferson
and High. This is a result of inadequate scheduled running time on several of the routes. This
is an unacceptable condition for a transit system that relies on central puis e-type scheduling.
Currently JEFFTRAN does not operate service on ten City holidays, New Year's Day, Martin
Luther King Day, Truman's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's
Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas.
It is common for transit systems to operate reduced service on holidays because of the reduced
demand for work related trips. However, some of these holidays are regular working days for
most individuals (e.g., Truman's Birthday) and most of these days are important retail shopping
days.
It would inconvenience significantly fewer transit users if JEFTRAN did not operate service on
only the following six "major" holidays, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas.
It must be noted that there is an increased cost to operate service on days that employees are
allowed off for the holiday.
4.1.1 Service Evaluation Conclusions
Based on the evaluation of JEFFTRAN services and the objectives of the project the following
conclusions have been developed relative to potential service modifications:
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March 2006
1. Expand transit service hours . With service ending at 5:30 PM on weekdays many
potential users are precluded from using transit if their trip purpose requires later travel.
Several options will be considered:
• Extending service further into the evening.
• Establishing evening service on one or two days per week.
• Establishing weekend service.
• Establish a practice of operating service on all but the six major holidays.
2 . Modify routes and schedules as necessary to relocate the transfer location from
Jefferson and High to the intercity bus station at 620 West McCarty Street.
3. Modify current fixed routes to resolve the running time deficit, which results in late
operation.
4. Modify current routes to achieve efficiencies and improve effectiveness. This will include
consideration of alternative service delivery methods.
5. Evaluate new or expanded services to provide service in areas presently unserved.
4.2 Transit Needs Analysis
A Needs Analysis was performed to determine transit need in the portions of the Jefferson City
metro area not presently served by transit. The study team developed a method to estimate
demand in the portion of the study area without existing transit service, based on an analysis of
actual transit demand (i.e., ridership) in the portion of the area now served by transit. The
analysis focused on five areas: Holts Summit, Jefferson City north of the Missouri River, the
Algoa area, the portion of the city west of Capital Mall called the West Area, and the portion of
the city south of the Capital Mall route and west of the Southwest route called the Southwest
Area.
Based on the analysis, Holts Summit and the West area exhibited some potentia I for transit,
while the Algoa area, Jefferson City north of the River, and the Southwest area do not exhibit
much potential for transit at the present time.
4.3 Flexible Route Transit Services
A family of transit services, generally referred to as flexible route services, has been used
successfully in many cities to serve lower density markets. Flexible services include route
deviation, point deviation, and general population demand response services. Unlike fixed route
services that continuously operate over a designated route with a designated time schedule,
these demand response services only go to a location at a time when an individual has
scheduled a trip.
Fixed route services operate most efficiently in areas with population densities of more than
3,000 persons per square mile, whereas, flexible services can efficiently serve areas with lower
densities and areas with incomplete street systems. Generally, when the demand falls below
ten passengers per hour demand based services are likely to offer a more effective service than
fixed route service.
The advantage of demand based services is that they can offer transit service that is more
tailored to individual needs. These services can provide curb to curb service for many users,
rather than requiring the individual to walk to a bus stop. The ability to operate in this manner
allows flexible route service to provide more coverage in lower density areas. Unlike fixed route
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcbl006
service, flexible routes do not require the provision of complementary paratransit service under
ADA regulations.
The disadvantage of demand based services are that they are more difficult to operate,
requiring dispatchers to take trip requests and schedule drivers and vehicles for the demand
pattern that may change from day to day. Thus, the total costs can be higher when the cost of
the dispatcher is considered. Also, these services require transit passengers to become more
proactive. In many cases a daily call to dispatch is required.
Flexible route services were evaluated for application in the Jefferson City area as described in
later sections of this report .
4.4 Potential Transit Service Modifications
Various service modifications were developed to address the objectives and considerations
identified for the study area.
4.4.1 Extend Transit Service Hours
Extending transit service hours was the most frequently heard suggestion from the public
involvement program activities. Currently, service starts at about 7 AM and ends by 5:30 PM.
This limits use of the transit system for employment purposes. Shifts that start before 7:30 AM
or end after 5 PM are not served well. Transit users are therefore limited to a fairly tight
timeframe.
Evening and weekend service is also an option that many people requested through the public
involvement process.
Several different options were evaluated for extending service hours:
1. Expansion of the baseline service period by 1.5 hours, from 6:30AM to 6:30PM .
2. Establishment of evening service to 9 PM using several different approaches:
• Extending the service period for all seven routes using the base period service
pattern (60/30 minute service intervals) five days per week.
• Extending the service period for select routes using the base period service pattern
(60/30 minute service intervals) five days per week.
• Extending the service period for all seven routes using the base period service
pattern (60/30 minute service intervals) one day per week.
• Establish evening service using demand response service five days per week.
3. Establish Saturday service from 7 AM to 5:30PM using several different approaches:
• Establishing Saturday service on all seven routes using the base period service
pattern (60/30 minute service intervals).
• Establishing Saturday service on select routes using the base period service pattern
(60/30 minute service intervals).
• Establish Saturday service using demand response service.
Each alternative was evaluated to determine its effect on rider ship.
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March 2006
Any of these service expansion alternatives has significant implications for JEFFTRAN's
operations and cost. JEFFTRAN is essentially a one-shift operation. Operations later in the
day, or on weekends, will require realignment of employee shifts and likely the addition of
manpower. The expansion affects not only drivers, but supervisory/dispatch personnel and
maintenance personnel.
4.4.2 Modifications to Existing Routes
Three service alternatives were developed to address the travel time problems and other
aspects of the current fixed routes. The alternatives were based on several planning inputs,
including passenger counts, field work, discussions with the Steering Committee and
established transfer patterns. All three of the alternatives assume the transfer point will be
located at the intercity bus station on West McCarty Street. Two of the three alternatives
maintain the current 30 minute headway. Only one alternative adds resources (vehicles -
capital costs, and operating costs) to existing operations. Specific details regarding each
alternative are documented in the Service Alternatives technical memorandum.
All of the alternatives have the transfer location at the intercity bus station and each addresses
the running time problems. Each alternative offers different advantages and disadvantages.
Alternative A uses existing resources and maintains a 30 minute headway, but unproductive
segments of routes have to be eliminated to address running time problems and to allow routes
on the east side of town to get to the relocated transfer center on time. Alternative B uses
existing resources and utilizes a 40 minute headway which addresses running time issues and
allows service to expanded areas. Under 40 minute headways there would be less service
during the peak period but more service during the midday compared to existing conditions.
Alternative C uses additional resources and operates on a 30 minute headway. The added
resources allow service to expanded areas.
4.4.3 New Service Areas
The needs analysis discussed in Section 3 of this report evaluated the potential for transit in
portions of the study area not presently served. The needs analysis looked at five areas:
• West along Route 50
• Jefferson City North of the Missouri River
• Holts Summit
• The Algoa area in the ea stem part of the City
• Southwest generally along US 54 and Route 179
Of the five areas the West area and Holts Summit appear to have the most potential, however
even these areas have characteristics that make for a difficult transit market. Population
densities are well below the level that makes fixed route services viable, and, as expected
income and auto ownership do not favor transit usage as per the Study Area Data Inventory
technical memorandum. The state corrections facilities at Algoa and the airport just north of the
Missouri River do not appear to offer much of a transit market and neither appears to have a
need for transit. The Southwest area is expected to develop, but currently does not appear to
have a need for transit.
There are generally three types of services that can serve these types of areas:
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
1. Flexible Route service anchored by a significant traffic generator and tied into the -larger
system
2. Express service designed for central area employment trips
3. Paratransit service for individuals with mobility limitations
Alternatives were developed for serving each of the potential areas.
4.4.4 Other Potential Service Modifications
A number of other service improvement possibilities were evaluated including providing
increased service levels on existing routes, substituting fixed route service with flexible routes,
and implementation of a downtown area circulator route (Downtown Circulator #2). Since riders
are generally satisfied with existing service levels and increased frequency to 15 minute
intervals would nearly double the cost, increased frequency was not considered a practical
option. Since fixed routes do not perform well in areas with population densities lower than
about 3,000 persons per square mile, a flexible route was developed to replace the Capital Mall
route which serves in an area that fits this demographic characteristic. Capital Mall would be
served by an extension of the Missouri Boulevard fixed route and the new flex route would
operate in the general area, with connections to the fixed route at Capital Mall and Wai-Mart on
West Stadium Boulevard. This type of service is estimated to increase operating costs by
$133,000 annually and attract an additional 40 daily passengers. Some interest has been
expressed in a shuttle or circulator route that would connect various attractions and destinations
in the downtown area including a new downtown development referred to as the Missouri State
Prison (MSP) Redevelopment area. An intra downtown shuttle (Downtown Circulator #2) could
link these areas potentially using distinctive vehicles, such as rubber-tired vintage trolleys. The
service would increase operating costs by $267,000 annually and attract 450 daily riders.
Table 12 summarizes all of the service ex pans ion options.
25
---
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Filial Report
--
Table 12: Summary of Alternatives
POteidllll Tl'llnaltSiiVICi · -Annilil Opeming ea ital cost E8tliilated Fl.lnilino coat per Prlortty c
llodmc.tlons Coat P Rldel'llhip Reaulremant New Rider ommant ._........,..l!lllnllan ~ · .; -:: Z·1-i ·--i! ;:t::•atfli1it#,....,
Extend ..... by 1.5 haurllday $141,000 so 80 $134,000 $6.57 High
e-Q ..w:e ( 5 -.to 9 PM) $155,000 SO 80 $148,000 $7.25 low
Highly recommended because the extension will make the
..vice more attractive to chok:e riders.
E-*'11-*e ( 5 ~to 9 PM) $128,000 so 70 $122,000 $6.83 Medium Evening service should be an important priorily for the near
Selecl 10111111 future because transit dependants have no transportation
Ewning service ( 1 day to 9 PM) $30,000 SO 40 $29,000 $14.22 low after 5:30PM. The method used to provide the service .;.....,,..:.-..,......;.~..:..~=~--------------------------------should minimize cost =::.::.:~to 9 PM) $66,000 SO 60 $61,000 $3.99 Medium
~ sa1llce-1 rauleiiiiMe $112,000 SO 400 $105,000 $5.15 low Saturday service should be an imporlant priority forth~ near
..w:e pl!n future because transH dependants have no transporlatoon on ~_...---=t $94,000 SO 360 $88,000 $4.79 Medium weekends. The method used to provide the service should
rllllllllbue _... !!l!n minimize cost ~.-vlc:e-damencl 573 ,000 so 280 $88,000 $4.76 Medium
;;; ;:& ~ ;;:;: i:li$>tllt -• .,., 'y""'*'
SO SO rJa SO ------------------------------------~------=.:.:..--one of these options must be selected because of the
Allamative A -30 Minute Service so.oo N/A
Alternative B -40 Minute Service SO SO rJa SO SO.OO N/A impending move to the Greyhound station and to rasolve the
.Ait8rMIMI c _ 30 Mlnde Service running time problem. Alternative A is recommended.
will Downtown Cln:ulaeor.1 $103,000 $300,000 50 $99,000 $7.78 High
........ I ........... : • ,,;,,'';-!;'<i;''.-'#!i~i'·f®Mtt*'' •
West Area Flex Route $133,000 $60,000 50 $129,000
West Araa Express $56,000 $150,000 40 $53,000
Holts Summit Flex Route $133,000 $80,000 60 $128,000
Holts SummK Express $56,000 $150,000 60 $51,000
Algoa Araa Shuttle $133,000 $150,000 30 $130,000
Southwest Area Flex Route $133,000 $150,000 30 $130,000
$10.12 low
$5.20 low
$8.37 low
$3.33 low
$16.99 low
$16.99 low
TransH sarvice in this low dansHy area Is not a priorily at this
time. An intergovernmental agreement would be requirad for
funding,
Not recommended unless lherw Is a coopiii'IIIMI atJort with
the state to reduce auto commuting to the central pari of the
CHy. An intergovernmental agreement for funding would be
r&CIUAd.
Tnsnslt .-vice In this low density area Is not a priority at this
time. An intergovernmental agreement would be required for
fundina.
Not recommended unleu lherw II a coopal'llllve errort with
the state to reduce auto commuting to the central part of the
CHy. An intergovernmental agraement for funding would be
reauirad.
Not recommended unleaa lherw Is a coopal1lllve atforl with
the state to reduce auto commuting to the central pari ofthe
City. An intergovernmental agreement for funding would be
!!!IUired.
Trmell.-vlc:e in this low density area Is not a priority at this
time. Future growth, including the development of St. Mary's
Hospital. would maka transit service viable.
Olwr....._Ma• *-.: .. ~. ~-··.:;: -'-.i.t::""'~k;;.dliA•WW
lmpnMI F~ to 15 min. $933,000 $2,400,000 320 $906,000 $11.10 Peak and 30 min. bae low Not recommended.
Downtown Circulator~ $267,000 $750,000 460 $287,000 $2.18 low Viable as a future enhancement if H is part of downtown
redavet manl
c.pillll Mal Flax Roulll $133,000 $150,000 40 $130,000 $12.75 low Should ba conaldarad as a future option to serve portions of
the City currently unserved.
-
March 2006
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
4.5 Paratransit Evaluation
Marchl006
Handi Wheels, JEFFTRAN's curb-to-curb para transit service was evaluated as part of the study.
4.5.1 ADA Eligibility
A key part of the paratransit evaluation was to check for compliance with the ADA requirements.
Although a complete AD A compliance evaluation is beyond the scope of the project and was not
conducted, a cursory review of procedures was conducted. The review looked for compliance
to requirements pertaining to service area, response time, fares, service levels, trip purpose,
capacity constraints and eligibility determination. Based on the review, Handi Wheels is
compliant with the pertinent provisions of the ADA complementary paratransit service
requirements.
4.5.2 Driver Training and Certifications
Driver training is conducted on a regular basis; however Handi Wheels needs to be more
consistent in documenting completion dates for their training modules, and placing verification in
the working files of all employees.
4.5.3 Vehicle Inventory
The Handi Wheels fleet is in excellent condition. There are a total of eight vehicles in the Handi
Wheels fleet. Vehicles are not older than seven years of age and have less than 160,000 miles.
All vehicles are Ford model mini-buses with a modified chassis and wheelchair lift equipped with
a standard seating capacity of 20 passengers. Table 13 is the Handi Wheels vehicle roster.
JEFFTRAN conducts all maintenance services and has a preventative maintenance schedule
for all vehicles.
Table 13: Handl Wheels Vehicle Roster
Manufacture
Ford-Eldorado
Ford-Diamond
Ford-Goshen
Ford-Goshen
Ford-Diamond
Ford-Giaval
Ford-Diamond
Ford-Goshen
Model
Aerotech -E Series
E-450
E-450
E-450
E-450
E-450
E-406
E-450
Year
1998
1999
2005
2004
2001
2002
1999
2005
A cursory safety check of each Handi Wheels vehicle was conducted. All vehicles were found
to meet the safety guidelines.
Although the modified mini-buses allow grouping of clients and are well maintained it may be
prudent to investigate the addition of sedans to the vehicle fleet for Handi Wheels. Sedans are
more energy efficient, more personal and more maneuverable In some residential areas.
4.5.4 Handl Wheels User Information
Information on Handl Wheels services is very limited. There are two small paragraphs In the
JEFFTRAN schedule book. Other forms include an application, request for verification of
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcbl006
disability, ADA determination form and an eligibility rejection letter. Although the available forms
meet the existing need they are short of providing a clear picture of the services available. The
Handi Wheels information in the schedule book should be revised , given greater emphasis and
separated from the fixed route service data.
4.5.5 Trip Scheduling
A review of passenger pickup assignments was conducted to seek possible service efficiencies.
Trip reservation hours are from 6:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. There is a
telephone recording for trip requests to be made over the weekend. It can also be used to
cancel trips. Handi Wheels is currently using a Data Base program that was designed by
Richard Turner (Transit Division Director) in 1996 and has been adjusted periodically to serve
the changing requirements in various paratransit programs and contracts. The program allows
for relatively easy trip matching and verification.
While monitoring the trip matching process it was quite evident that Handi Wheels dispatchers
need to be using a hands free phone system . Dispatcher's productivity was slowed because
they could not utilize the entire keyboard with both hands, because they were holding the phone
with their off hand . Most difficulties occur when clients are making will call returns, because they
stretch the system at inopportune times. At busy times several calls had to be put on hold longer
than necessary. Additionally the dispatch office appears under staffed at times.
4.5.6 Demand Analysis
Handi Wheels currently carries about 200 to 220 passenger trips per day. Ridership has been
increasing at about four percent annually, a rate greater than the overall rate for the JEFFTRAN
system. If this trend continues Handi Wheels ridership will reach 270 daily trips within five
years.
As with other forms of transportation, the demand for paratransit services among persons with
disabilities varies during the course of the day . Figure 7 is a graph of Handi Wheels passenger
pickups by 30-minute periods taken from a trip manifest for one day. Because Handi Wheels
ridership patterns are repetitive, a summary for this one day is presumed to be reflective of the
overall demand for Handi Wheel s.
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Fln.I Report Mareb1006
Figure 7: Daily Demand for Handi Wheels Trips
35
30
!. 25
'C ...
'0 20 .. • .a
E
" z 15
10
5
0
~~~~~~~#~#~A~#~A~~~~#~~ , , , , , , , o.;: o.;: " " "r "r , , , r , r , , , , ;• ;v
,~~''''####~5,,,,,,,,,,
o.;: o.;: " " "r "r
Half Hour P•rlod
Handi Wheels operates six vehicles each day, with about 45.5 daily service hours. Thus, the
paratransit system's productivity is between 4.4 and 4.8 trips per hour. At times JEFFTRAN
must deploy more than the scheduled service to meet the demand. Handi Wheels has a very
high productivity rate compared with other similar paratransit services. The relatively compact
service area, and the resultant short trips, are undoubtedly factors in this high productivity rate.
However, it is also the case that Handi Wheels is operated in an efficient manner and demand
exceeds the system capacity at times.
4.5.7 Other Paratransit Providers
Other paratransit providers operate in the Jefferson City area. Most are funded under the Non-
Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) program contract with the Department of Social
Services (Medicaid).
One of the provisions of the New Freedom program from the recently passed SAFETEA LU
transportation bill is a requirement for a coordinated public transit -human services
transportation plan. JEFFTRAN will be expected to work with these other paratransit providers
in developing this coordinated transportation plan, probably through the aegis of the MPO.
Guidance for this activity Is not yet available.
Conclusions from the paratransit analysis are included in the final section of this report .
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcb2006
Section 5: Future Transit Demand and Mobility Needs
5.1 Future Transit Demand
JEFFTRAN Ridership Projections
As shown in Table 6 and Figure 2 in Section 2.3.2 , JEFFTRAN ridership has been increasing
over the past several years. This trend is expected to continue as the population of Jefferson
City continues to grow, and as JEFFTRAN continues its current program of services at current
levels.
Population projections for Jefferson City, JEFFTRAN's primary market, show an increase of
about 1.2 percent annually through 2010. Based on these factors the Baseline Ridership
projections are as shown in Table 14. Again, the Baseline Projections assume the continuation
of current service levels.
Table 14: Baseline Projections of JEFFTRAN Ridership
Service T~E!! 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Fixed Route 820 830 840 850 860 870
Trippers 70 70 70 70 70 70
Shuttles 640 660 680 700 720 740
Subtotal 1,530 1,560 1,590 1,620 1,650 1,680
Handi Wheels 220 230 240 250 260 270
Total 1,750 1,790 1,830 1,870 1,910 1,950
Projections developed by TranSystems based on growth rates between 2000 and 2005.
These projections are based on a continuation of past trends along with consideration of
population and demographic trends in the region.
5.2 Financial Analysis
5.2.1 Revenue Sources
It is common in the transit industry to separate operating and capital expenses. FTA has
distinctly different programs and guidelines for capital and operating grant programs. Jefferson
City funds operating and capital expenditures separately .
Operating Funding
The primary sources of revenue for JEFFTRAN operations, both fixed route and paratransit, are
local funds from city general revenue and federal funding from FTA's 5307 formula program.
Operating expenses for transit are funded from the City's general fund whereas capital projects
are typically funded from the city's Capital Improvement Fund. FT A's 5307 program includes an
apportionment amount based on a formula that takes into account the population and
characteristics of the metropolitan area, as well as other factors.
JEFFTRAN receives operating funding for paratransit services through Medicaid
reimbursements and the NEMT program that are used for local match. Payments from the
State for the operation of the parking shuttles also represent a significant source of revenue for
JEFFTRAN's operations.
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March 2006
Fares from passengers represent a relatively small portion of the total revenue compared with
these external funding programs. Table 15 shows the total operating revenue from each of
these sources from the 2006 JE FFTRAN budget.
Table 15: JEFFTRAN 2006 Budget Operating Revenue Sources
Funding Source Amount %of Total
Grants & Revenues
FTA 5307 $591,381 33%
State Operating $68,377 4%
Passenger Revenue $91,378 5%
State-Shuttle Route Fee $270,408 15%
Total Grants & Revenue $1,021,544
Local Match
City of Jefferson $514,421 29%
Medicaid $164,000 9%
Non Emergency Medical $29,000 2%
Cole County Special Servi1 $30,000 2%
Other operating revenues ~19,000 1%
Total Local Match $756,421
TOTAL $1,777,965
Capital Funding
As mentioned previously, capital improvements are typically funded from the city's Capital
Improvement Fund. These funds are used as local match for federal capital grants. Capital
projects, such as bus acquisition and construction, can be funded through the FTA Section 5309
capital program. The 5309 program is discretionary; Jefferson City must compete for funding
with other areas through a process referred to as congressional earmarking .
5.2.2 Future FT A Funding
With the recent passage of the new Federal Transportation Bill, known as SAFETEA-LU, the
level of federal funding available to the city, through FY2009 is part of the legislation. Although
the apportionments do not represent guaranteed amounts, there is a reasonable certainty that
the level of funding will be made available.
Based on information provided by FT A, the total Section 5307 funds available to Jefferson City
will increase each year of the program. In addition, the new transportation bill includes two new
categories of formula funding, Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom .
Although the funding for these two programs is not great, these programs do represent
additional funding for JEFFTRAN. JEFFTRAN does provide services that are eligible to be
funded by these programs.
Table 16 shows the total federal funding available under FTA formula programs . The amounts
for 2010 and 2011 are estimated based on the assumption that the FT A program will continue
with a 4% annual increase.
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marchl006
Table 16: Apportionments and Estimates of FTA Formula Funding
Program
5307
JARC
New Freedom
Total
2006
$520,146
$34,381
$22.278
$576,805
2007
$541 '111
$35,876
$23.135
$600,122
2008
$586,814
$38,865
$24.992
$650,671
2009
$624,170
$40,983
$26.420
$691,573
2010
$649,137
$42,622
$27.477
$719,236
2011
$675,102
$44,327
$28.576
$748,005
Note: The amounts shown for years 2010 and 2011 are estimated based on the assumption
that these funding programs will increase at 4% annually.
Projections of FTA capital funding from the 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities program were not
developed because this funding is allocated on a discretionary basis. For purposes of
projecting future funding levels it is assumed that 5309 funds will be available at the levels
needed for the JEFFTRAN capital program. It will be the responsibility of JEFFTRAN to request
earmarks and make application for these funds.
5.2.3 Financial Projections -Operating Costs and Revenues
Baseline projections were prepared to provide information on the likely financial requirements to
support JEFFTRAN operations. The projections are termed "Baseline" because they assume
the continuation of JEFFTRAN services as they are currently. Procedures for developing the
projections are detailed in the Financial Analysis technical report.
Table 17 shows the baseline financial projections for JEFFTRAN operations.
Table 17: Baseline Projections of JEFFTRAN Operating Costs and Revenues
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operating Cost $1,778,179 $1,832,000 $1,887,000 $1,944,000 $2,002,000 $2,062,000
Operating Revenue ~110,592 ~113,000 ~114,000 ~116,000 ~118,000 ~120,000
Operating Deficit $1,667,587 $1,719,000 $1,773,000 $1,828,000 $1,884,000 $1,942,000
Funding
Federal Operating $591,381 $713,000 $740,000 $773,000 $822,000 $745,000
State Operating $68,377 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000
State Shuttle Contract $270,408 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000
Paratransit Funding $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000
City Funding ~514,421 $445,000 $472,000 $494,QOO ~501,000 ~636,000
Total Funding $1,667,587 $1,719,000 $1,773,000 $1,828,000 $1,884,000 $1,942,000
Key assumptions for the baseline projections are detailed in the Financial Analysis technical
report.
5.2.4 Financial Projections for Service Increase Scenarios
An important part of the TDP is to project and evaluate the City's funding requirement to deploy
additional services during the next five years. Three different scenarios were developed to
illustrate the funding requirement for transit service improvements. These scenarios represent
low, medium, and high investment in new transit services and facilities.
The high investment scenario assumes that the City will pursue service improvements identified
during the TDP process in each of the next five years representing a 100 percent increase in
service by 2011. It assumes that capital improvements will be made, including the development
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcbl006
of a new downtown transit center. It is also assumed that JEFFTRAN's services will be
extended into neighboring communities. A base fare increase to 75 cents is assumed in June of
2006 and another increase to $1.00 in July of 2009.
The medium transit investment scenario assumes service improvements representing a 50
percent increase by 2011 and assumes that JEFFTRAN services will be provided only within the
corporate limits of Jefferson City. A somewhat scaled down version of the downtown transit
center is assumed. The base fare is assumed to be 75 cents in June of 2006.
The low transit investment scenario assumes only minimal changes to service levels, an
increase of 28 percent. Only capital improvements necessary to maintain the current level of
service are assumed. It is assumed that the McCarty Street bus station will continue to serve as
the transfer center. An increase in the base fare is assumed to 75 cents in June of 2006.
Additional details regarding the service improvements for each scenario are detailed in the
Financial Analysis technical report.
Table 18 shows financial projections for the High Investment Scenario, a doubling of service
over the five year period .
Table 18: Projections of JEFFTRAN Operating Costs and Revenues-High Investment
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operating Cost $1,863,000 $2,141,000 $2,402,000 $2,696,000 $3,005,000 $3,255,000
Operating Revenue $138,000 $1§3,000 $171,000 $191,000 ~204,0QO $209,000
Operating Deficit $1,725,000 $1,978,000 $2,231 ,000 $2,505,000 $2 ,801,000 $3,046,000
Funding
Federal Operating $614,000 $691,000 $741,000 $773,000 $823 ,000 $745,000
State Operating $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000
State Shuttle Contract $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000
Paratransit Funding $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000
City Funding $550,000 $726,0QO ~~29,000 $1,171,000 $1,417,QOQ $1,740,000
Total Fundin~ $1,725,000 $1,978,000 $2,231,000 $2,505,000 $2,801 ,000 $3,046,000
Because funding from other sources, particularly FTA, is essentially fixed, all of the additional
cost would have to be covered by additional local funding from the City. Thus, the City's share
of the funding would increase to $1,740,000 by 2011 . This is an increase of over three times
the budgeted City funding for 2006.
Table 19 shows the projections for the Medium Investment Scenario, a service increase of 50
percent over five years. In this case the City's share of the funding would increase to just over
$1 million by 2011 .
33
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
Table 19: Projections of JEFFTRAN Operating Costs and Revenues-Medium Investment
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operating Cost $1,863,000 $2,091,000 $2,194,000 $2,301,000 $2,447,000 $2,599,000
Operating Revenue ~138,000 ~160,000 ~164,000 ~168,000 ~172,000 ~176,000
Operating Deficit $1,725,000 $1 ,931,000 $2,030,000 $2,133,000 $2 ,275 ,000 $2 ,423 ,000
Funding
Federal Operating $614,000 $691,000 $741,000 $773,000 $823,000 $745,000
State Operating $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000
State Shuttle Contract $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270 ,000 $270,000 $270,000
Paratransit Funding $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000
City Funding ~550,000 ~679,000 ~728,000 ~799,000 $891,000 $1.117,000
Total Funding $1,725,000 $1,931,000 $2,030,000 $2,133,000 $2,275,000 $2,423,000
Table 20 shows the projections for the Low Investment Scenario which would increase service
by 28 percent. This scenario would require City funding to increase to $880,000, an increase of
about 40 percent compared with the Baseline projections.
Table 20: Projections of JEFFTRAN Operating Costs and Revenues -Low Investment
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operating Cost $1,925,000 $2 ,091,000 $2,154,000 $2,219,000 $2,285,000 $2,353,000
Operating Revenue ~138,QOO ~160,000 ~161,000 ~163,000 ~165,000 ~167,00Q
Operating Deficit $1,787,000 $1,931,000 $1,993,000 $2,056,000 $2,120,000 $2,186,000
Funding
Federal Operating $614,000 $691,000 $741,000 $773,000 $823,000 $745 ,000
State Operating $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000
State Shuttle Contract $270,000 $270 ,000 $270 ,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000
Paratransit Funding $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000
City Funding $612,QQO $679,000 $691,000 ~722,0QQ ~736,QQO ~880,00Q
Total Fundina $1,787,000 $1,931,000 $1,993,000 $2,056,000 $2,120,000 $2,186,000
The conclusion is that an increase in City funding of about 24% by 2011 is necessary to just
maintain the current level of service. The three service improvement scenarios require funding
increases of between $244,000 and $1.1 million in 2011 compared with the Baseline projection.
5.3 Facilities and Equipment Plan
5.3.1 Facilities Evaluation
The buildings located at the Charles E. Robinson Transit Maintenance Facility were evaluated
and an opinion of the condition of the facilities and recommendations for improvements were
presented.
The evaluation concluded that the combination of buildings at the Charles E. Robinson Transit
Maintenance Facility is generally well organized on the site. It was observed that the queue
area for vehicles waiting to go through the vehicle wash building is constrained by the adjacent
fueling facility. This is a less than ideal condition but was only a rare occurrence and had little
impact to the fueling operation. The basic structure is expected to serve well for many years to
come if sufficient and ongoing maintenance is provided.
34
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
The buildings are approximately 20 years old and appear to have been well maintained.
However the buildings are at an age where the exterior envelope should receive a significant
program of preventative maintenance and repair to prevent premature building decay including
a water tightness check at roof penetrations and transitions, major joints, flashings, louvers,
window and door frames. HVAC systems should be inspected and replacement systems
planned and budgeted when needed.
As refurbishing plans are made, it should be noted that the addition of modem, energy efficient
HVAC, lighting, windows and insulation systems often have quick pay-back periods due to the
rise in energy costs. Upgrades in replacement systems should be accelerated where energy
efficiencies provide lower operational costs over the life of the system.
The following recommendations for improvement are offered:
• The Transit Facility site is fully developed with limited opportunity for expansion or
property acquisition. Long range planning should address how anticipated growth in
Transit and City activities can be accommodated.
• The shared use of maintenance, fueling and wash facilities increases traffic through the
Transit facility site. Facilities to service and maintain Transit and City Fleets will need to
expand as the fleets grow. Options to increase capacity include expanding existing
facilities, creating new facilities and separating services of specialized vehicles to
specific sites.
• The primary vehicle access into the site is from Cherry Street at the north end of the
property . This entrance is remote from the more populated south end of the site where
security could be provided more effectively . Site security can be improved by the use of
a motor operated gate entry into the site and the addition of surveillance cameras if
needed.
• The central paved area between the Maintenance shops, Bus Garage, Wash Bay and
Fuel Facility is congested at peak traffic periods because there is no secondary path in
and out of the area. Scheduling to reduce peak traffic volumes should be established to
reduce the chance of accidents.
• The property has limited area available for yard storage of out of season equipment, bus
shelters and bulk material storage. Provision for expansion of yard storage on city
property on the east side of MillerS treet should be investigated.
• The addition of updated electronic fare box processing may affect how buses are routed
through the check-in process at end of shifts. The location of new fare box collection
system and check-in process should be studied carefully to maximize driver, hostler and
security issues.
• The Maintenance facility has no battery room. The creation of a specialized room for
battery maintenance should be considered for improved service and safety.
35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcb2006
• Archived records are stored off site due to space constraints. Additional area for record
storage can be established on site. The translation of records into electronic form may
reduce storage needs.
5.3.2 Bus Replacement Program
The timely replacement of vehicles in the fleet is one of the fundamental programs necessary
for a successful transit system. Buses are a transit system's most valuable asset because good
customer service is dependant on the condition of the fleet. The total cost of the fleet is usually
the most expensive asset, even more so than the facilities that house the operation. A fleet that
is aging presents a poor image to the system's customers and the general public. Vehicle
maintenance expenses usually increase as the age of a bus advances.
However, the cost of replacing buses is high, and requires large outlays of cash. Most transit
systems take advantage of federal funding through FTA's capital grant programs to help finance
bus replacement. FTA funding can be used to finance up to 80% of the total purchase price.
The use of FTA funding requires advance planning and coordination with other agencies to
ensure the project is eligible and the funds are available, and received in a timely manner.
FTA rates vehicles for replacement purposes based on the vehicles expected useful life. These
policies are meant to ensure that buses purchased or leased with Federal funds are maintained
and remain in transit use for a minimum normal service life. Minimum normal service lives for
buses and vans are shown below.
• Large, heavy-duty transit buses (approximately 35'-40', and articulated buses): at least 12
years of service or an accumulation of at least 500,000 m iles.
• Medium-size, heavy-duty transit buses (approximately 30'): 10 years or 350,000 miles.
• Medium-size, medium-duty transit buses (approximately 30'): 7 years or 200,000 miles.
• Medium-size, light-duty transit buses (approximately 25-35'): 5 years or 150,000 miles.
• Other light-duty vehicles such as small buses and regular and specialized vans: 4 years or
100,000 miles.
As stated previously, JEFFTRAN has a revenue fleet of 26 vehicles and in 2005 JEFFTRAN
acquired five new heavy-duty transit coaches manufactured by the Gillig Corporation. These
new buses are the first heavy-duty buses purchased in Jefferson City in decades. Table 21
shows detail on the JEFFTRAN vehicle fleet.
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marchl006
Year of
Vehicle
1999
1999
1999
2003
2003
2003
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2002
2002
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
1998
1999
1999
2001
2002
2004
2005
2005
#of Pass.
29
29
29
29
29
29
32
32
32
32
32
29
29
23
23
23
23
23
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Table 21: JEFFTRAN Revenue Vehicle Fleet Roster
Manufacturer
International
International
International
Freightliner
Freightliner
Freightliner
Gillig
Gillig
Gillig
Gillig
Gillig
International
International
Freightliner
Freightliner
Freightliner
Freightliner
Freightliner
Ford Eldorado
Ford I Diamond
Ford I Diamond
Ford I Diamond
Ford I Glaval
Ford I Goshen
Ford I Goshen
Ford I Goshen
Vehicle Type
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Transit Coach
Van /Mini Bus
Van /Mini Bus
Van /Mini Bus
Van /Mini Bus
Van /Mini Bus
Van /Mini Bus
Van /Mini Bus
Van /Mini Bus
Service
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Shuttle
Handi Wheels
Handi Wheels
Handi Wheels
Handi Wheels
Handi Wheels
Handi Wheels
Handi Wheels
Handi Wheels
Lie#
607
608
609
611
612
614
630
634
631
632
633
610
613
619
618
617
616
615
620
626
621
624
625
623
622
627
Purchase
Date
6/25/1999
6/25/1999
7/16/1999
7/15/2003
7/15/2003
7/15/2003
7/5/2005
7/6/2005
7/7/2005
7/8/2005
7/8/2005
4/26/2003
4/26/2003
11/2/2004
11/2/2004
11/2/2004
11/2/2004
11/2/2004
10/26/1998
9/29/1999
1/21/2004
1/16/2001
7/18/2002
12/30/2004
5/6/2005
5nt2005
Age
8
8
8
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
7
6
6
4
3
1
0
0
JEFFTRAN expects to replace the three 1999 Internationals in 2006. These buses are beyond
their rated useful life of seven years. These lighter duty buses will be replaced with heavy duty
transit coaches rated as 12 year buses. The JEFFTRAN manager would like to replace the
remaining medium-duty fixed route buses with heavy-duty transit coaches when their useful life
allows replacement. There are advantages to JEFFTRAN using all heavy-duty coaches for the
fixed route, tripper and shuttle operation:
•
The heavy-duty buses with low floor technology provide superior custome r service.
Heavy-duty buses usually require less maintenance than lighter duty buses.
Having a standard fleet of buses reduces parts inventory and simplifies maintenance .
Having a standard fleet of buses makes it easier to rotate buses to equalize mileage.
The service operated by JEFFTRAN warrants heavy-duty transit coaches from the standpoint of
passenger loadings and volumes and operating conditions. The heavy-duty buses have a
higher purchase price, thus available funding may be a determining factor.
In 2007, JEFFTRAN will need to add one heavy duty bus for the new downtown shuttle
(Downtown Circulator# 1) route.
Paratransit vehicles operated for the Handi Wheels service would continue to be light duty
buses with a five year rated life.
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
Table 22 shows the bus replacement schedule assuming that the fixed route and shuttle
vehicles are replaced with heavy-duty transit coaches.
Table 22: JEFFTRAN Revenue Vehicle Replacement Program
Year Units T:a!e Total Cost FTAShare Local
2006 3 Transit Coaches $885,000 $708,000 $177,000
4 Paratransit Vehicle ~224,000 ~179,200 $44,800
$1,109,000 $887,200 $221,800
2007 1 Paratransit Vehicle $58,000 $46,400 $11,600
1 Transit Coach ~307,000 ~245,600 $61,400
$365,000 $292,000 $73,000
2009 2 Transit Coach $664,000 $531,200 $132,800
1 Paratransit Vehicle ~64,000 ~51,200 $12,800
$728,000 $582,400 $145,600
2010 3 Transit Coaches $1,038,000 $830,400 $207,600
2 Paratransit Vehicle ~132,000 ~105,600 $26,400
$1,170,000 $936,000 $234,000
2011 5 Transit Coaches $1,770,000 $1,416,000 $354,000
4 Paratransit Vehicle ~272,000 ~217,600 $54,400
$2,042,000 $1,633,600 $408,400
Besides the new bus for the Downtown Circulator #1 route, other buses shown in the table are
for replacement of buses used to pro vide existing service.
5.4 Driver and Supervisory Staffing
As part of the TOP staffing levels at JEFFTRAN were reviewed. Generally the review found that
the operation is understaffed and additional positions are justified to meet current levels of
service and service hours.
5.4.1 Drivers
Determining the optimal staffing levels for transit drivers is an important factor in controlling
labor costs in transit operations. A frequent mistake is to manage based on a total number of
drivers. This method does not fully account for all the needs. The result is increased overtime
and other premium pay. A transit driver's position must be filled every day, for every trip. The
work cannot be deferred. Absences, both scheduled and unscheduled, should be accounted for
in the process of manpower planning.
Driver staffing at JEFFTRAN does not account for scheduled absences for vacations and
holidays, thus overtime has to be used. In addition, absences for ill ness and personal leave add
to the problem. Overtime, paid at 1.5 times the straight labor rate, is almost always more
expensive than filling the position with an extra employee, when the overtime is regular and
predictable. In addition, extensive overtime can lead to low employee morale and even more
absenteeism.
38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March 2006
Current JEFFTRAN service levels require about 26 drivers. This level of staffing will likely result
in a need for the equivalent of two additional positions to cover scheduled and unscheduled
overtime.
5.4.2 Dispatchers and Supervisors
Like the situation with drivers, the level of supervisory and dispatcher staffing does not account
for scheduled absences. Thus when one of the supervisors is on vacation, a driver is
temporarily "promoted" into the vacancy. This exacerbates the problem with driver staffing.
Moreover, supervisors are frequently required to fill in for open driver shifts, or otherwise drive
when demands require. This leaves the operation without any supervision at times. While
occasionally having supervisors fill in as drivers in "emergencies" is acceptable, it is extremely
poor practice if supervisors are frequently taken away from their primary assignments.
JEFFTRAN staffing should be increased by one supervisor and one dispatcher.
5.4.3 Conclusions
Current Service Levels. The conclusion is that JEFFTRAN staffing should be increased by one
supervisor, one dispatcher and two drivers to cover current levels of service and hours of
operation. This is based on the evaluation of staffing needs. These additions should not result
in significantly higher costs because the new positions would reduce overtime in the division,
thus offsetting the cost of the new positi ons.
Service Expansion. Another conclusion is that staffing will have to be increased if the
recommendation to increase service and expand service hours is accepted. The addition of the
downtown shuttle as part of the reconfiguration of routes for the relocation of the transfer center
requires one additional driver position. The expansion of weekday service hours will require the
equivalent of at least one additional driver.
5.5 Implementation Plan
This section presents a checklist of major steps in implementing the recommendations from the
Transit Development Plan. The TOP recommends several changes to go into effect in or about
June 2006. The recommendations include reconfiguring the existing transit routes to move the
transfer center to the intercity bus station at 620 West McCarty, extending the span of service
by starting service approximately 30 minutes earlier in the morning and ending service
approximately one hour later in the evening, and implementing a fare increase from fifty cents to
seventy-five cents. It is recommended that all three changes be made simultaneously, so that
users will be able to see an increase in service along with the higher cost for using the service.
Separate implementation checklists are provided below for the transfer center move, the service
modifications and the fare increase. A key factor in the timing is the completion of the McCarty
bus station improvements. In addition, FTA requires a public hearing for implementing a fare
increase. This needs to be completed beforehand in order to implement the recommendations
simultaneously.
The main components of the checklist involve informing passengers, drivers and others about
each of the recommended changes. It is best to start that process as soon as the routes,
schedules, etc. are verified and finalized. Using the mass media, public forums, stakeholders,
and drivers are good communication outlets that are recommended in the checklist. Table 23
shows the major steps and timing for moving the transfer center and implementing the service
modifications. Table 24 shows the required steps for implementing the fare increase.
39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
Table 23: Checklist for Transfer Center Move and Transit Service Modifications
Weeks Category Activity
Before
Start
24 Operations Verify schedule times and time_1>_oints.
22 Operations Begin bidding process for bus station improvements.
Operations Test drive modified routes; make sure turns can be made and
21 schedule can be met. Make sure no vehicle clearance issues.
Obtain ''turn-by-tum" directions.
17 Transit Staff Inform and educate staff.
16 Operations Initiate contract for bus station improvements.
16 Operations Determine how bus stop signs to be installed and by who and
when.
16 Transit Staff Meet with drivers on the routes changes.
14 Operations Determine total number and location of bus stop signs needed.
11 Operations Order and install bus stop signs.
Public Information Hold Public Forum before service change and give chance for
10 riders to ask questions about transfer center move, route changes
and fare increase. FT A guidelines require a public hearing in
advance of a fare increase or a significant service change.
9 Public Information Develop new public schedules/mllQS.
8 Public Information Hold press conference on changes including transfer center
move, route changes and fare increase.
8 Transit Staff Drive groups of drivers on routes with staff.
6 Public Information Reproduce new schedules/maps.
6 Buses New designation signage for new downtown shuttle (Downtown
Circulator #1) route and new destinations on existing routes.
Public Information Work with key social service agencies and other important
6 destinations to publicize transfer center move, route changes and
fare increase. Staff may visit with agencies and clients and hold
information session.
4 Operations Complete site and building improvements at McCarty Street bus
station.
4 Transit Staff Determine which drivers will drive which routes.
Public Information Distribute schedules and maps to Jefferson & High transit center,
3 City Hall, library, social service agencies, key destinations (Wal-
Mart, Target and Capital Mall) as well as web site.
3 Transit Staff Provide driver schedule for assigned route(s).
2 Public Information Prepare on-board announcements-post on bus and distribute.
3 to 4 Public Information Ask drivers to let riders know about changes.
days
3 days Public Information Prepare press release one-day prior to new service (release on
Friday before service starts if service starts on a Monday).
2 days Transit Staff Test run modified system on weekend; one or two round trips.
0 Public Information First day (assume a Monday}-post staff at bus station to provide
and distribute information.
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
Table 24: Checklist of Fare Increase Implementation
Weeks Category Activity
Before
Start
17 Transit Staff Inform and educate staff.
Public Information Hold Public Hearing required by Ff A for fare and/or major
route change. This can be in conjunction with Public Forum
10 before service change to give chance for riders to ask
questions about transfer center move, route changes and fare
increase.
8 Public Information Hold press conference on changes including transfer center
move, route changes and fare increase.
Public Information Work with key social service agencies and other important
6 destinations to publicize transfer center move, route changes
and fare increase. Staff may visit with agencies and clients
and hold information session.
2 Public Information Prepare on-board announcements-post on bus and distribute.
3 to 4 Public Information Ask drivers to let riders know about changes.
days
3 days Public Information Prepare press release one-day prior to new service (release on
Friday before service starts if service starts on a Monday).
0 Public Information First day (assume a Monday}--post staff at bus station to
provide and distribute information.
5.6 Marketing Plan
Currently, JEFFTRAN has no formal marketing program. Information provided to the public is
fairly basic. A rider's guide is available at City offices, JEFFTRAN's offices, major stores, hotels
and State office buildings. This information is also available on the City's web site including:
bus schedules, paratransit information, hours of operation, fares, transfer point description and
map, announcements and phone numbers and times for asking questions. Beyond printed and
web based information, little other material is provided to riders. Further, there were no "special
event" marketing efforts and no advertising. Implicitly, JEFFTRAN's marketing strategy was to
provide basic information on system use.
A marketing plan was developed to provide JEFFTRAN with strategies and tactics to develop a
dynamic, yet cost-efficient marketing program. The strategies were associated with the goals or
objectives they help to address. The plan stresses the importance and identifies ways to
communicate regarding the recommended fare increase to employees, riders, local elected
officials and the general public. The plan also presents ways to promote JEFFTRAN to riders,
institutions, internal/funding sources and the general public. The JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan
technical memorandum contains the complete descriptions of the methods summarized in this
section.
Key recommendations from the marketing plan include: rev1s1ng the public information to
provide individual route schedules and one system map; developing an employer subsidy
program, a university pass program and a summer youth pass; conducting annual open houses
and preparing an annual report; airing public service announcements; developing community
partnerships for key community events; and hiring a part time staff person to develop and
implement the marketing strategies. The annual cost to implement all of the strategies is
approximately $52,000.
41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
FiDal Report Marcbl006
5. 7 System Monitoring
Monitoring system performance is crucial to make sure the recommendations of the TOP, once
implemented, are on target with expectations. Many of the measures used to evaluate service
can also be used for ongoing monitoring of the overall system.
5. 7.1 Performance Measures
An important factor in determining which measures to use is the ease in which necessary data
is available and can be collected and utilized. Data relating to cost, ridership, revenue, and
service levels are typically used by most systems.
There are literally dozens of indicators and standards that transit operators use to measure their
performance. Perhaps the most important are the following:
Table 25: Typical Performance Indicators
Indicator
Riders Per Revenue Hour -measures the
productivity of the service.
Schedule Adherence -on-time performance.
Accidents per 100,000 miles-system safety.
Customer complaints per 100,000 passengers-
system quality.
Level of Suggested Standard
CalculaUon
Route, System Benchmark against system average.
Routes below 10 percent of average should
receive attention.
Route, System At least 90 percent of trips should be no
more than one minute early and no more
than five minutes late.
System
System, driver
Benchmark against JEFFTRAN's historic
average.
Benchmark against JEFFTRAN's historic
average.
Miles Between Service Interruptions (Mechanical System Benchmark against JEFFTRAN's historic
average. related) -measures vehicle maintenance success.
Farebox Recovery-ratio of fares collected (including Route, System
pass and ticket sales) and operating costs.
Subsidy per Rider -measures service efficiency. Route, System
How to Collect and Calculate
Benchmark against JEFFTRAN's historic
average.
Benchmark against JEFFTRAN's historic
avera e.
The following describes how the above factors can be gathered and reported. All factors should
be reported monthly with route level statistics reported quarterty.
Ridership: JEFFTRAN can collect this data in special surveys conducted quarterty. In between
surveys, JEFFTRAN can estimate route level ridership using average fares. As the term
suggests, average fare is amount of revenue collected divided by the number of riders. If
JEFFTRAN collects revenue information by route, the quarterly survey information can be used
to calculate a route level average fare. In between surveys, the average fare can be divided
into the revenue with the result being ridership. These calculations and reports can be easily
set-up on an electronic spreadsheet.
Revenue Hours: can be obtained from operating schedules.
Revenue Miles: can also be derived from operating schedules.
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
Accidents: should be available from reports maintained by JEFFTRAN .
March2006
Complaints: JEFFTRAN now receives these. A logging system can easily be established
indicating who called, when, the nature of the complaint, and driver.
Service Interruptions: service interruptions by type of occurrence can be tracked in a
maintenance record keeping system.
Farebox Recovery: is the ratio between fares collected and operating costs. JEFFTRAN
collects both pieces of information at the system level. Fare revenue is currently tracked by
route. A cost allocation formula would be needed to assign costs to individual routes, thus
calculating the denominator portion of the recovery ratio. The simplest way to assign route
costs would be to determine the system cost per revenue hour. This would be done after each
month's financial statement is produced. The monthly operating cost would be divided by the
scheduled revenue hours for the month. The results would form the recovery ratio.
Subsidy: is the difference between the cost and the farebox revenue. A cost of $500 and
revenue of $50 would calculate to a subsidy of $450. The number of riders is divided into this
difference, yielding the average subsidy per rider. Data at the system and route levels exist to
support this analysis.
Handi Wheels Service Performance
Handi Wheels service performance can be measured with these fac tors:
On-time performance: Handi Wheels already collects data for on-time performance. This
measure can continue to be monitored to assess Handi Wheels performance.
No Shows and Late Cancellations: are where clients are booked for travel but either cancel
their trip at the last minute or simply fail to board the vehicle, effectively canceling the trip when
the vehicle arrives. These forms of trip cancellation affect both the quality and productivity of
the service. Stopping at a pick-up location that results in a "no show" inconveniences people
already on the vehicle or potentially delays picking up the next person. It also affects
productivity as a cancellation leaves a gap in time in the vehicle's schedule. During this time the
vehicle is unproductive. As discussed above, no shows and late cancellations are a problem.
However, reduction in these is a policy enforcement issue and not so much a function of
operating the service.
Long Ride Times: typically riders should spend no more than 30 minutes on the bus for their
trips. JEFFTRAN can review data on the average ride time for a Handi Wheels passenger, and
the percentage of passengers that have a ride time of 30 or less minutes. If long ride times
appear to be an issue, JEFFTRAN can consider a maximum ride time policy to improve
performance.
Driver/Reservationist Courtesy: another facet of service quality is how the operating staff
treats customers. This includes the drivers as well as the people who take trip reservations.
Implementing data keeping procedures for complaints recording complaints can allow
JEFFTRAN to monitor performance in this area.
43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
Vehicle Breakdowns/Service Interruptions: measures how often the vehicle has a mechanic
problem resulting in missed service. By keeping a history of breakdowns JEFFTRAN can track
performance.
Accidents/Safety: is an obvious indicator of service quality. By keeping an accident history this
performance measure can be monitored.
5.8 Long Range Transit Planning
Most of the work of the TDP was focused on short range matters, and even immediate issues.
Financial projections were made for a five-year period, and transit improvement plans also were
for the five-year period.
However, the TDP also includes an initial look at transit needs and opportunities over a twenty-
five year period.
Although the Jefferson City metropolitan area is expected to grow during the five-year period, it
is not likely to change the form of the transit system that is needed to serve the community. It is
projected that a bus transit system will be adequate to meet the future needs. How the transit
system changes to meet increasing needs of the community is important.
The following is an outline for a vision of improved transit service for the Jefferson City
metropolitan area.
5.8.1 Future Transit Service Levels
The TDP concluded that current service levels employing 30-minute peak and 60-minute base
headways are sufficient to meet the short-term needs of the community. For the longer term,
increased frequencies should be considered. The objective should be to improve service to 15-
minute frequency on the transit system's core routes with 30-minute mid day service. The
improvements should be made based on each route's performance.
The TDP recommended consideration of Saturday service, and weekday evening service. In
the long-term, the goal should be to expand service to seven days per week, with evening
service at least until 10:00 PM on core routes. Determination of which routes should be
operated on weekends and evenings should be made based on route performance and an
assessment of the routes that serve transit dependent populations.
5.8.2 Geographic Expansion and Transit System Structure
During the next twenty-five years significant growth in population is expected to occur outside
the core area of Jefferson City, and even outside the City's corporate limits. In response to this
trend, the transit system must be prepared to expand outward into these newly developed
areas. The TDP recommended that alternative service types, such as flex route services, are
better able to serve the kinds of development that is likely to occur in the outskirts of the
community.
A change in the institutional structure of the transit system should be considered as the transit
system grows beyond city limits. A transit authority structure with a separate and independent
governing board may be in a better position to provide services across community boundaries.
It should be noted, however, that inter jurisdictional services can be provided by JEFFTRAN
with it's current structure although some changes to operating policies and practices, along with
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
council authority are required. The community should explore the third approach to providing
inter jurisdictional transit services. One possibility is to use the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) as a forum for this evaluation. The MPO has been useful in these matters
in other metropolitan areas.
5.8.3 Operating Facilities
JEFFTRAN 's current operating facilities are adequate for the current operation . However, the
facility's capacity is limited and there are no opportunities for expansion at the current site. The
storage capacity is literally being used to the fullest extent. Significant expansion in the vehicle
fleet, beyond today's fleet size, will require additional facilities. Plus, any plan for significantly
expanded transit service must account for the time and the cost of expanding operating
facilities. JEFFTRAN should be able to accommodate a very small increase in fleet size, but
vehicle storage must be addressed.
5.8.4 Transit Land Use and Development Planning
As the community grows, and as older parts of the city are redeveloped, provisions for transit
should be included . The city, and adjacent communities, should consider practices to
encourage development in ways that will make the development more conducive to service by
transit. There are a number of models to follow for accomplishing these inducements towards
"transit friendly" development. Land use and development decisions in the core of Jefferson
City should be required to account for transit. For example, the Missouri State Prison
development in the downtown area can become an important area for transit service. Factors
such as densities, building orientation, development patterns, street patterns, provisions for bus
stops and shelters, and transit centers should all be considered in these types of developments.
Likewise, organizations that provide services to transit dependent or mobility limited residents
should be located along existing transit routes with easy access to bus stops.
5.8.5 Community Partnerships
Successful transit cannot be obtained solely by the transit agency. Rather, organizations that
require or use transit services must be prepared to cooperate and even partner to advance the
position of transit in the community . JEFFTRAN should pursue partnerships with major
employers, particularly the State of Missouri, to develop transit incentive programs such as
employer sponsored promotions and employer subsidized bus passes.
5.8.6 Transit Funding
JEFFTRAN 's operations are funded from the city 's general revenue. Capital expenditures are
funded by a Yz cent sales tax. It is generally accepted that a dedicated funding source for transit
is an important ingredient to a successful expanded transit system. The potential for a
dedicated revenue source for transit in Jefferson City should be explored.
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
Section 6: Conclusion and Recommendations
March2006
This section presents a summary of conclusions and recommendations from the Transit
Development Plan Project. The recommendations are grouped by category.
6.1 Transit Organizational Structure and Governance
JEFFTRAN is a division under the Planning and Transportation Section of the City's Department
of Community Development and is accountable to the City Council.
There was some discussion of revising the organizational structure to a transit authority,
however the current structure works well and should be able to meet projected needs well into
the future.
Recommendations are:
1. Maintain the cu"ent organizational structure but have JEFFTRAN report to the City
Council through the Council's Public Works and Planning Committee. This is a more
logical reporting assignment than the current assignment to the Transportation and Traffic
Committee. The Transportation and Traffic Committee is not a City Council committee.
2. Involve User Groups. Involving User Groups is accepted as an important part of the
decision making process for transit. It is recommended that JEFFTRAN utilize ad hoc user
group participation, as was done for the Transit Development Plan. There does not appear
to be a need for a standing committee or working group for this purpose.
6.2 Fixed Route Transit Service Improvements
Generally, the existing fixed route services were found to be adequate for the intended purpose,
and are found to be satisfactory to the majority of existing transit riders. This high level of
satisfaction, along with the realization that funding for additional transit services is limited, leads
to the general conclusion that wholesale changes in the JEFFTRAN route network are not
required.
The recommendations are:
1. Reconfigure the existing fixed routes to operate with the hub at 620 West McCarty
Street, the intercity bus station. This includes the creation of a new downtown shuttle
(Downtown Circulator #1) route connecting the bus station with key points in the downtown
area. This new route also allows adjustments to be made to the other routes to correct the
running time deficiency noted with the current schedules. The running time adjustments are
a critical service improvement. Service frequencies on all routes will be the same as current
frequencies. Figure 8 shows the recommended transit routes.
Cost: The net operating cost for this recommendation is estimated at $99,000 per year.
The change also requires an additional bus with an initial cost of about $300,000. However,
the City's transit manager believes that the service modifications can be made in 2006
without an increase in the operating budget or the capital budget. Operating costs will be
increased beginning the second year, 2007. The JEFFTRAN fixed route bus fleet will have
to be increased by one bus at the time one of the current medium-duty buses is retired.
46
------
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
FiuiReport
----
Figure 8: Recommended Transit Routes
N
_j _ r
Jefferson City TDP
Alternative C
Legend
Circulator
-Busine&s 50
'' -C.pital Mal
-HghEast
-High West
MissotAi
I, -Rem Addition
-Southwest
II -Exitling Routes
City L1m1ta
2
March 2006
47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
Timing: Spring or summer 2006, at the time the McCarty Intercity Bus Station is renovated
and available for service.
2. Extend the span of service by starting service approximately 30 minutes earlier in the
morning and continuing with service approximately one hour later until about 6:30
PM. This service improvement is important because the current span of service is not of
sufficient length to serve many work trips. With service ending at 5:30PM employees who
either work a slightly later dayshift, or cannot predict when they have to work later, cannot
rely on using transit to get to work. In addition, this change is important for individuals who
work outside the downtown area. Employees in the service sector are more likely to work a
later shift and therefore will benefit from the extension of service hours.
Cost: This service improvement is estimated to result in a net increase in operating costs of
$134,000 per year. There is no increase in capital costs because additional buses are not
required.
Timing: Because of the importance of this service improvement, it is recommended that this
change be made with the reconfiguration of the routes and the opening of the McCarty
Street bus station in the first half of 2006. If this service improvement is implemented during
2006, a budget modification will be required.
3. Other Service Improvements. A number of other transit service improvements were
studied during the course of the TDP. The service improvements are dissimilar in that some
of them would benefit existing riders and some would be expected to attract new riders to
the JEFFTRAN system. Prioritizing possible transit service improvements that have benefits
that accrue to different population groups is sometimes difficult and depends on the
objectives of the community. The availability of additional funding is also an important
consideration.
The following table shows the service improvements within Jefferson City based on the
TDP's stated objectives, an interpretation of public input, and input from city staff and the
TDP Steering Committee. The list is in priority order as developed during the TDP and the
timing is a suggestion for the purpose of creating a 5-year program. It is important to note
that these are priorities developed by the consultant team based on an interpretation by the
consultant of the various inputs.
Table 26: Service Improvement Program
Service Modification Timing Net Cost
Move Transfer Center and Spring 2006 $99,000
Add Downtown Circulator #1
Extend Service to 6:30 PM Spring 2007 $134,000
Establish Evening Service Fall2008 $61,000
Establish Saturday Service Fall2008 $68,000
Establish New Capital Mall Rt. Spring 2009 $130,000
Establish Downtown Circulator #2 Spring 2010 $267,000
Establish Express Routes Sprina 2011 $104,000
Currently JEFFTRAN does not operate service on ten City holidays. It would inconvenience
significantly fewer transit users if JEFTRAN did not operate service on only the following six
"major" holidays, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving Day and Christmas.
48
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcb2006
It is recommended that the city move forward with steps to improve transit service during the
next five years. The recommendations in Table 26 can serve as a starting point for these
future deliberations.
4. Consider transit service improvements beyond current service area. Although the
demand analysis concluded that there is not a large need for transit service currently in
parts of the metropolitan area outside Jefferson City, increases in population will add to the
need in coming years.
Other communities may approach Jefferson City for inclusion in the transit system. As such,
the City should evaluate the feasibility of creating a transit authority, although this is
recommended as a longer term consideration.
The following are services that were evaluated serving areas outside Jefferson City. The
West Area, Holts Summit, Algoa, and the Southwest Area were all evaluated for transit
service and several potential service concepts were designed to serve each of these areas.
Holts Summit and portions of the West Area and the Southwest Area are outside the
Jefferson City Corporate Limits.
Two basic service types were evaluated, fixed route service designed for commuters and
flexible route services intended to serve a broader transportation function. Table 27 shows
the services that would serve areas outside Jefferson City, entirely or in part, along with
estimated costs.
Table 27: Service Expansion Program
Service Expansion -New
Services
West Area Flex Route
West Area Express
Holts Summit Flex Route
Holts Summit Express
Algoa Area Shuttle
Southwest Area Flex Route
Net Cost
$129,000
$53,000
$128,000
$51,000
$130,000
$130,000
At the time the City decides to extend transit service beyond the areas now served by the fixed
route system, it is recommended that flexible route service be used rather than fixed route
service. During the TDP, flexible services were evaluated for application in lower density
suburban areas. None of the areas other than those currently served by fixed routes have a
population density or other characteristics typically required to support fixed route services.
Flexible route services have been shown to be an effective way to serve lower density areas
based on the experience in other metropolitan areas.
6.3 Paratransit Service
Overall Handi Wheels is a well run operation that provides good service to the mobility limited
residents of Jefferson City. The following are conclusions and recommendations based on the
evaluation of J EFFTRAN Handi Wheels paratra nsit service.
49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
1. ADA Compliance and Procedures. Based on a cursory review, Handi Wheels is compliant
with the pertinent provisions of the ADA complementary paratransit service requirements.
JEFFTRAN should continue to monitor compliance matters, and be alert to comments and
inquiries from the public and passengers that may indicate a developing problem in this
regard.
2. Paratransit Service Expansion and Funding. Proposed service expansion in the fixed
route service will require parallel increases in Handi Wheels service, particularly regarding
the length of the service day . JEFFTRAN needs to be able to respond to these changes,
particularly as the changes affect the scheduling of drivers and dispatch personnel.
JEFFTRAN will change from a one shift weekday operation to a two shift operation,
potentially with weekend service. This will require JEFFTRAN to modify work practices
related to driver assignments as necess ary to cover the longer service day .
As demand for Handi Wheels service continues to grow there will be increased pressure on
JEFFTRAN to deliver timely service. Handi Wheels' passenger per hour statistic is already
high and scheduling is difficult during the peak times. Currently Handi Wheels is operating
at nearly five passengers per hour with an increase to nearly six passengers per hour by
2011. Several changes in practice are suggested:
• JEFFTRAN should institute a practice to negotiate trip times to move trips away from
the peak time. This is allowable under ADA regulations and can be used as a tool to
better balance supply and demand in transit operations.
• JEFFTRAN should work with agencies and organizations that serve mobility limited
individuals to schedule services in a manner that reduces the peaking that is
currently present.
• JEFFTRAN should begin a program to encourage individuals to use the fixed route
service instead of Handi Wheels. The new Gillig low floor buses are much easier for
persons in wheelchairs to use. Improved fixed route schedule information, travel
training and fare incentives are among the methods that can be used to move some
trips to fixed route.
• JEFFTRAN must consider additional service if demand for Handi Wheels continues
to grow. Additional service will add to both capital and operating expenses.
These procedural changes may reduce the increase in demand. An increase in Handi
Wheels service should be expected by 201 0 if the increase in demand is not reversed.
In recent years Handi Wheels has benefited from a significant increase in funding from the
Non-Emergency Medical Transportation and Medicaid Waiver programs. This has reduced
the need for City funding and has helped fund an increase in paratransit ridership. With the
possibility of funding reductions in these programs, Handi Wheels is vulnerable to reduced
funding which would trigger a need for service reductions or increased City funding. The
City Council and JEFFTRAN should be aware of this situation and be prepared to respond
in an appropriate manner, if necessary.
3. Regional Paratranslt Service Planning. JEFFTRAN should take the lead and begin to
prepare for work on the Coordinated Human Services-Public Transit Transportation Plan.
This will be required in 2007 to access the New Freedom funding program. In addition, this
work will give the City an opportunity to assess the need for paratransit services in other
parts of the metropolitan area.
50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
6.4 Passenger Fares
March 2006
It is recommended that the city move forward to increase the base fare to $.75 effective in 2006.
The increase in fare will generate some additional revenue to help cover the cost of the
recommended service improvements. It is recommended that the fare increase be made
effective at the same time the service improvements are made to emphasize the point that
transit users are realizing a benefit for the higher fares.
It is also recommended that the city consider an additional fare increase within three years to
increase the base fare to $1.00. This additional fare increase will generate additional revenue
to help cover the cost of other service improvements. The evaluation should look carefully at
the effect the fare increase to $. 75 has on ridership.
6.5 Capita/Improvements
Jefferson City has a history of investing in capital improvements required to keep the transit
system functioning efficiently. This practice should continue with the following
recommendations.
1. Bus Replacement. JEFFTRAN's revenue vehicle fleet is relatively new and well-
maintained, a requisite for maintaining ridership. JEFFTRAN should continue to replace
revenue vehicles on a schedule of replacing them on or near their expected life. During
2005 JEFFTRAN received five new low floor buses. JEFFTRAN will receive three more new
low floor buses in 2006. These new vehicles are rated as heavy duty transit buses with a 12
year life. The purchase of heavy duty buses is a departure from the recent practice of
purchasing medium duty buses. It is recommended that JEFFTRAN continue the practice of
using heavy duty low floor transit buses on all fixed route services, including the state
shuttles.
Cost and Timing: Table 22, shown earlier in section 5.3.2 of this report, shows the bus
replacement schedule and estimated costs as documented in the bus replacement program
technical memorandum.
The table shows that, in 2007, JEFFTRAN will need to add one heavy duty bus for the new
downtown shuttle (Downtown Circulator #1) route. Other buses shown in the table are for
replacement of buses used to provide ex isting service.
Bus replacement is eligible for 80 percent federal funding.
2. Passenger Facilities. The transfer location at Jefferson Street and High Street is an
important feature of the JEFFTRAN Fixed Route System. Due to physical constraints this
location is posing increasing operating problems for JEFFTRAN. It is recommended that in
the near term the transfer location be moved to the city bus station at 620 West McCarty
Street. This facility, currently owned by the city, will require some upgrading and
modifications to make it suitable for use as the downtown transit center.
Cost: It is estimated that the necessary site and building improvements can be
accomplished for $62,000. This type of project is eligible for 80 percent federal funding.
The City will incur some increase in operating costs resulting from operating and maintaining
the building. These costs have not been estimated, but are expected to be minimal.
Additional staffing costs are not anticipated.
51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marcb2006
Timing: If the City moves quickly to have the site modifications completed, the Transfer
Center at 620 West McCarty Street could be avail able for service in 2006 .
Although it was concluded that a move to the bus station would resolve current operating
problems and also provide an indoor waiting area for passengers, th is does not represent
the best solution for the transfer center relocation. For the longer term it is recommended
that a new transit center be constructed in the downtown core. The location in the core of
downtown is critical to being able to serve key employment and civic destinations, provide
access to downtown businesses and maintain transit's central role in the community.
Cost: A new transit center would require about an acre of land and cost an estimated
$700,000 to develop. The cost of land is not included in the cost estimate. This type of
project is eligible for 80 percent federal funding.
Timing: Development of a new transit center would require at least four to five years for total
project development. This amount of time is needed to secure funding, select a site , design ,
and do other work that would be required.
3. Passenger Shelters. JEFFTRAN has a number of bus passenger shelters located at key
bus stops around the system. Bus shelters are popular with bus passengers and are a
relatively inexpensive improvement. It is recommended that the City continue the program
of locating bus passenger shelters at key bus stops. Four passenger shelters were
programmed for the Fiscal Year 2005 capital program.
Cost: The type of shelters used by JEFFTRAN cost approximately $6,5 00 apiece.
Timing: A reasonable program is to purchase and install four passenger shelters every other
year. JEFFTRAN should include the identification of key stops based on boardings in its
planning program.
4. Operating and Maintenance Facilities. The Charles E. Robinson Transit Maintenance
Facility was found to be in good physical condition, although the site is constrained. The
combination of buildings is generally well organized on the site. The five-year program for
transit service improvements requires an increase in the fleet size of one bus. The City has
considered moving central maintenance from the transit facility. This would relieve
congestion at the complex, and provide some space for expansion. Because the facility is
of an age that major structural elements require attention, the short range program should
include these improvements. The basic structure is expected to serve well for many years
to come if sufficient and ongoing maintenance is provided.
• The buildings are approximately 20 years old, a significant milestone in the life of pre-
finished roof and wall panels which typically have 20 year finish warranties. The
buildings appear to have been well maintained however they are at an age where the
exterior envelop should receive a significant program of preventative maintenance and
repair to prevent premature building decay including a water tightness check at roof
penetrations and transitions, major joints, flashings, louvers, window and door frames.
HVAC systems should be inspected and replacement systems planned and budgeted
when needed.
52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report March2006
Cost: The cost of a full inspection and renovation is estimated at $300,000 . The results of
the inspection will provide a more detailed estimate of the renovation cost.
Timing: This action should be pursued during the next 5-year program. For programming
purposes this is assumed to be 2008 .
The following additional recommendations for improvement are offered:
• The Transit Facility site is fully developed with limited opportunity for expansion or
property acquisition. Long range planning should address how anticipated growth in
transit and City activities can be accommodated.
• The shared use of maintenance, fueling and wash facilities increases traffic through the
transit facility site. Facilities to service and maintain Transit and City Fleets will need to
expand as the fleets grow. Options to increase capacity include expanding existing
facilities, creating new facilities and separating services of specialized vehicles to
specific sites.
• The property has limited area available for yard storage of out of season equipment, bus
shelters and bulk material storage. Short term provisions for expansion should be
pursued such as the feasibility of yard storage on city property on the north side of Miller
Street and relocation of central maintenance.
Other recommendations are included in the Operating and Maintenance Facility Evaluation
report.
6.6 Driver and Supervisory Staffing
Based on a review of driver, dispatcher and supervisory staffing levels, the following
recommendations were made:
Current Service Levels. The conclusion is that JEFFTRAN staffing should be increased by one
supervisor, one dispatcher and two drivers to cover current levels of service and hours of
operation. This is based on the evaluation of staffing needs. These additions should not result
in significantly higher costs because the new positions would reduce overtime in the division,
thus offsetting the cost of the new positi ons.
Service Expansion. Another conclusion is that staffing will have to be increased if the
recommendation to increase service and expand service hours is accepted. The addition of the
downtown shuttle as part of the reconfiguration of routes for the relocation of the transfer center
requires one additional driver position. The expansion of weekday service hours will require the
equivalent of at least one additional driver.
6. 7 Marketing
Currently, JEFFTRAN has no formal marketing program. Information provided to the public is
basic and somewhat limited. A rider's guide is available and rider information is available on the
City's web site. The route maps and schedules in the rider's guide should be redesigned to be
clearer. Beyond printed and web based information, little other material is provided to riders.
Further, there is no Mspecial event" marketing efforts and no advertising .
53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report
A marketing plan was developed and includes the following recomm endations:
March2006
1. Improved Rider Information. Revise the public information to provide individual route
schedules and one system map.
2. Institutional Partnerships. Develop an employer pass subsidy program, a university pass
program and a summer youth pass .
3. Marketing Program Implementation. Hire a part time staff person to develop and
implement the marketing strategies.
The Marketing Plan provides additional recommendations for JEFFTRAN's consideration.
Cost: The annual cost to implement all of the strategies is approximately $52,000.
Timing: The rider's guide should be revised as soon as practical. A target should be to have
the information materials redesigned for the service modifications planned for June or July
2006. The other recommendations should be implemented as time and budget allows. A
part time marketing coordinator shou ld be retained beginning 2007.
6.8 Long Range Planning
The TDP focused primarily on the short term with the objective of developing a five year transit
improvement program . However, consideration was also given to longer term actions and
strategies. Because of the uncertainty of how the transit system will develop over the next five
years these long range considerations are not offered as recommendations. Rather these are
ideas that should be considered by JEFFTRAN and others at the City during the next several
years.
1. Further Service Improvements and Expansion. The TDP evaluated a number of transit
service expansion projects that could be considered for the longer term . These include:
• Expansion of service to seven days per week, with evening service at least until
10:00 PM on core routes
• Improved service to 15-minute frequencies and 30-minute midday service on higher
ridership core routes
• Implementation of commuter related services (e.g., express routes)
• Service to future growth areas using flexible ty pe routes.
Even though anticipated population growth in the outlying parts of the metropolitan area
does not appear to change the conclusion that these areas will not have significant transit
need, the region should consider service policies that set standards for transit service
availability.
An important consideration for future service expansion is the success of service expansion
made during the upcoming 5-year period. These service improvements should be
monitored closely to see how the community responds. The experience with these initial
service modifications will provide valuable insight in designing the next program of
improvements.
54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Final Report Marchl006
2. Operating and Maintenance Facility Expansion. As previously stated the current facilities
were found to be adequate for the current operation and the service expansion that is likely
to occur during the next five years. However, if JEFFTRAN grows significantly, the existing
facility will be inadequate in terms of vehicle storage, maintenance and servicing and
accommodations for staff. At this time the current facility would have to be expanded, or a
new facility would have to be developed.
Space on site is limited thus expansion would have to occur at a different location.
A new facility would likely cost in the range of $5 million to $7 million and require four to five
acres.
If JEFFTRAN grows to a point that the bus fleet exceeds 30 vehicles facility expansion plans
need to be prepared. A detailed facility feasibility would be required at that time to
determine the specific needs and preferred approach to providing more capacity.
3. Modifications to the structure, governance and funding of the transit system.
JEFFTRAN functions very well as a City division and this structure should allow the flexibility
to accomplish virtually all of the changes and improvements discussed during the course of
the TOP. However, communities usually consider changing from a city department to a
transit authority when transit services expand significantly beyond the core city's
boundaries. Transit authorities typically have an independent governing body and are
empowered to provide service and develop transit-related improvements throughout a
designated metropolitan area irrespective of municipal boundaries.
As the scope of JEFFTRAN's business expands beyond Jefferson City this step should be
considered.
Transit agencies in larger metropolitan areas may have a dedicated source of funding
specifically for transit. A dedicated funding source usually allows more predictability and
stability, thus making planning for future improvements easier. This important step also
should be considered in the future as transit grows in the metropolitan ar ea.
55
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2:
Data Inventory
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Prepared for
CITY OF JEFFERSON
Prepared by
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Phone: (816) 329-8600
In Association with
ETC Institute
T J Brown and Associates
March 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Table of Contents
Marcb 2006
LIST OF TABLES •••••..•••••••...•..•........•.•....••........•.••...•.•.•••.•......••..•............•........•.•...•...•.•••...........• 11
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 111
SECTION 1 : INTRODUCTION •.............•...........•.•........................••........•.............••••....•....•••..••.. 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY AREA DATA INVENTORY ................................................................... 1
1.2 HISTORY OF TRANSIT IN JEFFERSON CITY ........................................................................ 1
1.3 JEFFTRAN ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................ 1
1.4 OVERVIEW OF REPORT ................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2 : DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................. 3
2.1 POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS (CENSUS DATA) ................................................................ 3
2.2 EMPLOYMENT ............................................................................................................... 13
2.3 GROWTH FORECASTS ................................................................................................... 13
2.4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRIP GENERATORS AND ATTRACTIONS .................................. 13
SECTION 3 : EXISTING FIXED ROUTE SERVICE .................................................................. 18
3.1 CURRENT FIXED ROUTE STRUCTURE ............................................................................. 18
3.2 SCHEDULES .................................................................................................................. 18
3.3 TIME CHECK ................................................................................................................. 24
3.4 TRANSFERS .................................................................................................................. 24
SECTION 4: EXISTING PARATRANSIT SERVICE ................................................................ 26
SECTION 5 : PASSENGER COUNT ........................................................................................ 27
5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 27
5.2 DATA AND MAPS ........................................................................................................... 27
5.3 RIDERSHIP TRENDS ....................................................................................................... 42
SECTION 6: PASSENGER SURVEY ................••........•••••...............................•••.•.....•...•••.•.••.. 44
6.1 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 44
6.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSIT PASSENGERS ................................................................ 44
6.3 MAJOR FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 44
SECTION 7: PEER AGENCIES ............................................................................................... 48
7.1 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 48
List of Tables
Table 1: Population Projections .................................................................................................. 13
Table 2: List of Possible Transit Generators ............................................................................... 15
Table 3: Route Schedules ........................................................................................................... 22
Table 4 Time CheckS ummary ................................................................................................... 24
Table 5: Transfer Count Summary .............................................................................................. 25
Table 6: Fixed Route Daily Ridership ......................................................................................... 27
Table 7: Daily Ridership History .................................................................................................. 42
Table 8: Regional Peer Agency System Comparison ................................................................. 48
Table 9: National Peer Agency System Comparison .................................................................. 48
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
List of Figures
March 2006
Figure 1 : Population Density ......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Housing Unit Density ..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Percentage of Population Age 65 and Older ................................................................. 7
Figure 4: Percentage of Population Age 10 to 15 ......................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Median Household Income ............................................................................................ 9
Figure 6 : Percentage of Population below Poverty Level ........................................................... 10
Figure 7: No Vehicle Available .................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8: Percentage of Persons with a Disability ...................................................................... 12
Figure 9: Employment Density .................................................................................................... 14
Figure 1 0: Regular Transit Routes .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 11: Commuter School Tripper Routes ............................................................................. 20
Figure 12: Shuttle Routes ........................................................................................................... 21
Figure 13: Capital Mall Outbound On/Off .................................................................................... 28
Figure 14: Capital Mall Inbound On/Off ...................................................................................... 29
Figure 15: Missouri Boulevard Outbound On/Off ........................................................................ 30
Figure 16: Missouri Boulevard Inbound On/Off ........................................................................... 31
Figure 17: Southwest Outbound On/Off ...................................................................................... 32
Figure 18: Southwest Inbound On/Off ........................................................................................ 33
Figure 19: High Street East Outbound On/Off ............................................................................. 34
Figure 20: High Street East Inbound On/Off ............................................................................... 35
Figure 21: High Street West Outbound On/Off ........................................................................... 36
Figure 22: High Street West Inbound On/Off .............................................................................. 37
Figure 23: Renn Addition Outbound On/Off ................................................................................ 38
Figure 24: Renn Addition Inbound On/Off ................................................................................... 39
Figure 25: Business 50 East Outbound On/Off ........................................................................... 40
Figure 26: Business 50 East Inbound On/Off ............................................................................. 41
Figure 27: Daily Ridership Trends .............................................................................................. 43
Figure 28: Transit Survey System Rating .................................................................................. .45
Figure 29: Transit Survey Suggested Improvements ................................................................. .46
Figure 30: Trip Purpose .............................................................................................................. 46
Figure 31: Proportion of Transit Dependent to Choice Riders ................................................... .47
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Study Area Data Inventory
March 2006
Information on the transit system, its facilities, passengers, the service area and attitudes in the
community was assembled for the Jefferson City Transit Development Plan . The purpose was
to collect and assemble baseline data that was thorough and of sufficient detail in order to
effectively develop future transit improvement alternatives .
The data in this report provide a complete foundation for the study . It summarizes transit service
in Jefferson City, including fixed route and paratransit, and includes an overview of the
organizational structure and history of transit in the City. This report summarizes all baseline
demographic, socioeconomic, land use, transportation, and other data collected for the study.
The report also summarizes the results of the assessment of existing transit facilities and
includes pertinent information gathered from interviews or group meetings.
1.2 History of Transit in Jefferson City
JEFFTRAN had been a "rural system" according to FTA program guidelines because the
population of the urban area was under 50,000, As a practical matter this meant that
JEFFTRAN received funding from FT A's rural program, particularly Section 5311 funding.
In the 2000 US Census the population of the Jefferson City urbanized area (UZA) was
determined to be above 50,000 thus Jefferson became a small urban system. As a small urban
system FTA formula funding is through FTA's 5307 program. In addition there are a number of
FTA requirements that are somewhat more stringent for urban areas. JEFFTRAN also receives
capital funding from FT A.
1.3 JEFFTRAN Organization
The Jefferson City Transit Division is responsible for providing convenient, reliable, comfortable,
accessible, and safe transportation for the citizens and visitors of Jefferson City . The Jefferson
City Transit System operates fixed route transit service and paratransit service -Handi Wheels,
for people with dis abilities .
The Jefferson City Transit Division is commonly referred to as "JEFFTRAN ." JEFFTRAN is a
division of the City's Department of Community Development. Janice 0. McMillan, AICP,
Deputy Director for Planning and Transportation Services for the Department of Community
Development has responsibility for JEFFTRAN. Richard Turner, Division Director directly
responsible for JEFFTRAN operations. The Division is managed by the Division Director, Mr.
Turner, two operations assistants and two dispatchers.
As a City division, JEFFTRAN is accountable to the City Council through the Department of
Community Development and receives funding for capital and operations at the discretion of the
City Council. JE FFTRAN receives operating assistance (FTA Section 5307) directly from the
Federal Transit Administration. JEFFTRAN also receives transit operating assistance through
the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and MoDOT administers federal transit
capital project grants on JEFFTRAN's behalf.
1.4 Overview of Report
This report documents the information collected for the Jefferson City Transit Development
Plan. The data includes population demographics, a description of current transit service, an
inventory of the existing facilities and fleet, details from the on/off count and passenger survey,
and peer agency statistics.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory March 2006
Section 2 provides demographic information collected for the study including census and
employment data, growth forecasts, and existi ng and proposed trip generators and attractions .
Section 3 provides details regarding the existing fixed route service.
Section 4 gives a summary of the existing paratransit service.
Section 5 gives information compiled from the on/off count which was conducted as part of the
study.
Section 6 presents an overview of the passenger survey which was conducted at the beginning
of the study.
Section 7 provides information from a peer agency comparison.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Section 2: Demographics
March 2006
This section is a compilation of the demographic data assembled for the Transit Development
Plan. The data includes population demographics, employment data, growth forecasts and a
list of existing and proposed transit trip generators.
2.1 Population Demographics (Census Data)
Census 2000 block group data was compiled from various data fields for the study area. The
following sections describe each of the census data categories.
Population Density
Population density is measured in terms of people per square mile. Generally, the higher the
density, the better it is for transit. Figure 1 shows the higher density areas in darker shades
while sparsely populated areas are in lighter shades. As seen, the densest parts of the urban
area are towards its core . For the most part, current routes serve high density areas . However,
some routes serve lower density areas of the community.
Housi nq Density
Figure 2 shows housing density per square mile. Similar to the population density display, the
denser the housing units per square mile, the more favorable are the conditions to generating
transit ridership.
The current system does a good job in serving areas with high housi ng densities.
Senior Citizen Population
Figure 3 shows the locations of people who are 65 years of age and older. Typically, these
senior citizens can be a good market for transit to serve. The figure shows in the darkest
shades those areas that are above this average. The current route structure serves some areas
with high percentage of senior citizens well while other areas are not served as well.
Youth Population
Figure 4 shows the locations of people who are between 10 and 15 years of age. Youth data
was compiled for viewing although it is not typically used as a transit indicator. The figure
shows that the darkest shades are outside the transit service area. Several of the school
trippers do provide service to areas with higher concentrations of youth.
Household Income and Poverty Status
Among the most important factors in determining transit need are household income and
poverty status. For most communities, the most common reason for using transit i s the lack of a
private vehicle. Automobile ownership and household income have an inverse relationship with
transit usage; automobile ownership is often used as a surrogate measure of income.
Identifying low income areas can help determine where service is needed . Figure 5 and Figure
6 respectively show "low income" and "below poverty level" populations. The locations with the
high concentrations of low income or below poverty level households are in darker shades . All
of the routes serve these low income areas well .
Vehicle Availability
Figure 7 shows the percentage of housing units with no vehicle available. These "automobile-
less" housing units are good markets because transit serves people with no other means of
travel. The three darkest shades in the figure show areas of the community above average
concentrations of housing units without vehicles. The areas with the most housing units without
T~TEMS Ji\\\ 3
c-:<:JRPC>RA T/C>IV 9 .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory March2006
vehicles tend to be concentrated in the core of each city. Most of the current routes serve this
core area.
Disability
Figure 8 shows the locations of people with disabilities. 1 This data was compiled for viewing
although it is not typically used as a transit indicator. The areas with higher concentrations of
persons with disabilities within the urbanized area are being served well by the current transit
routes .
Summary
In general, current routes serve the areas of the community most in need of transit. The elderly
and low income areas (including housing units without vehicles) generally are served by the
current route structure. Therefore, from a demographic perspective JEFFTRAN is generally
well positioned.
1 The Census asked if the individual had a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or
more that made it difficult to perform certain activities. The four activity categories were: (a) learning,
remembering, or concentrating (mental disability); (b) dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the
home (self-care disability); (c) going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office (going
outside the home disability); and (d) working at a job or business (employment disability). Individuals
were classified as having a disability if any of the following three conditions were true: (1) they were 5
years old and over and had a response of "yes" to a sensory, physical, mental or self-care disability; (2)
they were 16 years old and over and had a response of "yes" to going outside the home disability; or (3)
they were 16 to 64 years old and had a response of "yes" to employment disability.
4
------------
Jefferson City T ransit Development Plan
S tady Area Data Iaveatory
Jefferson City
Transit Development Pla n
Legend
-Regular Transit Routes
-ConYT'AIIer Transil Routes
C.:'J Adjusted Urbanized hea
City Boundary
Population Density In Penon~
.,..SquareMie
10 ·400
401 . 1,000
-1,001 ·3 .000
-3.001 ·4 .500
., Q ·--4 ,501 . 6 .000
---6 ,001 • 16.352
~·+· c:::cno "C"JJ<Anc~ .a.
!r , \
"
i
... ~ ~·
Figure 1: Population Density
,(
' r
----
'•'-""•
~
\
"'-,
---
March2006
5
-----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stlldy Area Data Inveatory
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
L.nd
--Regular Transit Routes
-Con-muter Transit Routes
;:;:;Adjusted UrbaniZed Atea
Cjy Boundarv
------
Figure 2: Housing Unit Density
....
SI:MC41 CM'l'WS 2Q)O Block Gtoup Oat11 -,
~·+ c::;)cr>r"<".X'l'A~ A
I
!r \
i
.c.,
" .~ 1=
~-
(
T~
c--~A TI~IV
--
\
l
--
....... ,,
~
\ .,
---
March 2006
6
------
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
------
Figure 3: Percentage of Population Age 65 and Older
Jeffer son City
Transit Development Plan Perc ont.>g • o1 Population Age &6
Legend and Older
--Regular Transit Routes 0·9% • 4·8%
-Cornruter Transit Routes 4.9% • 9.9%
r~AdJU$IGd UrbaniZed Area [ _J 10.0'l'o • 15 .4%
City Boundary -15.5%-25%
t H 0 , .. ., -25.1%·41.1% --
~·+· ~ATIC>N-
-----
March 2006
7
------
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data Inventory
-------
Figure 4: Percentage of Population Age 10 to 15
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan Pefcent.lge of Population
Legend "••10te 1C
--Regular Transft Routes O% • 2.0%
-eomruter Transit Routes 2.1% • 5.7%
l..jAdjU$1ed Urbanized Area [-5.8% • 8.0%
Cily Boundary -8.1% • 9.7%
' 0~ • ·--9.8%-11 .8%
---11.7<:1.. 13.2%
~·+· C:::.::..:r~Y~~A·~ A '
-----
March 2006
~ 8
L....cA?~ATIC>N i
-----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stud y Area Data Inventory
-----
Figure 5: Median Household Income
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Leo-!
-Regular Transit Routes
-Coii"'I'Uer Transit Routes
0 AdJusted UrbaniZed IVea
City Boundary
rn o fMin
ModiMI Household lnco-
-$0.00 -$21.875.00
-$:! 1.875.01 • $34 .~.00
$34,643.01 • $47 .083.00
$47.083.01.$57.104 .00
$57,104 .0 1 ·$73.542.00
M M Sou!'c•. Cenaua, 2CnO 8lo<:k Ckoup DaD
~-+· C::Cx ... "="::N~A11C::Ji".J b
------
March 2006
.. ...,
9
------
J efferson City Tra nsit Development Plan
Stady Area Data Inveotory
------
Figure 6: Percentage of Population below Poverty Lev el
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan Percentage ot Population Whose
Legend .,c.,... IS .,_ l'ov.ny Lo,..
--Regular Tran sl Routes
0%·2 .0%
-Corrrnlter Transit Routes 2.1% • 5 .8 %
r.:.'J Adjusted Urbanized Area L' 5.9% ·10.1%
Ciy Boundary -10.2%. 30.9%
'-~=·~-~~·~~~~~=-~--,.--3 1.0%-49.1%
-, SoY<co C....uo :!000 Bloc~ Gre>up D""'
~ C....C.:W .. liC'~~;"\TK~ ·+·
I s, '
~
T~
~Anc:>N '
----
March 2006
i. \
'
10
---
Jefferson City Transit Development Pla n
S tudy Area Data IDven tory
--
Figure 7: No Vehicle Available
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Legend
Perc entage of Occupied Hous1119
UnK~ wUh Nv 'Vvl•kJe Av••aU•
--Regular Tran5it Routes 0% • 2.9%
-Colm'Uer Tran5it Routes 3.0%-7.1%
C:'JAdjusted Urbanized Area C"""1 7.2% • 12.a•1o
City Boundary -12.0%. 25.3'~'•
•• • ·--25.4%-46 .6% --~·+ C::.::::n•>r.Jt?ATICJN &
i ..,
·"' Iii
""
T~
C~A ne?N .
-
j
-
...
\{
11
\ ~
March2006
\
11
--
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data laveatory
---
Figure 8: Percentage of Persons with a Disability
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan P.rcentag• or Person~ with a
Leoencf Dlo..,lllty
--Regular Tn1nsit Routes 0%-13.0%
-COO"II'IIIer Transit Routes 13.1%-21 .0%
r.:'J Adjusted UrbaniZed />lea r 21.1%-20.8%
Cily Boundary -26.9% -33.0.,..
I O' 0 1--3J.1o/o •57,Jo/o ~-~~-~~~~~---:-.--57.4il.-86.5%
-
Marc:b 2006
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory March2006
2.2 Employment
Employment data provided by City staff was compiled by census block group and mapped as
shown in Figure 9.
2.3 Growth Forecasts
Population projection data was provided by the city and is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Population Projections
Projected population change+
2000 2005 2010 2020 2030
Holts Summit 2,935 3,001 3,749 4,683 5,850
Lake Mykee 326 336 348 370 392
St Martins 1,023 1,073 1,335 1,701 2,166
Jefferson City 39,636 42,072 45,193 50,919 57,370
Cole County* 71,397 75,680 80,179 90,041 101,116
*Includes populations of all Cole County cities.
tease year is U.S. Census 2000 data. Projections provided by the city based on
current annual growth rates.
2.4 Existing and Proposed Trip Generators and Attractions
The study team generated a list of existing land uses that could generate transit demand within
the study area. City staff expanded this list to include the land uses shown in Table 2. The list
also shows which locations are already being served by transi t.
13
-----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Iaventory
------
Figure 9: Employment Density
Jefferson City Employment Density 1n
Trans it Development Plan &m~tlo-.,., SQuare Mil•
Legend 0 • 400
--Regular Transit Routes 401 • I ,000
-Comrruter Transit Routes r 1.()01 . 3.000
r.,:jAd)usted UrbantZed l'lea -:J.OU I. 4.500
C'r Boundary -4.501 • 6 .000
M •• • •-• -e .OOI -3 1 .22~
T~ ·+· C~ 7 ..y 1t'" )I~ATK:Yo./ •
~
"
,.¢'~'
n'"'! qfo ~: ,... ...
~~ r, -a,
i
T~
~A TJC>tv :
...,
1
' -.... '
.. c:-
l
----
March 2006
SlW,'ft
\t ·~
.~
~ h
14
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory March 2006
Table 2: List of Possible Transit Generators
Probable traffic Currant
Type Name Address generation scale Transit
La !Be Medium Small Service
Shopping Malls CapHal Mall 3600 Country Club Or. X X
Kmart 2304 Missouri Blvd . X X
Target 735 W. Stadium Blvd . X X
Wildwood Crossings 3535 Missouri Blvd . X X
Jefferson Shopping center 1406 Missouri Blvd. X X
Mart Shopping Center 2305 Missouri Blvd . X X
I Wai-Mart 724 W. Stadium Blvd . X X
Groceries Gerbes Family Shopp ing Center East 1226 E. McCarty St. X X
Gerbes Family Shopping Center West 2805 W. Truman X X
Gerbes Super Store 2101 Schotthill Woods Or. X X
I Mosers 2411 Missouri Blvd . X X
Rainbow Market 4404 Rainbow Or. X
Schnucks Supenmarkets 1801 Missouri Blvd. X X
SchuHe's Fresh Foods 1904 Southwest Blvd . X X
HyVee 3721 West Truman Blvd . X X
I Wai-Mart 724 W. Stadium Blvd . X X
HospHals & CapHal Region Medical Center 1125 Madison St. X X
Medical Centers GapHal Region Medical Center 1500 Southwest Boulevard X X
CapHal HeaHh Network 1411 Southwest Blvd . X X
I Central Medical Park-surg ica l Cente r 1705 Christy Or. X X
St. Mary's HeaHh Center 100 St. Mary's Medical Plz X X
Jefferson City Medical Group 1241 W. Stadium Blvd . X X
Cole County HeaHh 1616 Industrial Or. X
I Cole County HeaHh 398 Oix Rd X
Schools Elementary Administration 315 E. Dunklin X X
Belair Elementary Home 701 Belair Drive X X
Cedar Hill Elementary 1510 VeHh Or. X
I East Elementary 1229 E. Mccarty St. X X
Lawson Elementary 1105 Fairgrounds Road X
Moreau Heights Elementary 1410 Hough Park X X
South Elementary 707 Linden Drive X X
Southwest Elementary 812 St. Mary's Blvd . X X
I Thorpe Gordon Elementary 11 01 Jackson X
West Elementary 100 Oix Road X X
Schools Middle Lewis and Clark Middle School 325 Lewis and Clar!( Drive X
Thomas Jefferson Middle School 1201 F alrgrounds Rd X
I Simonsen 9th Grade Center 501 E. Miller St. X X
Schools High Jefferson City High School 609 Union Street X
Hallas High School 1305 Swift's Highway X X
I Other Schools Nichols Career Center 605 Union Street X
Special Laming Center 1115 F alrgrounds Road X
H. Kenneth Kirchner State School 1403 Riverside Drive X
AduH Basic Education 214 E. Miller X X
Trinity Lutheran 812 Stadium Blvd. X X
I St. Peters School 314 W . High St. X X
Immaculate Conception School 1208 E. McCarty St. X X
St. Joseph Cathedral 2303 West Main St X X
Montessori School 900 MOI8au Or. X X
I Table Continues/
I 15
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory March2006
/Table Continued
I Probllbl4t tramc generation Currently
Type Name Address scale Served by
La!lle Medium Small Transit
Trade/Industrial Immanuel Honey Creek Learning Center 8231 Tanner Bridge Rd . X
I Univers~ies and Colleges Columbia College 3314 Emerald Ln X X
Lincoln Univers~y 820 Chestnut St. X X
William Woods UniversHy 3405 W. Truman Blvd . X X
Metro Business College 1407 Southwest Blvd . X X
I Merrell Univers~y of Beauty Arts and Science 1101 Southwest Boulevard X X
Government Offices C~Hall 320 E. McCarty X X
State Cap~al Building X X
State Office Building 301 W. High St. X X
I Cole County Courthouse 301 E. High St. X X
MO Dept. of Transportation 105 W. CapHol Ave. X X
MO Dept. of Social Services 221 W. High St. X X
MO Dept. of Mental Health 1706 E. Elm St. X X
MO Dept. of Labor 3315 W. Truman Blvd. X X
I MO Dept. of Agirculture 1616 Missouri Blvd. X X
MO Dept. of Conservation 2901 W Truman Blvd . X X
MO Dept. of Natural Resources 1101 Riverside Drive X
MO Dept. of Natural Resources 1738 E Elm X X
MO Dept. of Natural Resources 205 Jefferson St. X X
I MO Dept. of Natural Resources 2710 W. Main St. X
Alcohol & Drug abuse 1706 E. Elm St. X X
Rehab Services for the Blind, Family Support 615 Howerton Ct. X X
Rehab Services for the Blind 21 OC E. High St. X X
Center for Local Public Health Services 912 Wildwood X X
I Center for Developmental Disabil~ies 1706 E. Elm St. X X
Empployment Security 421 E. Dunklin St. X
Health & Senior Services 912 Wildwood X X
State Patrol HQ 1510E. Elm X X
I Prisons Algoa Correctional Center 8501 Fencellne Road X
Jefferson C~y Correctional Center 8200 Fenceline Road X
Social Services Salvation Army Thrift Store 718 Michigan Avenue X X
Hospice Thrift Shop 601 E. High St. X X
I Samar~an Center 1310 E. McCarty 51 . X X
The Salvation Army 927 Jefferson St. X X
Capital Projects, Inc. Sheltered Workshop 2001 E. McCarty St. X X
Jefferson City Day Care 1002 Myrtle Ave. X X
I Head start 605 ChenySt. X X
Special Learning Center 1115 Fairgrounds Rd . X
Agape House 810 E. High X X
Human Development Corporation 230 West Dunklin X X
I Missouri Division of Employment Security 421 E. Dunklin X
Missouri Division of Vocational Rehabil~ation 1500 A Southridge Dr. X X
Advent Enterprises 204D Metro Dr. X X
Capital Region Reaident Clinic 1111 Madison X X
I Senior Nutrition Center 131 0 Linden Drive X X
Senior Nutrition Center 12 Jackson St. X X
Westminster Heritage 1012 Linden Way X X
Goodwll Store 1806 Missouri Blvd. X X
Boys & Girts Clubs 727 E. Elm X X
New Hor1zona Commun~ Service• 2013 William St. X
Cole Countl S~al Service• 1908 Bogga Cr. Rd . X
Table Continues/
I
I 16
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
I Study Area Data Inventory March2006
!Table Continued
I Probable traffic gener.tlon Currently
Type Name Address scale Served by
Lalli! Medium Small Tr.nalt
Retirement F acll~ies -Heisinger Home 1002 W. Main St. X X
Nursing and Assisted Jefferson CHy Manor Care Center 1720 Veith Dr. X
Living Homes Maplewood Residential Center 1827 Crader Dr. X X
Oak Tree Villas 3108 W. Truman Blvd. X X
Oak VIew Skilled Care 1221 Southgate Ln X X
Rayford-Jane House 616 Clark Ave. X X
St. Josephs Home for the Aged 1306W. Main X X
I Westbrook Terrace 3335 N. Ten Mile Dr. X
Summ~Villa 229 Karen Dr. X
Bus and Train Centers Amtrak 101 Jefferson St. X X
Jefferson C~y Trans~ 820E. Miller X X
I Parks Memorial Park 111 Memorial Park Drive X X
Binder Park 5840 Rainbow Dr. X
North Jefferson CHy Recreation Area Cedar CHy X
Ellis Porter/Riverside Park 300 Ellis Porter Dr. X
I McClung Park 930 McClung Park Drive X
McKay Park 1700 Southridge Drive X X
800 to 1200 blocks of Missouri
Washington Park Boulevard X X
Residential Dulle Towers 10 Jackson St. X X
Hyder Apartments 1310 Linden Dr X X
Cole County Residential Services, Inc. 1908 Boggs Creek Road X
Villa Marie 1030 Edmunds X X
1010 Linden X X
I 1022 Linden X X
1210 Linden X X
Group Homes Emmaus House 713 Washington X X
2015 E. McCarty X X
1800 Tanner Bridge Rd. X
Harmony House 901 Swifts Highway X X
374 Eastwood Dr. X X
614 Delaware X X
I Apartment Complexes Broad moor 505 Ellis Blvd. X X
Capbl CHy Apts. 522 E. Elm X X
Colonial West 2111-B Da~on Dr. X X
Cedar Ridge 4904 Charm Ridge Dr. X
Deville Southwest 839 Southwest Blvd. X X
Hidden Oaks 839 Southwest Blvd. X X
Jefferson Heights 1505 Jefferson Heights X X
Jefferson West 810 Wildwood Dr. X X
Senate Court 556 A Senate Ct. X X
Southam Hins 4627 Sheperd Hills Rd. X
I SummHApts. 10931 Evergreen Dr. X
Timberline 2219 Dix Rd. X
Warwick VUiage 2610 Jennifer Dr. X X
Washington Terrace 320 Washington X X
Weathered Rock 833 Weathered Rock X
I Wymore 319 Washington X X
Villa Panorama 900 Southwest Blvd. X X
H~s Summ~ Callaway VIUa 211 w. Simon X
Raintree 215 Northstar Dr X
Schools at Holts Summit North Elementary 285 South Summ~ Drive X
Callawa~ Hills Elemen!!}: 2715 Slllte Road AA X
I
I 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Section 3: Existing Fixed Route Service
Marcb2006
JEFFTRAN currently operates seven regular fixed routes, four commuter school tripper routes
and two state shuttle routes that provide transportation for state employees from state parking
lots.
3.1 Current Fixed Route Structure
The seven fixed routes are shown in Figure 1 0. Figures 11 and 12 show the tripper routes and
shuttle routes respectively. An existing transfer site is centrally located within the downtown
area. Six of the seven fixed routes converge at the transfer location at the same time, as the
routes operate on a "pulse scheduling system." A "pulse" operation has all routes "meeting" at a
common point at the same time. Most of the routes operate in a "loop" pattern, with vehicles
traversing a route in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction. The Missouri Boulevard
and Capital Mall routes actually operate as a single route. The current route structure has been
in place for approximately ten years.
3.2 Schedules
Fixed route service is available from 6:45 AM to 5:45 PM Monday through Friday except
holidays. The JEFFTRAN fixed routes operate on a "pulse" system with all routes except the
Capital Mall route converging at the downtown transfer location at the same time on either 30 or
60 minute intervals. During peak periods all routes operate every 30 minutes. During the
midday, only the Southwest route continues to operate every 30 minutes. Other routes operate
every 60 minutes during the midday. A bus operating along the High Street East and High
Street West routes alternates between routes during the midday. Similarly a bus operating on
the Renn Addition and Business 50 East routes alternates between these two routes during the
midday. Route schedules for the regular fixed routes are shown in Table 3.
The commuter school tripper routes operate one trip per day on school days. The Southside
Morning Route is the only commuter school tripper route that operates in the morning. The
other three commuter school tripper routes operate in the afternoon. The shuttle routes operate
from state parking lots to state office buildings. The shuttles operate between 7:00 a.m. and
5:30 p.m. with the Truman shuttle operating every 7 ~ minutes and the East Side Shuttle
operating every 10 minutes.
18
-
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data bveatory
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Legend • Regulaf Tran!.lt Ro<Ae<i
--Captlal Moll
--~·!Blvd
So<MI-
-Higt> SIJeet EMI
--High SIJeet WHI
--Pt~nACkltlkJO
--eu ...... soe..t
C:J AdJusted l.hb•nized Aff)l
C«y Bounda<y
0.5 0 ·-· --
~
•
.. .,d
,
--
Figure 10: Regular Transit Routes
. ...
'·
...
'
~
II ·~
~
\
~
.:
I .
-
.,
iii ~
~
' .
~r'!"'!~
,,.
~
-
March 2006
19
--
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
---
Figure 11: Commuter School Tripper Routes
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Legend-Commuter Trans~ Routes
-H!Qh S'oet E•st An..moon
-H~on l•~ Ahmoon
-SOUthlldefTan~ 8~ Aftflnoon
-South..,. Mofnl'\9 c::J Adju~ Utbaniled Ar•• .,.. ...,. C.., Boundar,
OS ---, .....
' ·+· T~
c::<:r.>Pc-:r.>A TIC >IV
lr ..
~ ~...:..~
\
L "-~,~
"'~ .. r·-·~ ~-···•·
I ~)!'J L:::~ ..! '. ~-· J ~,;-··-:'! t . ~..... ~. ---~ -· " -.,.,.,--,, '"""'"'"" .eM .. • IJ "-. ~<t-.,.. •
•
~~~
T~JEMS
~A n<-:>tv
...
-~. ' ".
'
March 2006
;
h
.I'
.'
.IHW"M ,---.. -
\i <
~ ,._
~;
~
:"';;
\
.. "-.
20
--
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data luventory
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Legend . Shunle R~es
-Tn~man ShutHe
-EntShutt1e
c::J MJUSled Utbar11zed Area
Ciy EioundO<Y
0' 0 '""-" --~ ~~Ant:.?~'>/
L
~; ,:I
~
' ·+· ~·~ ....
\
.. 1!?,.-
.. (.~~~ ~..N..~'l "f'...:~·T -
' ~:D;'! ~~
T~
~ATK?N :
fL ,~
~-. 5 ,.1 8 :. t .. ....
---
Figure 12: Shuttle Routes
..... ..... ' ........_ .
~ .. ~
~\ y ·":1 1-.
-~ -¥ -
~
-
"'
J
lj
;If'
·~
•7
' .
,.
·--··~~
~,
~
-
March 2006
21
-
Jeffersoa City Traosit Developmeot Plao
Study Area Data IDveatory
Capital Mall
E
::l
'6 cs IV
Ci) 0..
a!! 0.. ·c:
"8 ~
~ a!!
t:: -.::J Gl 0 1111 C) 0 E "0 ~ w ~ -.::J
~ ~
1 2 3
----
7:03AM 7:12AM
7:33AM 7:42AM
8:03AM 8:07AM 8:12AM
8 :33AM 8:37AM 8:42AM
9 :33AM 9:37AM 9:42AM
10:33AM 10:37 AM 10:42AM
11 :33 AM 11 :37 AM 11:42AM
12:33 PM 12:37 PM 12:42 PM
1:33PM 1:37PM 1:42PM
2:33PM 2:37PM 2:42PM
3:03PM 3:07PM 3:12PM
3:33PM 3:37PM 3:42PM
4:03PM 4:07PM 4:12PM
4:33PM 4:37PM 4:42PM
5:03PM 5:07PM 5:12PM
Table Continues/
T~TEAAS~~~PC>RA TIC":>IV .....
t;j
::::!:
~
0..
IU
(.)
4
6 :50AM
7:20AM
7 :50AM
8 :20AM
8:50AM
9:50AM
10:50AM
11:50 AM
12:50 PM
1:50PM
2:50PM
3:50PM
4:50PM
5:50PM
6:50PM
7:50PM
-
f!
~
0 .....
.!? :;
c;; 0
~ a!!
c:
"' ~ .8 E ...
Q) "' (!) I
5 1
6:55AM 6 :41AM
7:23AM 7 :11AM
7:55AM 7:41AM
8:23AM 8:11AM
8:55AM 9:11AM
9:55AM 10:11 AM
10 :55AM 11 :11 AM
11 :55 AM 12 :11 PM
12:55 PM 1:11 PM
1:55PM 2 :11PM
2:55PM 2:41PM
3:23PM 3 :11PM
3:55PM 3:41PM
4:23PM 4:11PM
4 :55PM 4:41PM
5:23PM 5:11PM
------
Marcb 2006
Table 3: Route Schedules
Missouri Boulevard Southwest
IV ~ IV ~ 0.. 0.. II> ·c: II> ·c: .... ~ 0 <( 0
c c c c 0 0 0 0 t! f! f! f! ~ ~ ~ ~ II> II> II> II> ...., ...., ...., ....,
a!! a!! a!! -g a!! --.::J s::. s::. s::. iii 0 s::. 01 01 01 ~ t;j 01 ~ J: J: ~ '5. ~ ~ ~ iii II> c: c: c: 01 "' c: a!! -.::J 0 ·s .!! ·s ·s
II> w I ·s a. a. a. a!! "' a. .... 0.. 01
<( .... .... -.::J -l':' ... .!! .!! .!! ·;:: Q) .!! "' ... t:: Qj "' "' :5 "t: Ill "' c: II> IV ~ c: t:: s::. ::::!: t:: -.::J ::l Q) ~ >-E Ill ~ IU 0 ::l IU .= Ci) ... ..... I ~ ..... ..... en CXl .....
2 3 4 5 2 1 2 3 4 1
6 :45AM 6 :50AM 7:00AM 7:01AM 7:10AM 6:45AM 6:55AM 7:00 AM 7 :08AM 7 :10AM
7 :15AM 7 :20AM 7:30AM 7:31AM 7:40AM 7 :15AM 7:25AM 7:30AM 7:38AM 7 :40AM
7:45AM 7 :50AM 8:00AM 8:01AM 8:10AM 7 :45AM 7:55AM 8 :00AM 8:08AM 8 :10AM
8:15AM 8:20AM 8:30AM 8:31AM 9:10AM 8:15AM 8:25AM 8:30AM 8 :38AM 8 :40AM
9 :15AM 9:20AM 9:30AM 9:3 1 AM 10:10 AM 8 :45AM 8:55AM ---9:08AM 9:10AM
10:15 AM 10:20 AM 10:30 AM 10:31 AM 11 :10 AM 9 :15AM 9:25AM --9:38AM 9:40AM
11 :1 5AM 11 :20AM 11 :30AM 11 :31AM 12:10PM 9:45AM 9:55AM ---10 :08 AM 10:10 AM
12:15 PM 12:20 PM 12:30 PM 12:31 PM 1:10PM 10:15 AM 10 :25 AM --10:38 AM 10:40 AM
1:15PM 1:20PM 1:30PM 1:31 PM 2:10PM 10:45 AM 10 :55 AM ---11 :08AM 11 :10AM
2:15PM 2:20PM 2:30PM 2:31PM 2:40PM 11 :15AM 11 :25AM --11 :38 AM 11 :40 AM
2:45PM 2:50PM 3:00PM 3:01PM 3:10PM 11 :45 AM 11 :55 AM --12 :08 PM 12 :1 0 PM
3:15PM 3:20PM 3:30PM 3:31 PM 3:40PM 12:15 PM 12:25 PM ---12 :38 PM 12 :40 PM
3:45PM 3:50PM 4 :00PM 4 :01PM 4:10PM 12 :45 PM 12:55 PM --1:08PM 1:10PM
4:15PM 4:20PM 4:30PM 4:31PM 4:40PM 1:15PM 1:25PM ---1:38PM 1:4 0PM
4 :50PM 4:50PM 5:00PM 5:01PM 5:10PM 1:45PM 1:55PM ---2:08 PM 2:10 PM
5:20PM 5:20PM 5:30PM -----2 :15PM 2:25PM ---2 :38PM 2:40PM
2:45PM 2:55PM ---3:08PM 3:10PM
3:15PM 3:25PM 3:30PM 3:38PM 3:40PM
3 :45PM 3:55PM --4 :08PM 4 :10 PM
4 :15PM 4:25PM --4:38PM 4:40PM
4 :50PM 4:55PM --5 :08PM 5:10PM
5:2QPM_5:25 PM 5:30PM ------
An on bus passenger may request this loop at any time.
22
-------
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data Inventory
!Table Continued
HI h Street East ... ~ a.
~ .E
<(
c c
0 0
I! f!
i ~
tD Q) ..., "C ...,
oe > oe iii .c .c
.2' ~ ~ .2'
6 6 iii J: c oe ¥}. c
0 -;; 1:! .j ·c;
a. ... 8'. a. w Cl) .... .!! .!! "' .c oe
"' tD "' -e c tD c: :::1 ~ c:
e! tD 0 e!
t-(!) J: ::::!: t-
1 2 3 4 1
6 :45AM 6:50AM 6:56AM 7:08AM 7:10AM
7:15AM 7:20AM 7:26AM 7:40AM
7:45AM 7:50AM 7:56AM 8:08AM 8:10AM
8:15AM 8:20AM 8:26AM 8:38AM 8:40AM
9:15AM 9:20AM 9:26AM 9:38AM 9:40AM
10:15 AM 10:20 AM 10:26 AM 10:38 AM 10:40 AM
11:15AM 11:20AM 11:26AM 11 :38AM 11:40AM
12:15 PM 12:20 PM 12:26 PM 12:38 PM 12:40 PM
1:15PM 1:20PM 1:26PM 1:38PM 1:40PM
2:15PM 2:20PM 2:26PM 2 :38PM 2:40PM
3:15PM 3:20PM 3:26PM 3 :38PM 3:40PM
3:45PM 3 :50PM 3:56PM 4 :08PM 4 :10PM
4 :15PM 4:20PM 4:26PM 4 :38PM 4:40PM
4 :50PM 4 :50PM 4 :56PM 5:08PM 5:10PM
5:20PM 5:20PM 5:26PM --
The High Street East bus departs from Senior High at
..... n ... ,...._ .. --_ __._ __ , ..1-·---•·· --..14-.--tJ:-L. o t.-6¥-.-.--
at 2:45 PM during the summer months & school
holidays.
T~7EIWS£~ c-~~ATIC?IV ,.._
Hi h Street West ... ~ a.
Q) .E
a <(
c c
0 0
!!? ~
~ ~ CP CP ..., ...,
oe oe
.c 0 .c
.2' Ol
~ 6 "' .E c 0 c ·c; ... z 0 ·c;
a. 0 oe c: a. .... ...J c .9 ....
.!! Gi .!! "' oe 0 "' E "' c: i >-c:
~ £ a; 01 ~ t-IIl J: t-
1 2 3 4 1
6:45AM 6:55AM 7 :00AM 7:05AM 7:10AM
7:15AM 7:30AM 7:35AM 7:40AM
7 :45AM 7:57AM 8:00AM 8:05A~ 8:10AM
8 :15AM 8:30AM 8:35A~ 8:40AM
8:45AM 9:00AM 9 :05A~ 9:10AM
9:45AM 10:00 AM 10:05 AM' 10:10 AM
10:45 AM 11:00AM 11:05A~ 11 :10AM
11 :45 AM 12:00 PM 12:05 A~ 12:10 PM
12:45 PM 1:00PM 1:05A~ 1:10PM
1:45PM 2:00PM 2 :05A~ 2 :10PM
2:45PM 3:00PM 3:05AM' 3:10PM
3 :15PM 3:27 PM• 3:30PM 3 :35AM' 3:40PM
3:45PM 4:00PM 4:05AM' 4:10PM
4:15PM 4:27PM 4:30PM 4:35AM• 4 :40PM
4:50PM 5:00PM 5:05 Afvf 5:10PM
5 :20PM 5:30PM -
----1gn street reg -
loop at 3:27 PM only by request in the summer .
.,.he High Street West Bus will nol run Hayselton Drive
at these limes unless requested an hour in advance by
calling 634-8477 or by asking the driver when boarding
-------
March 2006
Renn Addition Business 50 East ... ~ ... ~ a. a.
Q) .E Q) .E a <( a <(
c c c c 0 0 0 0 !!? !!? !!? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CP Q) Q) Q) ..., ..., ..., ...,
oe oe oe oe Q) .c .c .c Oi .c
Ol !!! Ci5 .2' .2' .2' ~ "C 0 6 6 ..>< 6 c: 0 c ~ 8 c c e c ·c; ! c: ·c; ·c; IIl ·c; a. :::1 ::i a. a. oe a. Cl) .... oe .... .... ~ .... .!! "' .S:! .S! .S! "' Q) .c "' "' ... "' -e Ol c: :::1 c: c: (.) c: ~ Q) 0 ~ ~ C) ~ t-(!) J: t-t-::::!: t-
1 2 3 1 1 2 1
6:45AM 6:55AM 7 :05AM 7:10AM 6 :45AM 7:00AM 7:10AM
7:15AM 7:25AM 7 :35AM 7:40AM 7 :15AM 7:30AM 7:40AM
7:45AM 7:55AM 8 :05AM 8:10AM 7 :45AM 8:00AM 8 :10AM
8:15AM 8:25AM 8 :35AM 8:40AM 8 :15AM 8 :30AM 8:40AM
8 :45AM 8:55AM 9 :05AM 9:10AM 9:15AM 9:30AM 9:40AM
9:45AM 9:55AM 10:05 AM 10:10 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:40 AM
10:45AM 10:55AM 11 :05AM 11 :10AM 11 :15AM 11 :30AM 11 :40AM
11:45 AM 11 :55 AM 12:05 PM 12:10 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:40 PM
12:45 PM 12:55 PM 1:05PM 1:10PM 1:15PM 1:30PM 1:40PM
1:45PM 1:55PM 2:05PM 2:10PM 2:15PM 2:30PM 2 :40PM
2:45PM 2 :55PM 3 :05PM 3:10PM 3:15PM 3:30PM 3:40PM
3 :15PM 3:25PM 3 :35PM 3:40PM 3:45PM 4 :00PM 4 :10PM
3:45PM 3:55PM 4 :05PM 4:10PM 4:15PM 4 :30PM 4 :40PM
4:15PM 4 :25PM 4:35PM 4:40PM 4 :50PM 5:00PM 5:10PM
4:50PM 4 :55PM 5 :05PM 5:10PM 5:20PM 5:30PM -
5:20PM 5:25PM --
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
3.3 Running Time Check
March 2006
A running time check was conducted on June 6, 2005 at the Jefferson & High transfer location
to assess tight running times . The time check showed that buses arrive up to 6 minutes late
resulting in up to 11 minute late departures . Table 4 shows the results of the time check.
Table 4: Time Check Summary
Route
Missouri Boulevard/Capital Mall
Southwest Boulevard
High Street East
High Street West
Business 50
Renn Addition
Observations
Buses arrive between 2 to 6 minutes late.
Buses depart between 5 to 11 minutes late.
Buses arrive between 0 and 4 minutes late.
Buses depart between 0 and 10 minutes late.
Buses arrive between 0 and 3 minutes late.
Buses depart between 1 and 9 minutes late.
Buses arrive between 0 and 3 minutes late.
Buses depart between 1 and 11 minutes late.
Buses arrive between 0 and 3 minutes late.
Buses depart between 0 and 9 minutes late.
Buses arrive between 0 and 3 minutes late.
Buses depart between 2 and 6 minutes late.
Due to the operation of JEFFTRAN regular routes on the pulse system, the late arrival of a
single bus or several buses may require some of the other buses that may have arrived on time
(or at least earlier) to wait for the buses that have transfers for them. A maximum wait time of 5
minutes has been set. The result, however, can be a ripple effect that may worsen throughout
the shift depending on circumstances. The Missouri Boulevard/Capital Mall route has the worst
departure time record from 5 to 6 minutes late on average, which occurs twice daily. However,
this bus route makes two passes by the transfer location inbound and passengers transferring
from the route (except those boarding at the Dulle & Hamilton Towers) are able to catch
transfers to other routes by alighting at the transfer location at the first pass.
3.4 Transfers
A transfer count was conducted on Wednesday, July 13th to assess transfer activity between
the routes. JEFFTRAN operators were asked to collect transfer slips received that day in a pre-
labeled envelope that was provided. For operators who drove on more than one route, a
separate envelope was provided for each route. Also, for midday routes that flip-flop between
High Street East and High Street West, between Renn Addition and Business 50, and for the
Missouri Boulevard and Capital Mall routes, separate envelopes were provided so that transfers
could be counted by route.
Drivers were asked to properly punch transfer slips to indicate the origin route. Envelopes were
then returned at the end of the day. The data was then tabulated to determine the amount of
transfer activity.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory March 2006
Transfer information is important in the development of service alternatives to ensure that
existing riders are not inconvenienced by a recommended change. Table 5 shows the transfer
count summary.
a e T bl 5 T f c rans er oun tS ummary
Issuing Route
w
3: w c: w ~ iii ~ 0
Receiving Route Q) Q) ::2 '6 L() a;
~ ~ "'0 ~ "'0 1/) ~ c:
ii5 ii5 > <( 1/)
Qj ii) Q) s:
iD uj Q) a. 0 c: c: a. c: Total .r: .r: .iii .r: :;::
01 01 0 ~ c: .Q. 01 "5 -" Q) ::J c: I I ::2 w 0::: al ~ £ ::2 ::> Rcvd
High Street W 2 -3 -1 3 ----9
High Street E 5 -24 4 2 --2 1 1 39
MO Blvd Mall 9 --3 17 5 -4 4 -42
EllisS.W. 7 -17 -3 7 -3 --37
Renn Addition 2 -4 11 -5 -7 --29
Business 50 E --7 1 5 ---3 -16
Tripper -
Total Issues 25 -55 19 28 20 -16 8 1 172
Source: Transfer data as complied by TranSystems .
The data show a lot of transfer activity between all the routes with the most activity on the
Missouri Boulevard and the least transfers to or from the High Street West route.
25
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Section 4: Existing Paratransit Service
March 2006
In addition to fixed route service, JEFFTRAN also provides a complementary curb-to-curb
paratransit service called "Handi Wheels." Complementary paratransit is a transportation
service required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 for individuals with
disabilities who are unable to use fixed-route transportation systems.
Handi Wheels services operate within the boundaries of Jefferson City, and all eligible residents
can use the service. Handi Wheels provides service beyond that which is required by ADA
because the service area is larger than required. Trips can be scheduled Monday through
Friday by contacting the Handi Wheels office. The service operates from 6:45 AM to 5:45 PM
weekdays, the same hours as JE FFTRAN fixed route service.
Handi Wheels currently has eight vehicles, six operating vehicles and two spares, and six
drivers dedicated to the Handi Wheels service. The service uses modified Ford E-450 chassis
mini-buses. All vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts and are ADA compliant.
Handi Wheels carries about 200 to 220 passenger trips per day. Passengers rate the service
very high in all performance areas.
Handi Wheels is funded by a mix of sources, including passenger fares, local funding and FTA
funding.
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Section 5: Passenger Count
5. 1 Introduction
March 2006
A complete passenger count was conducted on every route in the system for a typical weekday.
A bus stop list was prepared from data provided by JEFFTRAN. The study team trained
checkers and organized the passenger count. The objective of the count was to understand
how bus riders use the current system and to determine where boardings and alightings occur.
Using the passenger count, areas with no activity or with minimal activity were identified to
determine if the optimal route is bei ng used.
5.2 Data and Maps
Maps were developed from the on/off survey to show the outbound and inbound portion of each
route to identify those areas with limited activity. Figures 13 through 26 show the total daily
on/off count maps.
Overall, the fixed routes have daily ridership of approximately 800. Individual route ridership is
shown in Table 6. The Missouri Boulevard route has the highest ridership.
Table 6: Fixed Route Daily Ridership
Route Ridership
Capital Mall
Missouri Blvd
Southwest
High Street East
High Street West
Renn Addition
Business 50
Total
90
220
120
120
80
120
60
810
The Truman Shuttle averages about 160 passengers per day and the Eastside Shuttle averages
more than 400 passengers per day.
27
----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
St.dy Area Data Inveatory
-----
Figure 13: Capital Mall Outbound On/Off
~SUI( I( NACC)N ~I)
~ _r -z
!
!;·
P'iENl"ST
~ ~ ~ '~ Tf.A:RA. f'[UA OA ~ § ·~ ..
.!
ii
.. ~,.(,.
nf.L R., --)~~/ -.,~
i
-. ~"~~rlbri<r.
n ..
~
Jeffers on City
'la
'·
~.
,_,._
Transit Development Pla n
legend · Captal MaR O<.tbol.fld
.1 22
-Daily Total On
-Dally Total 01
-CtoptlalMall 0 A~ed Vrbitni:'ed Area
CtyBounclary
0 2 01 --
~ ~A'T'fON
T~
~ATI<?/'V .
0.2 Mlet
~ ..
~: ~ llf tEN Ml . .'E:. on
·1
~
~ :lj ~~J.1'f4\l
"08asu,
~us~~.! ':~..mr!tt\'0
~···"l ~-'':"
. ~~~~
,/.,.
ORDG
~ ,o~'
l!'
~
"
.
~. ~
~ ;
':_o ~0
/ -
r (:; t
.. I r ·
l.
'-''-~~~ C\
.
~
~}.
--~ ~
... ,
~...,,
(i
I t
£UE.R.Al0 lM --"31 .•
,t.. ~+,· .f/
to'~!,! I"'
~a.
0~
·04'·~::
-E~"'c.·~ -...c, .0.,
fil :J: i ',
't
¥.
~'~I?
g "N ~:.Dr•r:Nroo u~<_
-~~
-
w't..\'lfsr
~~~
!i
PlA.ZA.Oq ·$1
.,/ "· o\t"''tctf.o\Nr:; p.l
fJ. if Q
•' a;< rr I ~i il i,! r ~; 'i·
' ii!: ~·
li i!
Bl
YAUtY VttW l£rot
~ ...
"' ~
"UNTl.lto•t~t~.
clue __Ill!
\~
\~
'-~~
~~-~~00~
l<f__"_!tOOOOR
~
-~llilJ.CE
Si
~· ;J
151
-
M arch 2006
!
-~ .K tJi
i;
~
""' "\. \\~~
28
-----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data laventory
-------
Figure 14: Capital Mall Inbound On/Off
bENKlNGft?N lt.l
~~~~ ~!~C!IJE~LI<
i
e· !I !i
II
'~ -~,
H 110("11{ OttAOO.I J<to
·.., R'OQc; 8£Ac~ 1m
-~ --,rr
Jf{
\ \l !1 ~':/' f.l
I !~~"'Sr
Kf'fiTST
[!; _,))<
~ ,jF /
z
< m
~
~ :
TfRA.t,S,(t ~ ' '""'\ ·'t.
" .... ~"c..
g
~-o . ~I :;;,
;;: • '"' ·~
OEI. RAY~! .. '"!"'.{ ~!t
Jefferson City
• ·~~
-d'-:; ·,\
~
:1 -+ i
-9' ---,.
"
" ~
~
N.TENM'-E.OR
V~RGINlA 1ft~· -· "~
~_as,,.,
~ WRt:ssoHWy ·-~~J1fJPrt'i'!l -
Transit Development Plan
Leg end • cap~ml Mall InbOund
.I s
-Dally Total 01
-Da~y Total at
-C ...... ! Malt
c::J Adju~ UrbM:cz:ed Area c:. c.ty Boundooy
0 .2 01 0 02MII·t1 --'
T~
Cc~AT1C'.>IV ·+·
-~
c-~AnC?tv .
~
""'~··t-.t\ ..... ,1 ~ '") \. ·~ -~--~
/"l
Ot.MI OtlO AOG
~.
0
0
~
'I
~
'~ .~. ,o./,.,
----~
~I ~~
;:.: I I
~·.
d'~-~~
li . ~r 1:
!: ~L '·-~~
... ~
.to '
~:/
~/ II
~~~~P-LN
rf'f' .e/
!~'".!")
~V,t,l.l~~~
.r
" :~
~
u ,,
'
!";·
I
j
~r~<o., I ~-
!;
'lAW~
!ri
1\fo~c,..A,.,·,s 0..
&!I
¥'
~I
~
VALl r.v v•w T!R
9
r:::
~~ s;
~l
~-
i i
~-
o i
~I
~~
~~ fl l
<.A.UII""
l!i , ::::: i :
~E.IGtil'\
i
~
-~~ ~l-~ ·--\)IJ:"f.tAMP otl4~ ~ fQU!'·~~ • ..
--~-~ ~ ,<!;. si~YPLAce ~
-~~
i l
:l !
!·
~I
~
~~~ ~ .,,. .....
~
~~
"'WMooc>DII ---~ --r--
~!"000011
-
March 2006
29
--------
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data Inventory
0 .,.
ii
1 !> ~
~
'
t ,tl ;.
Figure 15: Missouri Boulevard Outbound On/Off
;.:: 1':.
)i '?1='
j/
·'T~s~!'<·~
" ~
~ bT Iii :!' -zl ~-§.'
~)-.._
l'
it"' ·,,
~-~
!) 1/
d! ~/ l 5/ ~~TA!'l
""
''• •• '•·
:;;r--;;rct.9.t. ""'~ ii:<.._-s, » ~~ ir--. ~.,.,
-·Mll 1-~-~--~ .. ' 'if
!1,1 ' ·-~, -~ • 17 . 4''•, ,..., •• :nl~ . ,-"'-.o/ l! "#-il.~~ .. ;:,<. ., .. ->:-' -~-~ .. -""'-'"'>
-f ·--~ ' " r. 5 " i '/' ~? ,$'!' .:/ '-, y .... , OO<IIA~~ ' '""""' ' ..•• / "' ·-. '" . ~. "" "-~ --.. ,..., ' . .,.. ~ '¥>.,.', I 'J,., "\., • " -_ .......... .... ·---.... ,J i' li :0.' r·-~;;---· "1 -->,;J <!' d :;. Ei Iii, C)l '1 g ;~ ' • ¥. ' ! • ' ' . ~ .. 1·:.;.· "'. . ,, ... ,_.,,"" • 4 .. ~ '"" . ' • ' ' c . . --. ,, ' 3: .. ! ~ ~ !
0 ; ...,.,y ... J w It !. --..:""[•:••!< ;: )-i y~ =; ~ ~·~
" c ~·
UVDE PM{I( 1=ID
/-
~~ .; ' ~ 1-ti'
~·~-,,,.. (
'!
~" ., '
o', ~ :i :;;t
o ..... 1 ·& ',;~I -;-:::;------....;:"'_.=.-!'~"'~~~-. ,\-g IS ~
Jefferson City ~ ~9 },' .i~ ·~"
Transit Development Plan ,,Q~-;~ .J~·i"-'o
J)'~ ,. ~-~ ~/ "\tc-~ * ~,,.,y ~ .s· ~ •. z~""
~ ...... ~·lf'~ Legend -Mtssourr Blvd Olibound
~. ... ... ~ t;;:
~i!
.1 40 [OR;
~":!St-iW"r _,
-Datly Total~
~IFT'SHWV
~
-Daily Total Of
-~riBtvd .J i c::J Ad]\1'5ohN U1lNtnv.~ Ateidl -~ ~-~~T
):c~y Boundary -~ .. ..... ;;j ..
02' 0125 0 I: ... --o,
' ~ ·+~~ c:;c:nPCX?ATIC:>N .. .' -1'·
C£0Atl RIOGf flO
-~ ~ATK?IV .
.r ... ·~ .;x ·~·~ , ...... ·:i<. ,.-~~'· :f;/''~~~ ,_.
f " "' ' -~/ I' :Jo':!
;;¢!}; 1.4(
-l.." ._~, v· ~~
' •:! ~ ~~ .s-"'-•'~--~-~-~-'-........_ ~, .. !s_'!_... ~'.:}:· <f>.. /....._ ....... ~ ~ / ·' .if,( ~~ ~ / :'¥. '}/"-, X<:: ~/"-. ~~~ ~
.. ~ .... ~~
<( ~ ··-....t~
.. :3( ~-, .. , '~;<>... ,. )< ~t·:;~ "'
•.: .. -' ._, ' ~-~ ' ~., ;~ ?~ h
,/ ' ~ {;t/ /~ ' /' ~ . ~
I /;. X " tf' .. -?;. ·~' -'/ ..
1
,, ,,~ .. /'---·~
k; ~-~~'?-~-r~~~~-'"··""
...... ,,.f-'71 ~ ~ ........ . ,;, "' ~ ~Y. &t -"-'t...t / ~ ~/
<Ji3.-#Y Y.~· .:. ---.... ~~ "~ ... ,.
v // .. . c .. ~ . ... ~~~~
"<,.. ;;;~ '-
:;,
"' ~i !.
1,1; ~ / .!'~ ~'! / ~---~~ ........... ~_,,
~ .~?
1·
,._,. f +"} ol -' 'A •
--
March 2006
30
--------
Jefl'ersoa City Traasit Developmeat Plaa
Study Area Data IDveatory
Figure 16: Missouri Boulevard Inbound On/Off
~
~I R'
i'
"!
"'~ -··r x.z ~~
~~ Sil
!l j ~I ~L~J
a. 6 8 ) .. .: if
c;! ~I --tr •t~~ ~/ ~ -
-9-r,~'~, •.
s,
o . ...
" g -~~ ~
!!,
~!
&' <:, ~~~~----~"·i~F ~ ~; ~~, JL.. ·~r:r -~~: ~I§L . ~ -~-' ,.. j _
"' ~ _.,.
~.f.~SOL!It!fli '.Jl'
~t'r'DE P.lt.Rk FU'I
3
"""··--~ -~~ Sfr.<_~~ -· -...J________ 'tiW
--I . --Sf lfNtr ~---~ ... .. r--~6Ho
ii ...
a • ~ z;, ~
c '/'1 ~
~
~
"0\rE t<' u i YS<J. L(' LL ~~ ); .: L.INJ<NOWfV
--N f J '£ • ·--• •
;.; : ~ g~-.J
~I c ~ ..
,.,,t• :1 V • .i lgi r-:=::==========~···~-"~'· ·~ g :~ •!':.!:1
Jefferson C ity -\.~ J-'!< j~l :n •
Transit De velopment Plan ~"~ .:;.-;.e ... •"!-" 5 ~~
~~\.':
legend • MlSSO!Jl 81\>d Inbound ~oe~ ~, tk. ~ £ -.. i
.1 26
-Diiii'(Toti!IOn
-Daily Tolal af
-f.tYOUnBhld
~ MJUSled U1ban1Zed Area
Ct) Boundary
OZ$ 0125 --
i(tDCR
,q
02S Mile-
'
SWt~TS 1-tWV
":i
1 -;~
~
~ .---L ,
I ~AllON . 1-l "o
CEOAR R'lCG( '~to
~-
~tr:~~!*~
'l'ttOM~:)UNST
~
~ ..
~
a
Ji
·~ ~,
i<.
"
;;r
"I ii u,
":,,/'-1", " p ).,... l '
/ .. ' ~ .. ' ~:!!" ':! ,..~ _,.( ""'-8'.
-· ' ,(>&<~' • • '\. ,.,, ~·ll;l .;-"' .... '·~. ,, ~ .._<>,, #,"' / "' ;: ' ·' '
0' /' I •' ~ ""< If. ~ -r "'fJ... '(" ~It ~""; ' 't<" '•. .,, I• . • .. . _.... ,, .:,
.• •• -r> lfr <",:_-~:;w· ~. '11' !J• ~' ~-~'!> 'o•,'h
'\. ·, ~oS! ~.. ~~~ .. ~
. . ·~~ -; ~'/'\... ~ " ~~ ' < ..,.. < • • ..,._~ .. )I . .,v.· p-. '"'"' . ~-,(.;, ~--1'~~-.#!)v~ , ~~ 'V(/~--... :A. ~x -i" .(.( x;~ . ~ </!/'\... / ~ ,oS!, y,::.,~" ~ ·"'
't' {1;-y<'l /'" .. ~ ~ -11v / n {. ~!y 1 ~JJ \1_" \~ ~!.!!!.'!'!l'
I
" A~ ;(-\ .. -~ i% '\... .;-x:-
J --~ -~~· r ... >. '"' * ~ ct ~"' dip., ~~ ... "\· ,,J/ ,, •
.#'!P/ q_~ ,. ,... "~ /""-'::-t <"Y /' • .-"!:• ,,, •. -sf!'x
r ·'' .-, . ' < ~ . .,. .,, ~ . li' . ''""' . "' < ~"\ .~ • "" .a',--~ ;/ :!t 'll-.. ;/ ·'~ -·~i :.. ~"" . "'/ -~ ~"'/ / ·i,:r_, . I '
-
March 2006
31
-
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data Iaveatory
----
Figure 17: Southwest Outbound On/Off
ur,~~~ft> ~y \!Aqo,.or,. !!tVO O~R.'."-'tP --.:_:
a ,
!!;' it ... ? ':! ,;,
a "' "''.s~~Rifltvn ii ~-
«r s.l il r 3 .
:li
~ <;
~
u
\l .... ..
f/
.. u ,_ m ~ ~ ,~
j l ! J~
u c &'' i !; l"
A •\J'"''" ~!'-.l ,\ ~ ~ \ -~----.\-! .~ :;'
,. ... ~-~-
"'"'~'~'
0 .
~ <; ~
f
~
.\ .... , -~ }; ·'i :;; ._~ .... ·-:. . , ' cl!l· :: -.c\ ffo ... / ,_, ----~ o. .,. ,,..,~~---.I .,. psS"•" " ,. !5 !'· /'-
~EoGrwr,
IX ~ ~~~ol\
f ... "-t """OODcr
;:\ -~.(_'?!>! 0.,
~ ..
VI ~!
1&1 'i! ~ ~I
i ;
~.·.·,r ~,., •mv
~ c
" ~~o.-.. o\ ~ ~'!_"'--'"
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Legend • Southwest Oulbound
.1 21
Dally Total 0'1
-Daoly Total 011 ---0 AdJUatfl'd UJbana:ed A1ea
j CIIyBoundary
o: 01 0.2 fMet
D·\f'~t D
Hf\.LRO
''t0•,!r!1()'1 ST
~~ §!
~-...
"'I ~ l!: ;:
I
.. ;;
'~ 0. ' )jl .. 'lis,;, .. "-o• .. it"' e..:, ~'o;,"' ·-# ._,V'
-,., :'!(, ~ ..... w~"' ..... ~-.4,..···, =------~ •. l .... '
) -~ ,;.'<'~
.,r., ){ ... ~~ -~">
~ I >-I lii j
.. Ill ~-,;..t ~·~ ()I .. , -~1_1 !_ J ~I i i 1" 11 -.J ~~-
WAvt:q~'.!t, ~I
~ ~ ~:r
8 /:; ?~~
g ! fr~J!, -~~ ':d/ ~ . fDoiOHos T I . ~
-' ------· :/ lil l ~ ' J.,l i! 1 to"'" > y ,' ~~~1 ~~~.,. ~~/ :1 \; ~: =··f; ':r ~r,· ~ a:l ' ~ llol Ci ,
.. .,
~'> ~I'
"~-{ .. / ':... ~ ·-t~ ~~ ,, ~· ~ --~~~-~ ' /. ~~~-~ '·-~ .. , .. ~ .. ' )}¥<··!~.:'.>:¥~~
~;;:·~~ ~/:
'~ ~il ~-. -~~-~ ~.-~ ...... . .... !i f : ~ ~· [;~i ~· J ~~ ! "'· ' !
;;;I
;I
3i
~~!!!_~ ,?/'
!X*_
-....,, ..,,.,. ,_,.
"~ ~ 'If.--.t" .. '<X -"')J.~" ,.'l-
1(... "~,?-~4' '· -,,-l.< . .,. , c.,··~,.
. ~ .,, ~"'"'
·"" "~~/ ' /'-... ... ... -~ .o~ ,/ )'<'~" ·;t':., ~ ':t<: -:~
~~·~:'!et.,
/ a 'li ~ ~~~~3 :
;A -£ "•c.., -'"'1 >-, .. "" l !! ' v<i'J~~ ~ !
:0
0
_,, .5""-"-~ ~/-~~-. ll ,#. ~" "-.: ',-t# .;~_,
~~''-"' ' ' "-. ' -~ A-/ ., ~ ·~ 'R ~ p ~~.;~'., ~P , / / ~~ '-'"/ t.,,.. ~4' ~ / g."--'. 'J ,.,_ .. ,'"'-,
v '<~ ./ --,~~
,,~>
. fj .':t Jt,.
"~ ; --..:_.~-9'1
ltC:~~~-'
'~.,_ ·~
AIJRORA.VF. ~i'
~~' i/ ,.!<'~~~t.~
l '&_ !,
~~ A~;t..<t;·-~., / /' --p
Lc_r:-4;~ il -6/:j:;· I
~ ... -~itl
,~,~--·
~I' '% ~~-~
----' ·+· \~/ 74,.
~
C<~>f?A~ !lJNI<NOwN y----
T~
c-~An<?N :
March 2006
32
--
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data laventory
-----
Figure 18: Southwest Inbound On/Off
STI.ti.JO-O::.ftt\'0 fflrR.J.h,, •"'NRM.'f'l' ""'"'"-.:
<!
~~SSO_URI BL'IO :J ~l
Ill· i 3, iii ~ ~. w Y , ~ ~
.. u ~ Q
~,. ~
%_ • ~. 0 " ;r • ~ If ...
:0
,.,..\'" , .. , .. l
...... c.1 ,.,.-..--
.... p.u1~~_.,... .... · . t ),~~·\' l .... (' ~ ·"' \ ·\ ~t ~"" "' ·-·~ -~ -~ ,~---15 §1
~ ~
.JJ. ~
0 a:
!r ..
~· o, ,,
.. v r;
!I' Er o:.
V•
. \t10~ J..nC\. < ~.::;...--!
""otEwooj, cr ~ g
!
:1 '· !"li!_~~ Oft
~
" 0 't..,o,._,, ~ ai!_~H~,!-! 0
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Legend • Southw~ lnOOllld
~~ Z1
-Dati¥ Tot!l On
-Dally Tctal •:JII ---Q AdJu snt<l Ur~ Afea
' • _~City Bound or~
02 01 ----o:! a.t~u
·~
..~,~
-~
CMl HIO~,t. ~')
HiLL110
~ ~~ ; ~~
5 ~ , w
il
'W1ri~HW1
Z! g ~I "' ii ~
!. ~
~
·~
!
1:
"">l)'.-:s v1-""~ e, "' '"· ~I~ '•·· o,..., . _,.,... I :f --.:!...o-. <!-"' G
---,;·-"" "'·.'. ~ .If. 0~~"""' .... ' .,..., ~. ~ ~=-'II .... , I ,, '~/. "..~
:.~ ~I ~~;f-ifj~ ~._J 1 ~ ' ...~\'!_!T
,_,
;I .. ~) "'! !t f, ;,,
~ ~~
/i ? ~ -~~~r "~~·~e
\ ; ' _,-1:. '-"
!'i.,·:',,fj ,, ''c '1tl(
~~ ~ h ~ ~ .... ,
~ '\r ' 'f I . ~ ...... ~ -'%:' "' ' ~ ...
t'\\. ,,P' 4-~ , ;r ~ ~ '. I ., ' .f
' ffi ~~~ ~~~'-_, r J .X1~c. ~
~f ' ,y~> "~"' !!~~,,~~
£~ms ro I a.r &.. • t/~ w ~
• . / 1011 "''
· fC --,~'. 'J('·v_· '{':?l;..'·'!to··~tx-,
>'~.'if].. ... J..·;"·"'!'Jf~o ,,..,. '
~~, "1:> .. N >
!'~ -~ ., f'Ct
• ~. -~ ~ ~<' .... ~~ .o;-,. 't~"'-."'!1~~-'1• '·~
r!t "·~"·' .... ·~, ,l'· ' / <'>-~.};-. .(>
.~ -~~1
'~/~: .. ~/ ~~f; ~
;
111 ~-
' .. ~ . ':I/~ L~!',.J'
31'·,
~-~ ii_J '
/"., 'Ao
', -~7 '~/·
' ;f '·,;."-
,t-u ·-~~ .. ~ .:p;,: .
.,,.bl "'O!'J ~~-~:'>' '~ ,,_~~ -!.____~.~ ~
..
~
:!;I
~I u/
~'£uv
~~!!_lfw.,.
__,_,.r,A. ./ , };· ~
"'7 y R.,l; ~~ ... r.. ~,u l :o~ ~ ·os'.-4,q9'1 \~~~
lP' ""-~ (!;: ~/
,t cr' ~ ·' ~ ,.,. '·, .. , / ~ ~ ~ / . ·""¥.. / '~-~(~." " -<!(' ~ -~-"""' ~, • .P ~ ~·~? ,,·,~ \ ,-t " :e <t ' , . _. ~o~1 ~ / , ~ · \l . .~ ~... . . '\,., ~.. " "., /"i> .. 7'(~ J/
~~-'? 't-l-·, t ,.1., ~ 1 ... , ~>/
'''':o -·~.,)'
L. <.',
f/,-tt,{·
~ "' ...,,r-·.., .'11~
-~
':\~ \Q~\ .. /J... ~ ~~ ' .;-..
.§/ 1;i'
-~ C'<i,.'-<.t..') ....... __ ~qk ·-~~ ·~-~~ ...
'.<.-~·
/. f!l.! q ~.:0.~
,;:. '';t
~
~~~.~~~
~~ "Z<lp i!< .... ~; ~-!!!! :' ~
Z'
~
"'
'
~ ~AT'IC>N ·+· ~' 1/ 4/ i ' ~!"
~41 '~~
~'+ ~!t~
"~ ., "'~~<><" -..,,. _,
"1"'t-"_. g [,U,fFRfNt A.V[ . """.to,
I ~~ ..... £
T~
~ATK"':JN
--
March 2006
33
----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data laventory
0
"' ~
"~£rsu 0 ';
c ¢1cLH!' !\' ~~ -~ 1 -i ~ ~ I.J ~ ~ ·~r o
u :1: ~ ._,--'1 ~ ,.,.c,. ·l ' t ~I ~ jO.l'~ •' ' ~ g i m ;)o
\ \ ~ _':\ §~ \~ ;i~ .
:, ·~ ,()'f'~ .. ct~~~-:: ;.~ .... ~ ~ ? ~" --· r ;--. ; ~
1 ~~-10fl § ~ i
W t~l][l'o()QO OR
-~tRJ.EO~
SlAtllUMVIEW~Cl
~
%
SWifTSHWV
·-.\
-·\ ·-s-
!lfM1'S"''f.'V
J!~'?_S~ST
~
~ c \
-----
Figure 19: High Street East Outbound On/Off
l'i
~!
;;;
-~i i;!'
fl
~~s}:r_
~~ c
~~--~ s1f/ "· =>
. ~ ... ~ J'' .·· . "'" .,_ ~ ' .,., fol' ... ~ 4tl ~ " W,.Mr~S"' ~ -•i . ""· -~.... ...... ~.·· ".· I ' 11! :I __:;,;~-'\._~ " a ;.'J I~~ / _,..-~ I~J> t: -~~~-RI~_It' .V -}"~" ~~~-, . ""• ...
. ' ' .. -·~ .:~"'· -"' ~" ~<I" ,_ ~"'?'\-. ~
" ... ~ \.! ' ...... '\ ), :1/ . '~~" .., .. / "Z4 .. ,.,, " ~.... -<o/ -~&. -!!>. ~~~ .. ~~ ~..; ,~,
-~'!'<·•\'£ ~l.f.J .;· -~~~~ .:-~~ ',.IJ. ,, ~ :}t
"-l(' )<.~-~~
-""" !-o ~-~
~INI>EH'!f<
i ~~
~.~ ~
... a:
a. ....
'~~ .. ·~~ ~~-~·;~s,,.'
;;<. / ~4'~ .1,.,;-
~'" ' '-!/
.(t
\...,... .;r'V
)"', '\ ~. !,., ~
/ ~' ~"-'
;,. 2i i!i .f.i
./ "'.;~· ;§J' t'-A, -~ f~~<~~ ~~ /vJ->-~. / ot .tJ
_,, , .
~"
~~\ t'~ ~~J.-
fl!;~_sy;tt .· ~~.., .. ,...~ ~' ~ ~· .!'./ 'l:
n~K;../ , ~-~-,~ ~~~ '~!lot~ .. ~-~~
" ~~ ', ~~--,,~ ~t. .... )" ~/ ~4'.,.
\' ~ .... o;-, trl '
'· '· ·-~·//'·~
#/~. ~ ~~ .,_.,, X •;:,' vt;,~
r ~ "'~ ...., .•• ~< "~ ..,, (c.~
,, s"'.~.
'-::~ .. -
-0 A
I ~effer~on City (\
Transit Development Plan
,r ~3.~ :-..... ' ',~; •• -<-~ ' ~~-..... ~·· .j-' • <}'% ~~ •I oJ'" " -~·'\. •I-;,
.. ~ ',, .. ..,...,_.. l~~ ·!1o "'· ;7~/ ' ·"'-""'··~t-/_if/ ;.;
( 1{. ' 1 .. '& 1'7 ... " c·a .~ ~~ , ~/ ~~ ;<._ ' .,_/str i.~~# ~. Leoend ·High Street East OUtbOund
.I 16
-Dai't Total 01
-Dally Tolal at
-HognSvee!East
C:J A<JjiiOCe<l Lhban<Zed ~'"
!ct)-Soundory
0.2 0.1 0;! t.llet -·-'
~
~ATIC:XV "+'
T~
~AT/<?fV .
•c~, .
t: ,' ..._ ""'U. I .xJ -...,_ lj•c,
o-..<CREEK j:r
10
1r
l:
~
'l! ~~
tl
,.~Pti
lAtS~
'~' \tS: wwsTc-.sr,..
\ ~ -.R/ i?
~~ ~~.
R:OS{RIDGE t1R '\:0
Q'>c ~-'!:~ ... q;_
o:'' .!;";/'
.:.•PoJ:...:J;-6~· +oo/
~" .... "' ...
"•"> ~ ~;/ v"/ ll ··~~Ft'sr COLVI"}'"' jJ; gJ ' -
~
~
! Q~·~ "' ......
~~ ~ ,It,
llf.o\R:~L"'
o!
0
OF.t CE~RQOI' 1:
.;:
/j~ .. -~ .;Y ~
-
March 2006
34
----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data laveatory
<.J
HO,E"S<;ocLE l~ ~I ~ -'-. ~!
"'I
..
·l
>":!;
~ 1: ~. ~,.,
~ ~"'"".!''"· \\ '" ·\ li
" \ ,\-·--.\--" 0 '•i ~
·'>. ... \ .<0 ~' ~ ~ '-'8 -,f' •. ~ If. ... ~ .... ~
\ :\_ I ... ,(11l~"~~· .. , ;.. •• ,.,..~ i I >-::~
.._'i }-··'i.-__,. f r · z i ; ~ ~tv!' !'1 ;"'1 ~::~ .. -6, ~I •
-~!-~.o•
SWW1SH""'<' .'-!"~OOy~ ,. S'¥VIff3HWY
Q B~[lfftl.E OFt -~-JjSf~II.AI YIE'WaJ
i ::;
\ ~
\
-~ ';,
•.'b
0
~
~~ ..
~I
;31
f :>
~-
~... CfOA~ ~IDGf R.O
~·
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Legend ·High Street East Inbound
.1 21
-[lady Total en
-Daily Total Clf
--High Slr-Ea!.l
(::l Mtu.red Urbent:&d Area
Cty Bootnd¥)'
0 -0 1 0 ~ fMe' ---'
~ ~.:r.>F'C'~Anc:>N 4f ·+I
T~
c-.-<A'<~ATKJIV .
~
§
"·
-----
Figure 20: High Street East Inbound On/Off
:;
!>r $;
f
v. '·'!: __...--· ~~ :; ,, J '~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ i _1.sl i ' a ~ "',/' ~t... ~-~ < , ~~ ~I"' ) ., "+ ~
< "'jl -1J'"< '1',~. >).' . g ~ l.o. ._tl. ..,_ tst1 .·;-... .,. ~ l ~~ .':'; o'<" ~~, :.;,
...-1 4 ,t..,.
~ t .... '1 .... ~ '\'. • \. ... .._ II ._<>' .k'. "< . 1~' ~· I ~Q. ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1E 81 IICOIAN.fi1 oQ ~~ J",. I~J..
.,._ . -r..: --~~ -:..S 1' ~. ...
: ' .:-.f~ ~' "£'' '~
,r-.•· ~-'"' ~}»
., ~~,./'~,.."'<r,.,,
• ,.,,, )d' ..,,_
.;:'~> ... "\'( '
' ;·-... ,~ ~~~ ~ ,...,_.,.., ... · ' ~ .... '.. ~
....... -~oi'J' ,../: ' . ;. ~. £~?"!'·!' ~ ~
w.J
iif: ~:fi
J'.
t"'__~"~ X ,• 1 g·
'" ~
~tcf'_-#"y
~·i'.J/ ·P _,,
... fo.~~·~'lJ
·~ ~
' ' <1"·
y ,1:-.i:'
P"'·
~ ' ...,,. -''· . ( ...
,i'; .. ~ >:"· ' ~~ "'• ' .:,. " , -<~~ ~w· ,H. ~., /~ .:1· •
,-:, -"";f ' ..... '""' ~·:·"-' /.,::-~' ~ 'v. ,.( '<:: .;-'•,' ~,...~ ""~~ "' .. X/~~ .. "" . { :~~"·· <S" .. • ' .,-:.,. ' f.· '
$ Y..:' ' ~ .... v,_,;<. " ~ /3-"/ ~ " 0t "'""' 'y' •/ 4'.-«:~ ......... /,' f/-<~ ">X , J'· -,~
. ...'> ' • -~ \ ~~~"""'' ><\. ~. -~' h ~ ... 'f;:· v .. ,,~,\/ '·~~· ~!!> ~ ....
~~-"!£
/(}.~
'"~
"),f).,..,
~ COLV,!'J.
-!>"" ,j
-i ..
I<
i
,:I)
';\ ~!cr
!l
J ~
P""~~-~
\t>
'\'t,£./ W!_~STOOI_c,i'i?s>
~-~ _,~
...... ~
-~~~
~~~~ ~"o
tlitA.RSHAlN
.. ~-~~-
DE"lC'EJ:fRO~
to '
a
.fi 2/
qj
.Pr' ~~ J-~1 ~~
-
March2006
35
---
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data laventory
g u
z ~· "( :!/
~-~·
~
sur. OR
~
" z g
~
~
~ r
~SlfYsr
0
"' "
-----
Figure 21: High Street West Outbound On/Off
' : \1. .S; ~ \~ ',~~ , ... "') ~~ .. '~~"· ·~ ,~ .. \~ '} -:., ~,,.. .,
(,..,.. -" ,,>.' ,,•' .r-·:!•s .. , "'·,!._":'0 ,,:• \. ,.. ,,, .;· ''\'!1!-:r , : ~,.~ >Q o\ .,..:: ~ <J ""-. lSK~~E OR .:\ :<'..p ...., ---~--"'!17';1 -.;:t'' . ~,.," Y ''~,,..
''"'""" .· '\ ~ ~~ ·,,, !' 1r ~~ ... ,,
§
z. §
~ l'!~~r~'-"'to~ '" . ~ ~ :;·PlAl<\!!~g
;: ~
> " ~ 'l£"~·~trJ '"'
Jefferson City
tr
"
Transit Development Plan
Legend . High Street West Ot.tboiJld
.1 12
-Daily Total On
-Dally Tolal Cff
--Hlqh st~w .. t C:J Ad§usled UrbaniZed Area
'City Boundary
c.:.~ n1 _"1 o o.2S'-"•"
~ ..
'
~ ~AriON• ·+·
T~
~ATIC?IV .
~
"' ~··
I''
'RC
g· r s:
z
? ~; J,~ gl lir Nl >-
,; Q· \'i J <~I fl ~ ~.,. ..... 3:1!!
• I ,
~
"' 0
J'
f' ···~.~~
~ """"~~~ ..... ,st .... Ry~~~._:-··~
,• ~R Cl ,_ ;.-r-·....._ .... , "'' .,. "'I .,/
! . g! :Ol~j: 91 fi I~ :t! ~~ l/ o "!SSO·~· B~'D ~£ <I.! ~~ i fil: Zi
~I ffi ~ &• lit, ...
:~ruw •
i ~,.jT --; "--~~ ., ~ ~a..~ "' . ..1 ... ,)>."' • ; ~ ~~Sf 1..1.' ~ b'#., >$""' ~"'-•• 4: ~} ~
"'" I '' "-,~
" '51 G~ /S " -~ " " ... , '9.'1:>~, . "" • ....-.:"' ~·'-"'"·.I , ... ~~ ,~..a.,..,.-\ ,: I' q,"" "' /" ""3--...::., ,.. .. -'"'' '~ ~I ~ ~ ..,¢; '-'"-: / ~~ "~ ' . '<¥ C"-, sr IMJ!vsa\10 0:.:) -...· ~;
• or-, ' ' I -~ ,, ~ ~~ a
-; .!:, -~-r _il\~ j :""'!~:'_5'-'?<tE ~
·~,.
.... , . :;;' ij' ,_i ~: ~ " ~i~ n{' ~iLl! 1? { f~L{' ... I f "' ... ,;:~;;.·, ... ,!:,
•~ f S.t--f; § .. 1 r;;: .. ; ~·it / )"'/' ''· "'". ' ~ "' II! ' ... · ,f,.r ·;t'; Sl 2J J,. ~·y ,1 '\~
~ -t"'"1 ~--~ 'J/
-
.....
l;f
~
.0.)..:
<>"' ~-
-
March 2006
36
----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Shldy Area Data luventory
~ tt
:;-:1
~;r t B ~f
~ St l[~
0
0:
rr:
~
'!~s-~'!~4t au
z
" L J,.'f•:•ff ~
"· • .,.'lek..,,.(Jif
if i.
it ,.
ii\
u
tt
i'
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
L.evend · Htgh Street West Inbound
.1 11
-Dally Total~
-Daily Tolal Cff
--Mqh S.eo!Wftt C::J Mtusled Urboned ArN
. CCV Boundary
025 012S 0.~!1 Ml.s l > --•
~ ~ATJC>IV ·+·
----
.......
Figure 22: High Street West Inbound On/Off
:! g :~
;, ~· :~ ~ &o -~ ~~..... ~ ~ .. .,.., -"' ~r '\5
!f 15 l'i
,!1: ~..,.
,., ... ' lt ~!7i ;~ f~ ~--!" ~ ."'OFllAPt.
-g.
~ g
z
.;
:.; ol. ~.,-~ J;L~ o '" ~" ... ~,..-~~-I -~. ~
--. "'IAii \ ~~ ~' • :: i1 $; ~~ <i'
o a! , ~~ ,_ .,, ~""" <i ~
. l1L j_ ~/ ·"'
., -~·:-;.._ -tt -.,~ ~~-. ., -~. "' S'l.tA~vs·~~&.iilf't·ON~u~-·. ~ , j
-··-·'~'lit!: '''" '"'""""' -i.
li
~· ~ ~' ·-:;r <$ ' .•• ~ -' j ~ . -~ ~' ·:;; = ~~~ of $, --'r-..;.1 ,.~ ~ c ~· 11 , . , ·r ~ g l' -#. '""""R'BLIII> Iii l ' c t I ~~ 1:; " ST .....,.,_,lllvo ~ .. · ~r , ·"'~ ~---IL . iJ :r ~~---1(~1
«' ~ ~' . l;; .,, j "'/ ~ I ~I o: "'· .,..,.-'"1---~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,.,1<1 $1 :I I I ~· :O ! ~
:6 ~ ~: ~..1 ! a.:~l il ~ ~.. Jv' to-•
:r gu...,.o.,.,. ii, .. F i)l -! -~ iilr' :» "-.<t; , ~------... !:•,. 2 , : :;: 4,~ ~ ,.,
" l .L,.o~ " .,, ~,.. ~·SUCre,("' i!q .. ' ""('~ ! ,:. ~' :,,, fJ' ~· h !1:~ "I' _,; "',~· ,j, ,-~ ... o :\'~
1;; , "'~ gr ~/ '. '<P7 ,-· A,¢-' ·..,,§' 1·,,t ~
g i .P'. / j/ P;-/'!lfk! ~-to~~~ .;s-''•· , ... $:/\ £./1 "' ,. I ./ .,.., ' J.J'!: ~ ,..\,\\ \~,.~'1-• \'I
/
-
--
/.,
... ,.
..,~~.,
1--,_...}>,"f ....
~ ... ~ '""" ;-c.,.,s,.. .. ~:::-
·' +'~
--
March 2006
37
-----
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
Shldy Area Data Inventory
--------
Figure 23: Renn Addition Outbound On/Off
,•, •IA I~ S T
~~. ~~ ... '"· -~
,t;f '.-! .~,
;5
~ "' . "~~
'·\·r ·r .,.(lll -~
r
;r. / ;,¢,(..,. ,·
.' .. .4'-'~~ s .,.~ ~-.o~~,. t -~"OJ ·~--:.;, ,.,, ~/
.<t'f/ . {}. ' . <, ~ ,./ -'~~; ~~ Z" '"'" I'~ ~~ . . -~ --~-., . tl . <~ {4. .... ,. '· ,'(,. "-,;
r§,;J ~:_b.. ~ "? -~~ -'~ ~, ..... "' <!" -"~ ~:8 ~ti.i"'~\ ~· .
,.. ·. ~:'t ~'& ·-..._.r~
/0 .... /{'?,
0: -
~.,"'Frs~K<i
~
2 ~-·-it.
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Legend • R~nn Addition Oulbolnd
~/ ~~~f,
.1 14 ·~~'?>
" <!· '.j:
¢' ~-' ~;· ~c_~/
'fi.'ffAIPoiE A\•t;
I'
-~
"--~o
-9 .. """'z~ -~~-" ,;,
-Dat!-t Total On
-Dally Total orr
-Renn Addthon c:'"' Pqu>lo<IV1 ....... 1lN ~.... r .. -"'~ _, _,,.. ...
C«y Bo<oftdaoy ·~ •• '"q, '\~ 1J
~-l •! ~-/ ~i' i ... "' •" . A/~
''f..,),
:".r
0 25 0.1:25 --025 tAle•
' T~ ··+· ~,..;.~ ... '4t:<;T
8 i i
<t'' DfL CERRO OR-!/...'
1;/l ....
'ALE R'O ,~k ... of l!.fJJ)
T~
~~AT7c::?IV .
~h)
''"~·.
.... ~
.. :;/ :#/ i g
-~ l ,t ·if
~-t :1 ~:
~ ~> ~ ~~~ ' . '--~~~.)!;:~'"'
\
X '\<.. -~ -~
' ~-~" 'lb )~'\~-~ ~~ #~
!~'!~
1 1 3 "' ... t 1 = ~'-' v c1 ;/~ ! ~'!·
<I-k'~~~·•o f) I,;'
~~t>e:., 1.!.. $. ~~ _,.: ..... ! .. ~, ~· '-.AI
i' ;t/ 51
3t ~I
CLARo\ DR
_tou4;
\QV'S--.;r;·
.. t
u l .:;.tr /
t ·l !
1.~ .IJj./ '~ -._:·-.~~
I'; ~ ... '.~.St-
CAAL LH . ~
-~~~ ! -~
~~~'1~ "~
11!-
0
l:
t I< l -~~
' ~~·~ ----""
c )II' "' :: ~ 2
..
\'; .,.
" i a ~ u.....o.... ~ s ·., .. n r-"0
--
March 2006
38
---
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Stady Area Data Inventory
-----
Figure 24: Renn Addition Inbound On/Off
Q ; 'l'
.. ~.. ,_. ~-lo .... I
' j '" .· '· ·, /'-~-; "'~'"•V_''_ '\11,"/ ---~-~~ :1ol i'· -J, < ·, . >)_·-,o#J<
. /!<~ . t~__;:_-.: . v; .
.,. ,/ ~~"~ ... _;If. ·,.~ ~·::· .,... ~J4--. ,<~~1'-' g~,.~-· ~.,f;t·'~f ~ .....
0 ;, ,._~,..,_~. ,,.. •
·:1-_ ... '~~-'"',::~;' ·.._fJ,I'
"' __ • -~ ·.-b_ ., ·-.. -._.,. ·-;~' ·--~;, -~ «... /
•••• --~--)J. ... : •. ,, {((' ·, ~-' •. f'?:. • .5<-" ., '·o., ( ~-#/'· • ' , ... .. -~ -~ ' ,_ ... ;
" " >
'r > / pf·
-~';-1[' {~ ' ;r,
s
~ ~ ·~. \j .~,J. ;!__~/ ~ .._tor
,•' ~ .. }'
/ /<.' ~-.;·
'1 -_ /'/f ·d:'!:_-' • /-......:-
1' :.. .f::· "%! -~~ :U'' '" .,~ . -~"'"ti._
; ----· ,.'~' "~ ,__ -~ ~f ~~ ... -~-~"' ,.-."' ·-,,'1--. ·-... .r:.
St>!'~JS -~·~~
..,.h ,.~ -~~.;-_,.. . ... </;/ -.~>
<>' ~~ .• _~,.,-.. '!--~--
"' -,<t, -~-~-
-----~ -.~1'
~
~
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Leoend • Renn Addooon lrbol.nd
.I 15
-Dally Total 0'1
-Daily Total at
_ Renn Addtbon
'l.'.$1 .,,
",//)f.
>-:1 .. ~~/
+0
~WI{ ·1{'' •• ' --\i< ;\ ~ . /.. '• "'
..... ~ ,,.-T --~ . . '
,41_/'·....,~
~r<!_, -~"' ',
<!' .. ,~.' '<to_ '{t~ IF---;~': ,,~ '-: .$. ,.
.Pi ·Y,.
' ,;-~~
~ ~fEifiNE AVF
~~ '..-->~..
r·~ .....,.._ Urban~ed A lea I . .. ~..... *'~ -,q.~
" ety Bounda1y ''~' ,.1'-6-n. "~ li'
~l ':"'~) _,_ ... 1
11 ..... 0,
'·
~~--~~b~
~.;~ ""' ""-~-"'
,.t>· >·· ,q-~>
..~-¥!
0 2' oJ 125 !) O.Z5 W•t -..
' ·+· T~
1 C:::::C.:nF>C">RATI<.>I'J ... ' I Alf •o
(<.1
T~
c-~A TT<:"':>IV .
.r
0 1
DEC CEI!f'O"" ,,.
ill;'
'
:;;,
o .
WI : g
.l• -a:r
1!
I'
\~~~~.8~~~~
·~·-, ; •-!;<-. ,?> '0
\". /. ':>to..,
\X "·""'--_o \~j( ' ~ .. ~~~ /7
g~--!!'t
1f i 3 ~ ''> l r g -~~ ~ ,c' 1! ~ ~--~ .... ~ ' " ~I ..,...,.... ~··<h.s••o o· ~<1:-.t:-·
' ....... _ ~~Ill)
'-!f
~~ I! ~...': .. , }·
jl ~: 31
3/ ~I
t "-' t;, ~· J. Ji ::_1 \.i,'
4~-~ ~~!~
\Qill~gl<
!$f\ \J "'"·,r-
·,;. "•1
CI<H\CN g
!,;t~~
~~-.... "ll ... .,.~/ -,~ /'.~
&./ j:. .. "
~· ,t-· ~
...._ ~~!_~_t\\'t.IR .~ ~ t-1< .\
"i>' i il ... ...... ,'t....,., ; ,,..~..,()
---
Marcb 2006
39
-
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
St.dy Area Data laveatory
--
Figure 25: Business 50 East Outbound On/Off
,, "' ~~-
~
)t.
./!_ ~ .... ~ ~ • .;"-'!>. •• /
~/ -~~ t .'t-G " $'~~ .. 1 ~o" (:'-~-~.. " ~~-',.f,f / '1 ~ / ~ .aii:ltc:RA$. ~,• ~':f~f~OR .~-(1~,. _ .... :1!:.. '>-t~ ·~~~ \ ... ~.. ., , -.1/ ~0':-,.,-~o/ ,..,. __ .;;--_;.-x-~ -~ ",~~ '"•~Y: 4'~ ·~t~>~.;... ·t;.. ,. 'v '-~;. '~ ~/ ~/· /
,. '"".r. ....... ""> '· ~~)' ....... ~ .. -· ' '. " _, .,. . ~"i-. " ' ~ y; ~" "'~ . "'~ .. , ._,~ , . .. ... ,<>.· ~ • ~Q' / .. ,v .I
, -it,_ ': s; CT ,t. ~~ I " ... ~"Chi ~~· i'J
'\ ~-lro ' ';t .:' • ~ ~~ .
:\-· , -'' "'~·: ~to"'
If. ' ' .t' "'---:,;,:~ ·:., J',
~<t · ..... ,_ ff.~ >~"...... • ... " .. ~·
~ 1 ~< o,";~ -t:i ·"'( '\0, ~.. : tf'/ I ~ ~, )1:"/~" -~'..."'t ~----~·· ~~---~--+--........ ,p '•, / .! ' ' ~~ ·, ,"-'~.. ,,... ~ -
.... ~ ....... , ).;. (f ~ ~ "' :.... !,~~)' ~J.. ~ ~
:f .,_ . > , ~ .. ~ ' • '~"-·\"~' • ;,; !
S) Q "4 "(:; • q.jl/ . ' ,.. ,., i ~ .:> ,. ~ c.,"""· r./ -,')' •' ~ ..., • ... ,;r " '· ' ~~ / #// ~-.. i J
Jefferson City ,..f/" l ~~ J
Transit Development Plan "· I
Legend · Bustness so East OA>ound
.I a
-oa.ty Total On
-Dally Total 01!
-eus.,...S<IEaSI
.... , M~ lhbancrod Aru ,.,._
~ l City Bounda•r
¥
'-'AA£1'Ut.LN
/!
0
l D£lCURODI> 4:
~
:\.
.J' ~~~t /'' .:.-~o
~~' t '· ~' \~-~~~ ... ;::~ .. 1>
-' ·~' ,..¢!'"'
'--<
(;
'·!t J;
3-' ~ ~~
¢LA;;·;,..
~~a,;
\outs_91
'~ .,.l"'-,.__, ~~~,.1\~~9¢ ~
~~a."" O.l!t 0.125 0 0 25Mie, --\
,.,._ Hll<lA't-
T~ ·+'· ~?RATJICXV . '
Sf:\1£,,-tlt.l~H O ~~~":',.-r
OHROU.
T~
~ATKJIV
-
I
I ...........
f
I
""'"
!
l i
~-"""~""''"'
.t l';~/
~/
March 2006
40
-----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
St.dy Area Data laventory
Figure 26: Business 50 East Inbound On/Off
. -; •: .. ,r. ...
.... $.; •,(J .-?,
< ... ,~") ':-.., .. ,.;·
·' ,.,"'r::.•
... ~,.·
<t. /~
. ~
('• ;;:. . ~:-· ~
>ct: .~ '""' ~ "'~ ~ ,,,~
"·'1\-\.~ ·,ot,
·~".... ....,)'
•C:, ~ l'~ 'l
,, .,
-~
( ' ' • --~ ~-l~ ~R~--ffl\<t;;J~~~~~~~~ /
iP '<' "<~ -<¥ •/ ' ~ I / <'-r ~"'"' ,. ,. . ,, '::15· ~ J ~ '• Qy , '\411r,.,. ~ ·l'. •• . ... ~~ ,Y. ~~ 1': ~~~
'" -~·~ ~' 1 <<} ··• ~ ' 1;
_ _{O x ~~''~~ z .. ~ .,.
'1 -IIJ,_ l S
''s ·~ ~ ',., .. .,,
.; f ,.
_,y · -."/ ~~ . ~ '~ ·' "·~· ';:.' :!_, . ('~~,,. ·~-~~,. ~~ '£>',, ,<Y <Jl' ,....._~~ ""',_ ~
... ~.> . ~~ /~ / ~Y. ,_(1-:~,. .. £ ~ . ' 1:: !.~..,~ ~ !< ~~lc , '"''V.)Jf!! §·· ~ ~ ~' ' '· . .r,. ( p/ iS : ,/ ,t.
Jefferson City
j ~~ .~ ~ • ~
;, ,
Transit Development Plan
Legend -Busoness 50 East Inbound
.1 10
-Daily Total On
-DaiiV Total at
1.\AA~N
4
f
On CERRO~~·
;;:,
¢"
__ .. .~-~ ;;;
-t' I '"' 01.
• '/ ~ tt u .: ~
~\-!-'":!'
~ '-'
{ .. " 4'• !l
~
,~~~(~ ~~~" •, ~~. ~".t~~ ,l"., ~ i ', _, ,~'\.~ 1>
' '" " .., ·~s.. -~ "f>o
~~"" ! -..
:13 ~<h ~~,c.' \ ~I i · ,.--, .... ~..,_.. · 1.1 ; ~
(;
2: ..... ~-~~ ..
C~tir.t
'ot. --...__!:3011
\.QotscJ<·
X ~~/
-
3 1Jlli i
ol ~ " ~~ oi ... ~; ~
-Busones• 50 East c:J Adlustod Uob3nozod "•••
.J" ~'<> ~/ ~~!I ~· . ·"'" ~# JE~,_F~_RD.-
" ~C ill' Boundaty
0..(5 0 .1~ 0 0.2, Min --' ~-+· ~A~••'
T~
c--.-CYC>~Ane?N i
E'V~illt~HO •• -ir
~ i
.~ ;:,
"' ~'l
~ •<t till:,
' ~SS\11fw -. --~l>lf
pE_!~ 1"Al
1F~O~..C
·-~--
--
March 2006
......_!
b
! /( 1 4 "'' '''''"·'"(•'""
t<"-.. ~
"" ,,,
A. \
{
SPL!l
' ~
,"
,.
:
41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
5.3 Ridership Trends
March 2006
Data shows a growth in ridership on most routes for the past five years except the Business 50
East route and most of the commuter school tripper routes which show a slight decline. The
largest ridership increases were on the Missouri Blvd/Capital Mall route and the Truman Shuttle.
The Eastside Shuttle was put into operation in March of 2005 and has been getting more than
400 riders per day. Table 7 shows the ridership history. The data is also represented in Figure
27.
Table 7: Daily Ridership History
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Missouri Blvd/Capital Mall* 288 301 325 306 336 429
Southwest 123 130 120 119 127 128
High Street East 110 113 110 116 113 122
High Street West 89 92 100 99 84 97
Renn Addition 76 76 73 86 97 106
Business 50 East 87 76 69 63 57 53
Handi-Wheels 177 181 181 196 201 206
Hutton Lane Commuter 27 21 20 19 16 17
Tanner Bridge Commuter 12 8 2 0.1
Southside Commuter 35 36 31 27 25 19
High Street East Commuter 30 40 34 31 30 33
High Street West Commuter** 2
Truman Shuttle 188 137 145 176 174 218
Eastside Shuttle 400
System Total 1,241 1,212 1,208 1,242 1,259 1,829
Source: JEFFTRAN ridership data as compiled by TranSystems.
Note: Year is from November 1 through October 31 except for 2005 which is from November 1 to May 31 .
• JEFFTRAN ridership records combine Missouri Boulevard and Capital Mall routes .
**High Street West Commuter Route was incorporated into High Street West regular route.
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Figure 27: Daily Ridership Trends
500
450
400 /
/ ~ 350
,, -· --~ ~ ....
Q. ~ ~300 -.-
• -:!!
It:
f250
D • Cll ~200 ..
oo(
150
• • • '2 ~ -a=
100 ~
"' ....,..
50 .£.'.
~
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
March 2006
~Missouri Blvd/Capital Mall
...... Southwest
High Street East
-++-High Street Wast
""*""Rann AddHion
~Business 50 East
-+--Handi-Wheals
--Hutton Lane Commuter
-Tanner Bridge Commuter
~Southside Commuter
High Street East Commuter
.....,._High Street Wast Commuter
43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Section 6: Passenger Survey
6.1 Purpose and Methodology
March 2006
ETC Institute conducted a transit passenger survey for Jefferson City, Missouri during April
2005. The purpose of the survey was to gather input for current riders to help improve the
quality of public transportation services in the community.
The survey was distributed by bus drivers to passengers on each of the City's seven fixed
routes. A total of 297 transit surveys were completed. The overall results of the survey have a
precision of at least +/-4% at the 95% level of confidence.
This section summarizes the complete 2005 Jefferson City Transit Passenger Survey report
which contains:
• An executive summary of the methodology and major findings
• Charts depicting the results of selected questions on the survey
• Tabular data that shows the results for all questions on the survey
• A copy of the survey instrument.
6.2 Characteristics of Transit Passengers
Transit passengers in Jefferson City as observed through the on-board survey include the
following characteristics:
• Only 25% of those surveyed had a car or other vehicle that they could have used to
make their trip.
• 56% of the respondents lived in zip code 65101; 39% lived in zip code 65109.
• 21% of those surveyed were under age 25; 16% were age 55 or older.
• 46% were male; 54% were female.
• More than 60% of those surveyed had annual household incomes under $20,000; only
2% had annual household incomes of $75,000 or more.
• 52% of those surveyed indicated that they use public transportation in Jefferson City at
least five days per week.
6.3 Major Findings
Perceptions of the Overall Qualitv of Public Transportation in Jefferson City. The overall quality
of public transportation services in Jefferson City was rated highly by persons currently using
the service. More than three-fourths (82%) of those surveyed rated the overall quality of public
transportation service in Jefferson City as either "excellent" or "good"; only three percent (3%) of
the respondents rated the quality of public transportation services as "poor" (see Figure 28).
Service Characteristics Rated Best. The service characteristics that were rated best (based on
the percentage of respondents who were "very satisfied" or "satisfied") were:
• Courtesy of drivers
• Feeling of safety using bus
• Bus fees
Service Characteristics Rated Worst. The service characteristics that received the lowest ratings
(based on the percentage of respondents who were "very satisfied" or "satisfied") were:
• The hours bus service is offered
• Availability of bus shelters
• Availability of bus service on weekdays
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Other Findings
Marcbl006
• The top three reasons respondents were using public transportation services in
Jefferson City were: to get to/from work (51%), to conduct personal business (27%), and
to go shopping (26% ).
• The top three items that would encourage current riders to use public transportation
services more often were: having more service offered on weekends (66%), having
service offered later in the evening (54%), and providing more frequent service (35%).
Figure 29 shows the suggested improvements .
• 84% of those surveyed thought they would still be using public transportation services in
Jefferson City in 12 months.
• Bus drivers were the top source of information about public transportation services for
current users.
• 62% of those surveyed indicated that a bus stop was located within one block of their
home.
The study team was also noted that approximately 51% of those surveyed were using transit to
get to work. In addition, approximately twenty-five percent of the transit riders ride by choice.
These results are illustrated in Figures 30 and 31
Figure 28: Transit Survey System Rating
Overall , How Would You Rate the Q uality of Publi c
Transporat ion Services in Jefferson City?
Good
40%
by percentage of respondents
Excellent
42%
Poor
3%
Average
15%
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Fi ure 29:
What Would Get You to Use Public Transportation
More Often?
by percentage of respondents (multiple responses eHowed)
Services offered on weekends
Services offered in evenings
More frequent service
More covered shelters
Service to more destinatioll$
Faster travel time
Services offered earlier
Slops closer to home
66%
Nothing ~~~~
Buses being on-time
More information
Drivers more helpful
More comfortable buses
Cleaner/better buses
Fuel prk:es increase
0% 20% 40%
Figure 30: Trip Purpose
so•"'
What Is the Purpose of this Trip?
by percentage of respondents (muliple responses allowed)
Work
Personal business
Shopping
HospltaUdoctor
CoRege/school
Social/Recreation
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
llOIIf<t JITC hlillitlllf ~00~
51%
80%
60%
March 2006
46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Figure 31 : Proportion of Transit Dependent to Choice Riders
Do You Have a Car or Other Vehicle That You
Could Have Used to Make This Trip?
by .,.rcantage of raspondants
T~IENIS a ~~ATKJN ~
Marc:h 2006
47
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Study Area Data Inventory
Section 7: Peer Agencies
7.1 Purpose
March 2006
A peer review was conducted to see how the level of transit service in Jefferson City compares
to the level of transit service in similar cities within the region and across the country.
JEFFTRAN was compared to peer agencies in terms of urban area population, size of transit
system, operating cost, service and productivity. The peer review was conducted to establish a
benchmark to dete1:mine if services in Jefferson City compare favorably to other transit
operations. The agencies included as peers were selected in part based on the level of service
provided.
Table 8: Regional Peer Agency System Comparison
Population of Service Level Weekday Peak Operating Revenue R'd h'
City Urbanized Area (Annual Vehicle M'l 1 ers 1p per
Ridership Vehicles Expenses1 1 es per C 'ta
(2000) Revenue Miles) Capita apl
Columbia, MO 98,779 420,508 1,850 9 $1,841,087 4.3 4.8
Springfield, MO 215,004 1 ,062,195 5,400 20 $5,417,941 4.9 6.4
St. Joseph, MO 77,231 771,824 1,300 18 $3,033,091 10.0 4.3
Topeka, KS 142,411 833,922 4,800 23 $3,107,037 5.9 8.6
Jefferson City, MO 53,714 382,983 1,200 11 $1,600,000 7.1 5.7
Peer agencies statistics only includes fixed route bus costs.
JEFFTRAN compares favorably with transit systems in other similar cities in Missouri and
Kansas. JEFFTRAN ranks high in terms of service miles per capita, an indication that the level
of service provided in Jefferson City is reasonable from the perspective of other similar cities.
The per capita ridership statistic is about average for systems within the peer group.
Table 9: National Peer Agency System Comparison
Population of Service Level Annual Peak Operating Revenue .
City Urbanized Area (Annual Vehicle Unlinked Vehicles Expenses1
Miles per R1derahlp per
(2000) Revenue Miles) Trips Capita Capita
Dubuque, lA 65,251 341,980 1,800 8 $1,363,770 5.2 7.0
Jackson, TN 65,086 557,541 1,800 8 $1,478,594 8.6 7.1
Middletown, OH 94,355 212,650 700 4 $648,356 2.3 1.9
Oshkosh, WI 71,070 575,478 3,500 13 $2,277,064 8.1 12.6
Pocatello, 10 62,498 259,913 1,700 8 $674,151 4.2 6.9
Port Arthur, TX 114,656 246,067 500 6 $1,097,757 2.1 1.1
Rapid City, SO 66,780 162,397 600 4 $475,752 2.4 2.3
Jefferson Ci~ 53,714 382,983 1,200 11 $1,600,000 7.1 5.7
1Peer agencies statistics only includes fiXed route bus costs.
Table 9 compares Jefferson City with a broader peer group. Again, the conclusions are about
the same as for the Regional peer group comparison. Transit service levels in Jefferson City
are similar to the levels in this peer group, and the riders per capita statistic in Jefferson City is
in the middle of the peer group.
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 3:0 & M
F Kility E va1uMion
1. Introduction
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Operating and Maintenance Facility Evaluation
July 12, 2005
This Section evaluates the series of buildi ngs located at the Charles E. Robinson Transit
Maintenance Facility and concludes with and opinion of the condition of the facilities and
recommendations for Transit improvements at this facility.
Site and building functions are sub-divided into functional divisions and presented in a
sequential order as they might be encountered by the general public or users of the services
provided at this facility. Primary functional areas are described as observed on June 6, 2005.
A summary of functional areas is as follows:
• SITE-the property where JEFFTRAN operating and maintenance activities take place.
This area includes off-site staff and public parking areas used by JEFFTRAN employees
and patrons and visitors.
o Site Area: 54,290 Square Feet, 1.25 Acres
o Of-Site Area (parking) : 1 0,000 Square Feet
• ADMINISTRATION AREA-Building area for JEFFTRAN administrative staff and
visitors.
o Building Area: 880 Square Feet
• OPERATIONS AREA-Building area for operations staff and drivers.
o Building Area: 1,214 Square Feet
• MAINTENANCE AREA-Area occupied by maintenance staff where preventative, and
light maintenance services are provided to City fleet vehicles. Transit vehicles are
serviced on a charge back basis.
o Building Area: xxx Square Feet
• FUELING FACILITY -A shared facility for the re-fueling of Transit and other city
vehicles.
o Canopy Area: 30' x 45' = 1 ,350 Square Feet
• VEHICLE WASH BUILDING-A shared vehicle wash facility, operated by JEFFTRAN
and also used by other city vehicles on a charge back basis.
o Building Area: 60.67' x 21.33' = 1,295 Square Feet
• BUS GARAGE -A bus storage building where buses are stored overnight and where
daily maintenance checks are performed by Transit staff.
o Building Area: 80.5' x 140.33' = 11 ,296 Square Feet
The TranSystems Team 1
I
I
I
I
I
2. Site
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
The Charles E. Robinson Transit Maintenance Facility is located on property fronting along
Miller Street and bounded by Cherry Street, Chestnut Street and Rex M. Whitton Expressway.
The site includes a total area of approximately 54,290 Square Feet or 1.25 Acres. The total
footprint of buildings and structures on site is 25,868 Square Feet. The site area dedicated to
access drives and vehicle queue positions is Approximately 20,000 Square feet. The remaining
area available for site functions such as required setbacks, landscaped areas, vehicle
circulation, staging areas and yard storage is approximately 8,422 Square Feet.
This site is fully developed as a transit mai ntenance facility. Additional development woul d likely
introduce additional staff and equipment that would i nterfere with existing activities.
Staff and public parking spaces are provided in a city parking lot located on the east side of
Chestnut Street. This public lot is shared by Transit employees, city employees working in
adjacent facilities and visitors to the adjoining East Miller City Park. A total of 60 parking
spaces are available.
Area for Transit staff parking is based on the number of transit staff during largest shift. Each
parking space is estimated at an average of 300 Square Feet per vehicle to allow for parking
and circulation. Approximately 33 spaces are used by Transit staff and visitors during peak
periods. The total area required for Transit Staff parking is estimated to be 10,000 S quare Feet.
The TranSystems Team 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Administration Area
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
The Administration area p rovides space for managers , support staff and office equipment
associated with the overall management of transit services . JEFFTRAN is staffed by City
employees, including the General Manager.
The Administration Area is located on the second floor (upper level) of the Charles E. Robinson
Transit Maintenance Facility.
The Administration and Operations management share several common use areas including,
entry vestibule and reception area, toilets and break room facilities.
Table 1: Administration Area Interior Space Use
Personnel/ Area Equipment I Special
Function (SF) Requirements
• Airlock entry
Entry Vestibule 45 • Adjacent to:
0 Accessible parking spaces
0 Receptionist
• Secured area
• Service window w/ accessible counter
• View of entry
Receptionist/ • Desk with side or rear worktop
Administrative 225 • drawer/file unit
Assistant • Computer workstation
• Phone & data outlets
• Adjacent to:
0 Administrative Offices
• Private office
General Manager • 4-person conference area
Office 225 • Phone & data outlets
• Adjacent to:
0 Administration area
• Semi-Private office
• Desk, with side or rear worktop
• Computer Workstation
Assistant Manager 162 • One 36" book shelf
Office • Two lateral file cabinets
• Phone & data outlets
• Adjacent to:
0 General Manager
The TranSystems Team 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Personnel/
Function
Printer & Copier Area
Janitor Closet
Subtotal
Administration Area
Unassigned Area
(Compact
Allowance)
Grand Total
Administration Area
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Area
(SF)
10
20
687
880
Equipment I Special
Requirements
• copier and worktop counter
• Supplies storage base cabinet
• Phone and data outlets
• Accessible to:
o Operations Staff
o Administration Staff
• Mop sink
• Secured Room
• Adj acent to:
o Administration Area
• Assigned building areas
28% factor
Circulation Corridors
Structure and walls
Mechanical
Gross Square Feet
• Due to space constraints, archived records are
stored off site in a nearby storage facility .
The TranSystems Team 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Operations Area
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
This area provides space for the Operations Division of JEFFTRAN. Specifically, this area
houses the functions of JEFFTRAN associated with the day-to-day operations of the system
including operations general management, call takers I dispatch , and driver support a reas.
Operations activities are appropriately adjacent to the Maintenance Area with a preference for
most of the operations activities being located between the Administration Area and
Maintenance Area on this site.
Table 2: Operations Area Interior Space Use
Personnel/ Type Equipment I Special
Function (SF) Requirements
• Primary staff entrance in a central location
• Off-hour entrance shared by:
0 Operations Staff
0 Maintenance Staff
Driver Entra nee 30 0 Administrative Staff
• Adjacent to:
0 Staff Parking
0 Administrative Area
0 Operations B reakroom
0 Pass thru window to Dispatch Area
• 40 -12x12 half height lockers
0 Common use lockers
0 Uniform hanging rods
Locker Room 126 • Adjacent to:
0 Driver Entry
0 Driver's Toilets
0 Driver's Lounge
Dispatch 90 • Adj acent to:
0 Driver's Lunch Room
• Women's includes 1 water closet and 11avatory
Women's Toilet 42 • Adjacent to :
0 Driver's Lounge
• Men's includes 1 water closet, and 1 lavatory
Men's Toilet 42 • Adjacent to:
0 Driver's Lounge
MechanicaU Electrical 53 • Shared w ith Administration area
Room
The TranSystems Team 5
I
I
I
I
I
Personnel/
Function
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Type
(SF)
Equipment I Special
Requirements
• Lounge area for 20@ 20 SF/ person
• Sink
The TranSystems Team 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. Maintenance Area
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Typical fleet maintenance activities include daily, scheduled preventative maintenance and
heavy repair maintenance. Daily maintenance checks are performed in the adjacent Garage
facility and include fluid top off and general operation checks.
Light vehicle maintenance is provided under agreement by City Public Works and is performed
in service bays located in the lower level of the Charles E. Robinson Transit Maintenance
Facility. This City department provides maintenance for JEFFTRAN buses and paratransit vans
and other city vehicles including public work road maintenance trucks, fire trucks, EMS vehicles,
police cars, tractors, mowers and standard passenger vehicles. JEFFTRAN vehicles are
estimated to use approximately 70% of the vehicle maintenance capacity at this facility. Heavy
maintenance activities, such as engine overhauls, transmission repairs, major body work and
seat repair are performed of-site by vendors.
Vehicles requiring maintenance service enter the site via the Cherry Street entrance and
proceed past the fuel facility and wash building into a broad paved area sufficient to
accommodate several vehicles awaiting service. The vehicle maintenance bays are in a nose-
in, back-out arrangement.
Table 6: Maintenance Area Interior Space Use
Personnel/ Area Equipment I Special
Function (SF} Requirements
• Private office
• Desk, with side or rear worktop Maintenance
Managers Office 120 • Computer Work Station
• Phone/data outlets
• Air Conditioned
• Private office
Parts Office 146 • Desk, with side or rear worktop
• Computer Workstation
• Phone/data outlets
• AC unit
Machine Room 180 • Electric Distribution panels
• Facility Maintenance Storage
Tool Storage 120 • Storage racks
• Technical Manual Book Shelves
• Parts shelving units
• Pallet storage area
Parts Storage 1,615 • Computer workstation
• Phone & data outlets
Women's Toilet 35 • Water Closet
• Lavatory
The TranSystems Team 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Personnel/
Function
Men's Toilet
Janitor's Closet
Shop Lockers
Shop Aisles and
Circulation Area
Shop Mezzanine
Storage
City Repair Bays
@ 4 X 40' X 15'
Bus Repair Bays
@ 2 X 50' X 20'
Steam Clean Bay
Expansion Bay
Unit Re-Build Shop
Tire Storage Room
Storage Room
Chem/Lubric at ion
Fluid Storage Room
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Area Equipment I Special
(SF) Requirements
• Water Closet
120 • 2 -Urinals
• Hand Wash Fountain
12 • Mop sink
• Storage shelves
15 • 5 Mechanic's Locker units
• Adjacent to repair bays
• Eye wash station
1000 • Space for Tool boxes
0 Tool Boxes,
0 Work benches
0 Small machine tools
300 • Mezzanine level open to Maintenance Shop
• Access via Ship's ladder
• Compressed air quick connects
2,400 • Overhead reel-mounted fluid dis pen sing system
• Overhead vehicle exhaust hose reel
• Vehicle lift in north bay
2 ,000 • Compressed air quick connects
• Overhead fluid dispensing system
• Ducted vehicle exhaust system
1,000 • Compressed air quick connects
• Overhead vehicle exhaust hose reel
1,200 • A ir exhaust system
380 • Various Machine Shop Equipment
• Material storage racks
366 • Tire storage racks
• T ire re-build equipment
80 • Storage shelving
• Fluid mini-bulk containers and pumps:
0 oil(s)
146 0 transmission fluid
0 anti-freeze
0 grease
0 windshield washer
The TranSystems Team 8
I
I
I
I
I
Personnel/
Function
Subtotal
Maintenance Area
Building
Unassigned Area
(Minimal Allowance)
Grand Total
Maintenance Area
Building
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Area
{SF)
11,235
692
Equipment I Special
Requirements
• Assigned Building Areas
Mezzanine areas not included
6 % factor {due to large open bays)
• Circulation Corridors
• Structure a nd walls
• Mechanical
• Assumes single story structure
11,927 • Wash I prep bay may be outside under canopy
• Gross Square Feet
Note that the vehicle maintenance bays are typically provided with some or all of the following
specialty equipment:
• Metal Halide high bay lighting
• Convenience outlets for hand tools
• Moveable Task lighting
• Non-slip floor surface
• Access to air, water, lubricants, service fluid and engine exhaust system.
• In-floor hydraulic lift
• Moveable vehicle lifts.
• Floor drains connect to oil/water separator
• High lift garage doors with motor operators.
An above ground waste oil tank is located on the lower level , south west side of the facility.
The TranSystems Team 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. Fueling Facility
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Fleet fueling is provided with a canopy cover, located in the north west quadrant of the property.
The fu eli ng facility is used by all Transit and City vehicles. Two fuel in g positions are provi ded;
with two 80' long approach lanes providing queue space for waiting vehicles. A two way
driveway is located between the f ue ling facility and the Bus Garage and serves as the primary
entrance and exit to the mai ntena n ce f acil ity.
The fu eling system has been updated since its original construction with electronic data
collect ion capabil ity added.
Table 3: Fu eling Fa c ility Space Use
Personnel/ Type Equipment I Special
Function (SF} Requirements
• Open canopy with 14' clearance
Fu eli ng Canopy 1,350 • two fuel dispensing positions
• inside security fence
• Approx. 20,000 gallon Diesel storage ca pacity
Fuel storage tanks 0 2-10,000 diesel tanks
N/A 0 2-5,000 tanks unknown fuel (Underg r ound) • Fuel offl oad positio n is located near underground
tanks on south side of pro perty
Fueling Service & 1,920 • Gated access (manual operat ion)
Q ueue • Two lanes of 12' x 80'
Subtotal Fueling 1,350 • Assigned Square Feet ,..=.., ---t>-= --:r:
Area 0 Does not include vehicle queue area ..._____
Unassigned Area 0 • 0% factor . /)~ _ _,
.... _
r-" ul Grand Total Fueling • Gross Square Feet
Area 1,350 o Does not Include site queue area _ ~~ ---
The TranSystems Team 10
I
I
I
7. Vehicle Wash Building
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
The cleaning of City vehicles is provided within a separate, building located beyond the fueling
facility. The vehicle wash facility may be used by all Transit and City vehicles.
The wash equipment has been updated since the original construction and could again be
upgraded. The wash building is generally in good repair; however, corrosion was noted on
exposed roof pur1in steel. Exposed Structural steel should be painted with an industrial epoxy
paint to prolong material life.
Table 4: Vehicle Wash Building Space Use
Personnel/ Type Equipment I Special
Function (SF) Requirements
• single lane drive through
Vehicle Wash 1,295 • Automatic wash equipment
Building • Hand wash wand
Vehicle Wash 1,920 • one lane of 12' x 60' available
Service Queue
Subtotal Vehi cle " Wash Area
100% factor
0 Circulation
Unassigned Area 0 Landscaping
0 Yard Setbacks , 0 Easements
Grand Total Vehicle Gross Square Feet
Wash Area 1,295 0 Does not Include site queue area
The TranSystems Team 11
I
I
I
I
I
8. Bus Garage
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
An 11,296 Square Bus Garage is provided for overnight storage of the Transit Fleet. The
Garage is located on the west end of the property in a position that requires returning buses to
enter the site through a gated opening, and drive past the fueling facility . Some busses re-fuel
at the end of service while others do not. The vehicle wash building is located beyond the
fueling facility. Buses may circulate through the wash bay as needed. Beyond the wash bay
buses enter the maintenance yard. Returning buses tum 180 degrees to enter the garage .
Buses are cleaned and serviced in the garage.
The Garage facility includes 5 -140' long parking lanes providing 700 linear feet of vehicle
storage capacity.
The Garage also includes s fare box deposit equipment. Manual fare box deposits are made at
this time. An updated electronic fare box collection system will be installed with the arrival of
new busses that are provided with updated fare collection equipment.
The daily check-in and servicing of fleet vehicles includes: fueling, washing, interior cleaning
and preparation for the next day's transit service. The daily check-in begins when a driver
delivers the vehicle to the bus garage. Fare is removed from the vehicle. The driver parks the
bus and leaves. A Transit Hostler becomes responsible for servicing and preparing the vehicle
for the next day's service. The vehicle may be fueled, washed , vacuumed and inspected for
maintenance needs which are provided as needed.
Table 5: Bus Garage Space Use
Personnel/
Function
Bus Garage
Subtotal Bus
Garage Building
Unassigned Area
Grand Total bus
Garage Area
Type
(SF)
11,296
11,296
N/A
11,296
The TranSystems Team
Equipment I Special
Requirements
• Direct exit access onto Cherry street
• Direct access to Fair Box Processing
• Storage of daily maintenance materials
• Housekeeping trench drain
• Assigned Square Feet
• 0% factor (Interior open area)
.
• Gross Square Feet ~
12
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
9. Facility Condition and Improvement Recommendations
The combination of buildings at the Charles E. Robinson Transit Maintenance Facility is
generally well organized on the site. The buildings are pre-engineered structures with metal
and roof panels. The administration wing is clad in brick veneer. The basic structure is
expected to serve well for many years to come if sufficient and ongoing maintenance is
provided.
The buildings are approximately 20 years old, a significant milestone in the life of pre-finished
roof and wall panels which typically have 20 year finish warranties. The buildings appear to
have been well maintained however they are at an age where the exterior envelop should
receive a significant program of preventative maintenance and repair to prevent premature
building decay including a water tightness check at roof penetrations and transitions, major
joints, flashings, louvers, window and door frames. HVAC systems should be inspected and
replacement systems pi an ned and budgeted when needed.
As refurbishing plans are made, it should be noted that the addition of modem, energy efficient
HVAC, lighting, windows and insulation systems often have quick pay-back periods due to the
rise in energy costs . Upgrades in replacement systems should be accelerated where energy
efficiencies provide lower operational costs over the life of the system.
The following recommendations for improvement are offered:
• The Transit Facility site is fully developed with limited opportunity for expansion or property
acquisition. Long range planning should address how anticipated growth in Transit and City
activities can be accommodated.
• The shared use of maintenance, fueling and wash facilities increases traffic through the
Transit facility site. Facilities to service and maintain Transit and City Fleets will need to
expand as the fleets grow. Options to increase capacity include expanding existing
facilities, creating new facilities and separating services of specialized vehicles to specific
sites .
• The queue area for vehicles waiting to go through the vehicle wash building is constrained
by the adjacent fueling facility.
• The primary vehicle access into the site is from Cherry Street at the north end of the
property. This entrance is remote from the more populated south end of the site where
security could be provided more effectively. Site security can be improved by the use of a
motor operated gate entry into the site and the addition of surveillance cameras if needed.
• The central paved area between the Maintenance shops, Bus Garage, Wash Bay and Fuel
Facility is congested at peak traffic periods because there is no secondary path in and out of
the area. Scheduling to reduce peak traffic volumes should be established to reduce the
chance of accidents .
• The property has limited area available for yard storage of out of season equipment, bus
shelters and bulk material storage. Provision for expansion of yard storage on city property
on the east side of Miller Street should be investigated.
The TranSystems Team 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
• The addition of updated electronic fare box processing may affect how buses are routed
through the check-in process at end of shifts. The location of new fare box collection system
and check-in process should be studied carefully to maximize driver, hostler and security
issues.
• The Maintenance facility has no battery room. The creation of a specialized room for battery
maintenance should be considered for improved service and safety.
• Archived records are stored off site offsite due to space constraints. Additional area for
record storage can be established on site. The translation of records into electronic form
may reduce storage needs.
The TranSystems Team 14
I
I
I
I
03109106
Jefferson City Transit Development PI an
Bus Replacement Program
Section -4:
Bus Replacement
The timely replacement of vehicles in the fleet is one of the fundamental programs necessary
for a successful transit system. Buses are a transit system's most valuable asset because good
customer service is dependant on the condition of the fleet. The total cost of the fleet is usually
the most expensive asset, even more so than the facilities that house the operation. A fleet that
is aging presents a poor image to the system's customers and the general public. Vehicle
maintenance expenses usually increase as the age of a bus advances .
However, the cost of replacing buses is high, and requires large outlays of cash. Most transit
systems take advantage of federal funding through FT A's capital grant programs to help finance
bus replacement. FTA funding can be used to finance up to 80% of the total purchase price.
The use of FTA funding requires advance planning and coordination with other agencies to
ensure the project is eligible and the funds are available, and received in a timely manner.
FTA rates vehicles for replacement purposes based on the vehicles expected useful life. These
policies are meant to ensure that buses purchased or leased with Federal funds are maintained
and remain in transit use for a minimum normal service life. Minimum normal service lives for
buses and vans are shown below.
• Large, heavy-duty transit buses (approximately 35'-40', and articulated buses): at least
12 years of service or an accumulation of at I east 500,000 miles.
• Medium-size, heavy-duty transit buses (approximately 30'): 10 years or 350,000 miles.
• Medium-size, medium-duty transit buses (approximately 30'): 7 years or 200,000 miles.
• Medium-size, light-duty transit buses (approximately 25-35'): 5 years or 150,000 miles.
• Other light-duty vehicles such as small buses and regular and specialized vans: 4 years
or 1 00,000 miles.
JEFFTRAN has a revenue fleet of 26 vehicles as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
JEFFTRAN Revenue Vehicle Fleet Summary
Operating Spares Total
Fixed Route 7 2 9
Trippers 3 1 4
Shuttles ~ 1 §
Total 14 4 18
Paratransit 6 2 8
TOTAL 20 6 26
Currently JEFFTRAN has a mixed fleet with several different manufacturers and models. The
fixed route fleet (including commuter school trippers and shuttles) includes new transit coaches
purchased in 2005 and medium-duty buses purchased in 1999, 2003 and 2004 .
In 2005 JEFFTRAN acquired five new heavy-duty transit coaches manufactured by the Gillig
Corporation. These new buses are the first heavy-duty buses purchased in Jefferson City in
decades, and feature low floor technology. Low floor buses are popular with the public because
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
03/09/06
of the one-step entry into the bus interior and the wheelchair access via a ramp rather than a lift
device. The new buses have been well received in Jefferson City.
Figure 2 on the following pages shows detail on the JE FFTRAN vehicle fleet.
JEFFTRAN expects to replace the three 1999 Internationals in 2006. These buses are beyond
their rated useful life of seven years. These lighter duty buses will be replaced with heavy duty
transit coaches rated as 12 year buses. The JEFFTRAN manager would like to replace the
remaining medium-duty fixed route buses with heavy-duty transit coaches when their useful li fe
allows replacement. There are advantages to JEFFTRAN using all heavy-duty coaches for the
fixed route, tripper and shuttle operation:
• The heavy-duty buses with low floor technology provide superior customer service.
• Heavy-duty buses usually require less maintenance than lighter duty buses.
• Having a standard fleet of buses redu ces parts inventory and simplifies maintenance.
• Having a standard fleet of buses makes it easier to rotate buses to equalize mileage .
The service operated by JEFFTRAN warrants heavy-duty transit coaches from the standpoint of
passenger loadings and volumes and operating conditions. The heavy-duty buses have a
higher purchase price, thus available funding may be a determining factor.
In 2007, JEFFTRAN will need to add one heavy duty bus for the new downtown shuttle
(Downtown Circulator# 1) route.
Paratransit vehicles operated for the Handi Wheels service would continue to be light duty
buses with a five year rated life.
Table 3 shows the bus replacement schedule and estimated costs assuming that the fixed route
and shuttle vehicles are replaced with heavy-duty transit coaches . Besides the new bus for the
Downtown Circulator #1 route, other buses shown in the table are for replacement of buses
used to provide existing service.
Table 3
JEFFTRAN Revenue Vehicle Replacement Program
Year Units Txpe Total Cost FTAShare Local
2006 3 Transit Coaches $885,000 $708,000 $177,000
4 Paratransit Vehicle ~224,QQO ~17~,,00 ~
$1 ,109,000 $887,200 $221,800
2007 Paratransit Vehicle $58,000 $46 ,400 $11 ,600
Transit Coach i~Q7,QOO ~24~,§00 .i§.MQQ
$365,000 $292,000 $73,000
2009 2 Transit Coach $664 ,000 $531 ,200 $132,800
1 Paratransit Vehicle ~ .ru.w !1.U.QQ
$728,000 $582,400 $145,600
2010 3 Transit Coaches $1 ,038 ,000 $830,400 $207,600
2 Paratransit Vehicle ~132,QQQ i1QMOO m.!QQ
$1,170,000 $936,000 $234,000
2011 5 Transit Coaches $1,770,000 $1,416,000 $354,000
4 Paratransit Vehicle ~,72,000 ~ZF.§OO $54,400
$2,042,000 $1,633,600 $408,400
2
-c:::J --£::::1 r::=J I[=:J ~ (:=1 --r=l --CJ -... -
03/09/06
Table 2
JEFFTRAN Revenue Vehicle Fleet Roster
Year of Purchase
Vehicle #of Pass. Manufacturer VehicleT~ Service Lie# Date Aae
1999 29 International Transit Coach FR 607 6/25/1999 8
1999 29 International Transit Coach FR 608 6/25/1999 8
1999 29 International Transit Coach FR 609 7/16/1999 8
2003 29 F reightliner Transit Coach FR 611 7/15/2003 2
2003 29 Freightliner Transit Coach FR 612 7/15/2003 2
2003 29 Freightliner Transit Coach FR 614 7/15/2003 2
2005 32 Gillig Transit Coach FR 630 7/5/2005 0
2005 32 Gillig Transit Coach FR 634 7/6/2005 0
2005 32 Gillig Transit Coach FR 631 7/7/2005 0
2005 32 Gillig Transit Coach FR 632 7/8/2005 0
2005 32 Gillig Transit Coach FR 633 7/8/2005 0
2002 29 International Transit Coach SH 610 4/26/2003 3
2002 29 International Transit Coach SH 613 4/26/2003 3
2004 23 Freightliner Transit Coach SH 619 11/2/2004 1
2004 23 Freightliner Transit Coach SH 618 11/2/2004 1
2004 23 Freightliner Transit Coach SH 617 11/2/2004 1
2004 23 Freightliner Transit Coach SH 616 11/2/2004 1
2004 23 Freightliner Transit Coach SH 615 11/2/2004 1
1998 20 Ford Eldorado Van /Mini Bus HW 620 10/26/1998 7
1999 20 Ford I Diamond Van /Mini Bus HW 626 9/29/1999 6
1999 20 Ford I Diamond Van /Mini Bus HW 621 1/21/2004 6
2001 20 Ford I Diamond Van /Mini Bus HW 624 1/16/2001 4
2002 20 Ford I Glaval Van !Mini Bus HW 625 7/18/2002 3
2004 20 Ford I Goshen Van /Mini Bus HW 623 12/30/2004 1
2005 20 Ford I Goshen Van /Mini Bus HW 622 5/6/2005 0
2005 20 Ford I Goshen Van /Mini Bus HW 627 5/7/2005 0
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SectionS:
Transfer Center Report
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation
Prepared for
CITY OF JEFFERSON
Prepared by
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Phone: (816) 329-8600
In Association with
ETC Institute
T J Brown and Associates
March 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... 11
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... 11
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 111
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... E-1
SECTION 1 : INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF TRANSFER CENTER EVALUATION ........................................................... 1
1.2 OVERVIEW OF REPORT ............................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 2
2.1 OVERVIEW OF JEFFERSON & HIGH TRANSFER CENTER ............................................... 2
2.2 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED BUS STATION TRANSFER CENTER ALTERNATIVE ................ .4
SECTION 3: TRANSFER CENTER ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT ..................................... 8
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
TRANSIT CENTER EVALUATION CRITERIA .................................................................... 8
EVALUATION OF TRANSFER CENTER ALTERNATIVES .................................................. 10
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 12
Summary of Jefferson & High Assessment ............................................................ 12
Summary of Bus Station Assessment .................................................................... 13
Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 13
SECTION 4: BUS STATION TRANSFER CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ....................... 15
4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 15
4.2 PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 15
4. 2. 1 Building and Site Areas .......................................................................................... 15
4.2.2 Interior Areas .......................................................................................................... 15
4.3 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................. 16
4.4 CONCEPT DESIGN .................................................................................................... 17
4.5 COST ESTIMATE ....................................................................................................... 17
SECTION 5: CONCEPT DESIGN FOR NEW DOWNTOWN OFF-STREET TRANSFER
CENTER ............................................................................................................... 19
5.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 19
5.2 SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND AMENITIES .................................................................... 19
5.3 CONCEPT DESIGN .................................................................................................... 19
5.4 COST ESTIMATE ....................................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX A: BUS STATION SITE RENOVATION COST ESTIMATE ................................. A-1
APPENDIX B: DOWNTOWN TRANSFER CENTER COST ESTIMATE ................................. B-1
List of Tables
TABLE 1: EVALUATION OF TRANSFER CENTER ALTERNATIVES .................................................. 10
TABLE 2: BUS STATION INTERIOR SPACE USE ......................................................................... 16
TABLE 3: RENOVATION COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 17
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: MISSOURI BOULEVARD/CAPITAL MALL AND HIGH STREET WEST SHELTERS ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND HIGH STREET ............................... 2
FIGURE 2: SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD AND HIGH STREET EAST STOPS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF JEFFERSON STREET AND HIGH STREET ................................................................. 3
FIGURE 3: RENN ADDITION AND BUSINESS 50 ROUTES SHELTER AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
FIGURE 4:
FIGURE 5:
FIGURE 6:
FIGURE 7:
FIGURE 8:
FIGURE 9:
FIGURE 10:
JEFFERSON STREET AND HIGH STREET .....................................•................................ 3
BUS STATION AT 620 WEST MCCARTY •..................................................................... .4
LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM INSIDE Bus STATION WAITING AREA ............................... 5
BUS STATION RESTROOM AND DRINKING FOUNTAIN .................................................... 5
Bus STATION PARKING LAYOUT ................................................................................. 6
BUS STATION ACCESSES AND 0RIVEWAY .................................................................... 6
LOOKING WEST ALONG MCCARTY STREET FROM THE BUS STATION ............................ 7
FEMA FLOOD MAP OF BUS STATION AND VICINITY ..................................................... 7
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation
Executive Summary
March2006
JEFFTRAN's current transfer location is located downtown at the intersection of Jefferson Street
and High Street, adjacent to the southeast comer of the State Capitol grounds. The transfer
location is the focal point for JEFFTRAN's fixed route services. Six of the seven regular fixed
routes, all but the Capital Mall route, converge at this location. Jefferson and High is the
primary location for patrons to transfer between bus routes. Bus stops are located on three of
the four legs of the intersection including the northbound near side, eastbound far side and
westbound far side . Buses arrive and depart at the same time, as the routes operate on a
"pulse scheduling system."
The Transit Development Plan (TDP) project for Jefferson City included an evaluation of
JEFFTRAN's transfer location. The evaluation was initiated in part due to interest in possibly
moving the transfer activity to another location. There are operational problems for some bus
maneuvers at the existing downtown site, and there are conflicts between JEFFTRAN
passengers and some nearby businesses. There is also interest in providing an indoor waiting
area for passengers to wait for transfers. One candidate being considered is the former
Greyhound or intercity bus station located at 620 West MeGa rty Street. Other possible locations
include other off-street areas within the downtown or another on-street facility in another
location within the downtown .
Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the old intercity bus station include state parking lots to
the south and east on McCarty Street; retail, industry and retail and apartment converted homes
to the west on McCarty Street and a fire station northwest of the site. Retail establishments, the
State Capitol and other state government offices would be less accessible from the bus station,
as compared to access to these land uses from the existing Jefferson and High transfer
location.
Several qualities of the existing facility at Jefferson & High are advantageous for transit in
Jefferson City, namely the location in the core of downtown and the adjacency to key
employment and civic destinations . Also, the presence of transit operations in the core of
downtown provides the appearance of transit as having a key role in the community.
The assessment of both sites was presented to the project Steering Committee on July 19,
2005. In discussion it was concluded that moving from the current location was preferable due
to the constraints and conflicts. It was concluded that a move to the intercity bus station would
resolve the current operating problems, but would represent only a fair solution for the transfer
center relocation. As such, it was concluded that the city should pursue a different location for
the ultimate long term solution.
A new transit center would require about an acre of land, cost in the range of $700,000 (not
including land) to develop and require at least 4-5 years for total project development. This
amount of time is needed to secure funding, select a site design, and do other work that would
be required.
The Steering Committee concluded that the preferred approach was to move to the intercity bus
station location as soon as practical as an interim measure. The city should concurrently begin
the initial work on developing a transfer center at a different location in the downtown area .
This report provided details on how the City can approach these action steps.
E-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation
Section 1: Introduction
1. 1 Purpose of Transfer Center Evaluation
Marcb2006
JEFFTRAN operates seven fixed routes. Six of the routes converge at the transfer center at the
same time, as the routes operate on a "pulse scheduling system." The existing transfer location
is centrally located within the downtown area.
As part of a study to evaluate and develop recommendations for the development of transit
within Jefferson City and the surrounding urbanized area, a transfer center evaluation was
initiated in part due to interest in possibly moving the transfer activity to another location. There
are operational problems for some bus maneuvers at the existing downtown site. The existing
site does not have restrooms available for drivers or passengers. There is also interest in
providing an indoor waiting area for passengers to wait for transfers and to have shelter from
extreme cold or heat. One candidate being considered is the former Greyhound or intercity bus
station located at 620 West McCarty Street. Other possible locations include other off-street
areas within the downtown or another on-street facility in another location within the downtown .
1.2 Overview of Report
This report documents the process used to evaluate the existing and proposed transfer center
alternatives for Jefferson City, Missouri. The report also identifies a preferred alternative for the
transfer location and provides a concept plan and cost estimate for the preferred option.
Section 2 provides a description of the existing transfer location and the bus station transfer
center alternative . The narrative includes a list of both positive and negative characteristics of
each site.
Section 3 documents the assessment of both sites. The assessment focuses on five key
criteria: safety, convenience, cost, operational functionality and flexibility/expandability.
Section 4 includes a physical assessment, recommended improvements, and a concept design
for the bus station alternative. The section includes a cost estimate for the recommended
interior and site improvements.
Section 5 presents a generic concept design and recommendations for a new off-street transfer
center alternative to be located within the immediate downtown area. The location for this
alternative has yet to be determined.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation
Section 2: Description of Alternatives
March2006
This section provides a description of the existing transfer location at Jefferson & High and the
bus station transfer center alternative . An assessment of each transfer center alternative is
included in the following section.
2.1 Overview of Jefferson & High Transfer Center
JEFFTRAN's current transfer location is downtown at the intersection of Jefferson Street and
High Street, adjacent to the southeast comer of the State Capitol grounds. The transfer location
is the focal point for JEFFTRAN's fixed route services. Six of the seven regular fixed routes, all
but the Capital Mall route, converge at this location. Jefferson and High is the primary location
for patrons to transfer between bus routes . Bus stops are located on three of the four legs of
the intersection including the northbound near side, eastbound far side and westbound far side.
Physically, the transfer location is an on-street facility sharing the street with general traffic and
the adjoining sidewalks with general pedestrian traffic . See Figures 1 and 2.
As many as 6 vehicles meet simultaneously at the facility. During peak periods, vehicles on all
6 routes meet at the same time, as the routes operate on a "pulse scheduling system." The
three bus stops have striping to mark where transit vehicles only are allowed to park.
Two of the three stops, the northbound near side and the westbound far side of the intersection,
have shelters and benches for waiting patrons. The third stop, the eastbound far side, has
neither shelters nor benches. While providing some cover during inclement weather, the
shelters are exposed to the elements and patrons are subject to ambient temperature and
humidity. So in the winter waiting riders are cold and in the summer hot. The shelters and other
amenities are in generally good condition.
Figure 1: Missouri Boulevard/Capital Mall and High Street West shelters on
the Northwest Corner of Jefferson Street and High Street
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation
Figure 2: Southwest Boulevard and High Street East stops on the
Southeast Corner of Jefferson Street and High Street
March2006
The transfer location is not staffed by any transit personnel other than the drivers for the time
that buses are parked at the facility. Bus route maps are posted at the shelters. See Figure 3.
Figure 3: Renn Addition and Business 50 routes shelter at the
southeast corner of Jefferson Street and High Street
In the immediate vicinity of the transfer location are a number of important land uses. On the
northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and High Street are the State Capitol
grounds containing state government offices. The transfer center is also just a few blocks from
several other state office buildings. The Missouri governor's mansion is located one block to the
north. High Street is viewed as the downtown MMain Street" of Jefferson City and contains a
number of retail and office businesses, as well as service institutions such as the Post Office
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Traosit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March2006
and banks. Transit patrons waiting for buses sometimes are in conflict with business activity,
especially in situations where sidewalks or doorways are partially blocked.
2.2 Overview of Proposed Bus Station Transfer Center Alternative
The old intercity bus station is located on a parcel bounded on the northwest by railroad tracks ,
on the northeast by a creek and on the south by McCarty Street. Land uses in the immediate
vicinity of the bus station include state parking lots to the south and east on McCarty Street;
retail, industry and retail and apartment converted homes to the west on McCarty Street and a
fire station northwest of the site. Retail establishments , the State Capitol and other state
government offices would be less accessible from the bus station, as co mpared to access to
these land uses from the existi ng Jefferson and High transfer location.
Citizens, community leaders, and city staff are interested in providing an indoor waiting area for
JEFFTRAN passengers to wait for transfers, and to have shelter from extreme cold or heat.
The former intercity bus station , located at 620 West McCarty Street, is a candidate be ing
considered (see Figure 4 ).
Figure 4: Bus Station at 620 West McCarty
The bus station is located at 620 West McCarty Street and is currently a vacant structure. In the
past, Greyhound , in addition to other bus companies, operated out of the station. The facility ,
located 0.6 miles west of the existing Jefferson and High transfer location , has been
continuously maintained by the City and is in generally good condition. However, the bus
station would require some work to refurbish the facility for use as a transfer center.
Details regarding the needed refurbishments and the associated cost are documented in section
4 of this report. Physically, the bus station has an indoor space that could be used as a waiting
area for JEFFTRAN passengers, a ticket counter, restrooms, and a large storage room.
If used for JEFFTRAN's transfer center, the bus station would provide cover during inclement
weather, sheltering patrons from ambient temperature and humidity. JEFFTRAN could staff the
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
bus station with transit personnel to provide information, sell tickets, distribute route maps and
schedules, and monitor security.
Figures 5 and 6 show the bus station waiting area and restroom.
Figure 5: Looking Southwest from Inside Bus Station Waiting Area
Figure 6: Bus Station Restroom and Drinking Fountain
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
The current parking layout and the access driveways would need to be reconfigured to
accommodate JEFFTRAN buses and passenger transfer activity. Figures 7 and 8 show the
existing parking layout and the two existing accesses to McCarty Street.
Figure 7: Bus Station Parking Layout
Figure 8: Bus Station Accesses and Driveway
There is a sight distance issue along McCarty Street, to the west of the bus station near the
intersection of Bolivar and McCarty, which makes it difficult for drivers exiting the site to see
eastbound traffic along McCarty, and for eastbound traffic along McCarty to see veh icles exiting
the bus station onto McCarty. At the intersection of Bolivar and McCarty there is also a railroad
crossing .
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation Marcbl006
Figure 9 shows the view up the hill along westbound McCarty Street, to the west of the bus
station. The sight distance issue may only allow buses to make right-turn exits from the site
which would result in awkward traffic patterns for most routes.
Figure 9: Looking West along McCarty Street from the Bus Station
In addition to sight distance issues, there is concern about the difficulty accessing or exiting the
site due to the number of vehicles during peak periods entering or leaving state employee
parking lots located just east of the bus station to the north and south of McCarty Street. The
facility is also located in a flood zone (see Figure 10).
\\
·I
'_\
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March2006
Section 3: Transfer Center Alternatives Assessment
This section presents an assessment of the two transfer center alternatives evaluated as part of
the Transit Development Plan. A set of criteria relevant to passenger transit centers was used
to evaluate each alternative . Table 1, later in this section, shows how the alternatives scored for
each criterion. Following the table is a summary of the eva I uation and findings.
3.1 Transit Center Evaluation Criteria
In evaluating the transfer center alternatives, several criteria were used. These criteria are
applicable to the design of passenger transit centers and fall within these five categories:
• Safety
• Convenience
• Cost
• Operational Functionality
• Flexibility/Expandability
Safety involves the preservation and protection of people and property. Safety is a crucial
factor for both financial and public image reasons. Financially, the cost of injuries and property
damage can be substantial. Personal injury, for example, can often involve litigation of claims
increasing the cost of settlement beyond direct medical related expenses. In addition, the
image of a transit system can be damaged if that system is perceived to be unsafe. An accident
draws publicity and, sometimes, a wide-audience. Many instances of personal safety concerns
can raise public doubts about a transit system. These criteria help measure the safety of a
given design:
• Avoidance of bus and pedestrian conflicts
Refers to keeping pedestrians out of the path of moving buses. There are two main
opportunities for pedestrian movements. They are: movements for transferring
between bus routes and movements from the facility to surrounding land uses.
• Avoidance of bus/automobile conflicts
Refers to vehicle movements of buses and automobiles in and out of the area .
• Maximize the perception of personal security
Personal security (as well as the sense of personal safety) is enhanced when people
are with other people. Design concepts that isolate patrons from other patrons and
the general public may give the perception of personal risk.
• Minimize impacts on adjacent roadways
Recognizes the fact that the transfer center is part of a larger transportation system .
The goal of the transfer center and for transit in general is to enhance this system.
As such, the design of the facility can be in harmony or in conflict with roadway
operations and traffic flows.
T~s:;~
C:::c::RPC>RATIC>N --
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March2006
Convenience relates to how easily the system can be used by patrons. Patrons typically have
some degree of choice in selecting a mode of travel. The convenience of a given mode can be
a decisive factor in the selection of a mode of travel. While convenience can mean different
things for different people, this is seen as key for the design of a transfer center:
•
•
Minimize the walking distance for patrons who are making transfer connections
The transfer of patrons from route to route is enhanced when the effort is easy and
quick.
Minimize the walking distance for patrons destined for or originating in downtown
Create the least inconvenience for the greatest number of passengers destined or
leaving downtown.
Cost pertains to the amount of money required to build, refurbish and/or maintain a site
alternative for use as a transfer center facility. Cost also includes the impact on operations:
• Minimize both the operating cost and the cost to build. renovate and/or maintain a
transfer facility
Promotes the alternative with the lowest cost impact.
Operational Functionality is a general description of elements necessary to effectively support
services and bus operations. These include:
• Maximization of efficient transit operations both on-and off-site
Bus movements to and from the site as well as on and off the site should consume
the least amount of time and make sense for both bus operat ors and patrons.
• Maximize the efficiency of automobile access to the site
Similar in concept to the previous criterion, private vehicle movement should be
logical and easily accomplished.
• Optimize the visibility of the location so that it is easy to locate for patrons
Refers to the ability of people to see the site, to intuitively understand how to get to
and from the site, and to be encouraged to use the facility. Visibility is also a part of
the sense of personal security referenced ear lier.
Flexlbility/Expandabl/lty refers to the potential of the facility both in the future and as a
community asset. This criterion will be used for evaluating the vision of a given design:
• Flexibility of the design to accommodate future growth or changes in the bus
operation
A key concern is the anticipated growth of the transit system. Accommodating
growth efficiently would ideally allow new construction to occur without significantly
interfering with existing operations. The initial design of the terminal can be crucial in
this regard.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
• The opportunity the design provides to develop open space and parks
Recognizes that the terminal can, potentially, enhance the livability of the area. The
development of a community resource, such as a park, accomplishes a broader
objective.
3.2 Evaluation of Transfer Center Alternatives
The Jefferson & High transfer location and the bus station transfer center alternative were
evaluated using the evaluation criteria. A three level scale was used: Poor, Fair, Good.
Table 1 summarizes the evaluation.
Table 1: Evaluation of Transfer Center Alternatives
Category Criterion
Safety • Avoidance of bus and
pedestrian conflicts
• Avoidance of
bus/automobile conflicts
• Maximization of the
perception of personal
security
Table continued
T~EMSJt.;l. ~ATIC>N 1'1'E.
Jefferson & High
Assessment
Ranks "fair" due to
streetscape
improvements that
provide sufficient
sidewalk space and
highlight street crossings.
However, there is still a
need to cross the street
to transfer between some
routes.
Ranks "fair" because bus
operations are mixed with
general street traffic. The
northbound to eastbound
maneuver is difficult to
make when vehicles are
queued in the westbound
left-turn lane.
Ranks "good." The
current facility is on a
busy city street with
plenty of visibility, lighting,
and surrounding land use
activity.
Bus Station
Assessment
Ranks"good"dueto
being an offstreet
facility . Site layout
could be configured to
provide pedestrian
refuge and limited
conflicts with buses.
Ranks "good" because
bus operations would
be separated from
general street traffic.
However, there is a
sight distance issue to
the west near the
intersection of Bolivar
and McCarty.
Ranks "fair." The bus
station is located away
from downtown
pedestrian activity.
However, if JEFFTRAN
staffs the bus station
with transit personnel it
may offset the impact of
being in a more remote
location.
10
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
I Category Criterion Jefferson & High Bus Station
Assessment Assessment
I Safety (cont.) • Minimization of impacts Ranks "fair" because the Ranks "fair" because
on adjacent roadways operation of buses in the operation of buses
mixed traffic does have may have an impact on
an impact on traffic the large number of
I operations. vehicles entering and
leaving state employee
parking lots during peak
periods .
I Convenience • Minimize the walking Ranks "fair" because Ranks "good"because
distance for patrons patrons have minimal patrons would have
I who are making walking distances to minimal walking
transfer connections . make transfers. distances to make
However, due to the transfers.
transfer center being
I divided by an
intersection, patrons may
have to cross the street to
make connections.
I • Minimize the walking Ranks "good" because Ranks "fair" because
distance for patrons many patrons have patrons would not likely
destined or originating minimal walking walk the 0.6 miles to or
I downtown distances to adjacent from the State Capitol,
state office buildings and other state office
other office or retail buildings or other
I
employment in the downtown office or
downtown. retail destinations.
However, buses could
be routed through the
I downtown to minimize
this impact.
Cost • Minimize both the Ranks "good" because Ranks "fair" because
I operating cost and the the existing facility is low the bus station would
cost to build, renovate cost and low require some
and/or maintain a maintenance due to it investment to refurbish
transfer facility. being an outdoor facility for use as a transfer
I with three bus shelters. center.
Operational Maximization of efficient Ranks "fair" because Ranks "fair" because •
Functionality transit operations both transit vehicles can routes could be
I on and off site typically access the site reworked to access the
without problems. bus station with minimal
However, increased impact to transit
congestion during the operations. Sight
morning, midday and distance issues along
evening peak periods Mccarty at Bolivar may
adds difficulty to already result in awkward traffic
tight running times. patterns for most
routes.
Table continued
I T~& 11
<:::::c::r.?PC>RA T/C>N . : __
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation Marcb 2006
Category Criterion Jefferson & High Bus Station
Assessment Assessment
Operational • Optimize the visibility of Ranks "good." The Ranks "fair." Transit
Functionality the location so that it is Jefferson & High location would be less visible at
(cont.) easy for patrons to is easy to find and is the bus station, which is
locate. central to downtown 0.6 miles away from the
Jefferson City. current transfer center.
Flexibility/ Flexibility of the design Ranks "poor." The site is Ranks "poor." The site •
Expandability to accommodate future able to accommodate can be redesigned to
growth or changes in vehicles for the existing accommodate vehicles
the bus operation. number of routes. for the existing number
However, if transit service of routes but has no
is expanded, additional capacity for growth if
on-street parking would transit service is
have to be taken to expanded.
provide additional transit
vehicle parking. In
addition, the site may limit
operation of longer
vehicles that are currently
being acquired.
• The opportunity the Ranks "poor." There is Ranks "fair." The site
design provides to no opportunity to develop would allow
develop open space parks or open space with opportunities to provide
and parks . the current on-street landscaping and green
facility. space surrounding the
transfer center.
3.3 Assessment Summary
3.3.1 Summary of Jefferson & High Assessment
Of the eleven criteria used to evaluate the Jefferson & High transfer location, two have "poor"
rankings. Namely, these include criteria relating to flexibility/expandability (the design to
accommodate future growth or changes in the bus operation and the opportunity the design
provides to develop open space and parks).
"Fair'' rankings include criteria related to safety (bus and pedestrian conflicts, bus/automobile
conflicts and impacts on adjacent roadways), convenience (the walking distance for patrons
who are making transfer connections), and operational functionality (efficient transit operations
both on and off site).
The facility ranks "good" for several criteria pertaining to safety (the perception of personal
security), convenience (the walking distance for patrons destined or originating downtown}, cost
(minimizes operating and maintenance costs) and operational functionality (the visibility of the
location so that it is easy for patrons to locate).
Other factors to consider are the lack of customer service facilities such as a climate control
waiting area, restroom facilities and a customer service booth all of which reduce the appeal of
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
public transit in Jefferson City. Transit patrons waiting for buses may also conflict with business
activity if sidewalks or doorways are partially blocked .
Several qualities of the existing facility at Jefferson & High are advantageous for transit in
Jefferson City, namely the location in the core of downtown and the adjacency to key
employment and civic destinations. Also, the presence of transit operat ions in the core of
downtown provides the appearance of transit as having a key role in the community. However,
despite the advantages, some aspects are lacking at the existing facility such as the provision of
a climate controlled waiting area with restrooms and customer service amenities. Also, the new
streetscaping along High Street presents maneuvering problems for vehicles traveling from the
northbound curb stop turning right onto High Street to go east.
This problem would only be exacerbated by longer vehicles that are currently being acquired.
Another challenge to operating in the downtown is the morning, midday and evening traffic
congestion. A location outside the downtown may be able to alleviate some of the congestion
related issues.
3.3.2 Summary of Bus Station Assessment
Of the eleven criteria used to evaluate the bus station transfer center alternative, one has a
"poor" ranking . Namely, this criterion relates to flexibility/expandability (the design to
accommodate future growth or changes in the b us operation).
"Fair" rankings include criteria related to safety (the perception of personal security and impacts
on adjacent roadways), convenience (the walking distance for patrons destined or originating
downtown), cost (minimizes operating and maintenance costs), operational functionality
(efficient transit operations both on and off site and the visibility of the location so that it is easy
for patrons to locate) and flexibility/expandability (the opportunity the design provides to develop
open space and parks).
The facility ranks "good" for several criteria pertaining to safety (bus and pedestrian conflicts
and bus/automobile conflicts) and convenience (the walking distance for patrons who are
making transfer connections).
Other factors to consider are the availability at the bus station site for providing customer
service facilities such as a climate controlled waiting area, restroom facilities and a customer
service booth all of which increase the appeal of public transit in Jefferson City .
Several qualities of the proposed bus station facility alternative are advantageous for transit in
Jefferson City, namely the provision of a climate controlled waiting area with restrooms and
customer service amenities, the separation of bus operations from conflict with automobile
traffic and the separation of transferring patrons from both vehicular traffic and other pedestrian
traffic. However, despite the advantages, some aspects are lacking at the proposed bus station
facility including the location outside of the downtown core resulting in less access to key
employment and civic destinations for patrons waiting at the transfer center. Also, the bus
station alternative may decrease the visibility of transit's role in the community by removing the
transfer center from the downtown core.
3.3.3 Conclusions
The assessment of both sites was presented to the project Steering Committee on July 19,
2005. In discussion it was concluded that moving from the current location was preferable due
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March2006
to the constraints and conflicts . It was noted that a move to the intercity bus station would
resolve the current operating problems, but would represent only a fair solution for the transfer
center relocation. As such, it was suggested that the city should pursue a different location for
the ultimate long term solution.
City staff pointed out funding and timing issues associated with creating a new transit center. A
new transit center would require about an acre of land, cost in the range of $700,000 (not
including land) to develop and require at least 4-5 years for total project development. This
amount of time is needed to secure funding, select a site design, and do other work that would
be required.
The Steering Committee concluded that the preferred approach was to move to the intercity bus
station location as soon as practical as an interim measure. The city should concurrently begin
the initial work on developing a transfer center at a different location in the downtown area .
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March2006
Section 4: Bus Station Transfer Center Conceptual Design
4.1 Introduction
A physical evaluation of the bus station located at 620 West McCarty Street was conducted on
July 12, 2005. This section summarizes the physical evaluation as documented in the
Greyhound Bus Station Physical Evaluation technical memorandum. Interior spaces, site areas
and physical condition of the facility were observed.
The bus station is now vacant but was formerly used by Greyhound and several other bus
companies. Recommendations for improvements to use the bus station as a city transit transfer
station are provided with a concept cost estimate.
4.2 Physical Assessment
4.2.1 Building and Site Areas
The site is a triangular shaped property of approximately 29,495 Square Feet or 0.68 Acres.
The property is adjacent to Weirs Creek and within the 100 to 500 year storm flooding area per
Flood Insurance Rate Map, community panel 2901080004. The building appears to have been
designed with an earth berm perimeter to protect the building from flooding.
Six (6) public parking spaces are provided off a 24 foot wide drive lane that could accommodate
a parking lane and a passing lane for several buses. The existing drive appears to be able to
accommodate 3 buses. Modifications to the existing drive are needed to accommodate
additional bus passenger loading spaces.
Generous areas of pavement are already provided in front of the station along an 85 foot long
boarding platform. A small covered area is provided at the main entrance into the bus station. A
City sidewalk is also provided along McCarty Street.
The building is of contemporary design and constructed of concrete masonry units with an
exterior insulation finish system. A steeply pitched roof is clad with premium composition roof
shingles. The roof appears to be of frame construction. The building has a good appearance
although landscaping appears to have received minimal attention.
4.2.2 Interior Areas
The bus station was designed as a small regional bus station. Interior spaces are compact and
most finishes are durable.
The lobby area is of sufficient size to accommodate approximately 20 persons if the existing
area is only minimally reduced by seating, vending and other furnishings.
The ticket area could be converted to use for vending machines if the station is not manned.
An appropriate use of the two backside storage rooms will need to be determined. The larger
room is large enough to be used as an office. The smaller room is only large enough to be used
for storage.
Men's and women's toilets are provided and appear to be sufficient for the original use.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
Existing carpeting has been water damaged and must be replaced. A hard non-slip surface is
recommended such as a stained concrete finish for ease of maintenance.
HVAC and electrical systems are relatively new but are expected to require significant repairs
due to the prolonged inactivity of the building. A complete mechanical, electrical inspection is
required .
Evidence of water damage was noted along the lobby wall adjacent to the ticket office. Leakage
appears to have occurred in the roof flashing system where a slope transition occurs. If this is
the problem, this should be an easy repair. Water damage and musty odor is enough to require
a complete re-paint of interior walls. Attic insulation should be inspected and batt insulation
replaced where damaged.
Table 3 indicates the size and function of existing interior spaces.
Table 2: Bus Station Interior Space Use
Personnel/ Type Equipment I Special
Function (SF) Requirements
• ADA accessible
Lobby 450 • Durable finishes
• Good Visibility for security
Storage 80
Storage 176
Tickets 88
Men's Toilet 45
Women's Toilet 45
Mechanical Room 36
Covered Entry
Subtotal 920 • Assigned Square Feet
Unassigned Area 218 • 24% factor
Grand Total Bus Gross Square Feet Station Transfer 1,138 •
Facility
4.3 Recommended Improvements
As described above the following improvements are recommended for the bus station to be
utilized as a bus transfer facility:
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
• Modify the existing drive to accommodate additional bus passenger loading spaces
and to ensure sufficient turning radii and bus maneuverability.
• Provide seating, vending and other f umishings .
• Determine appropriate use of the two backside storage room s.
• Replace water damaged carpeting preferably with a hard non-slip surface such as a
stained concrete finish that would be easy to maintain.
• Perform a complete mechanical, electrical inspection of the HVAC and electrical
systems to determine if repairs are needed due to the prolonged inactivity of the
building.
• Determine cause and make repairs as needed due to water damage as observed
along the lobby wall adjacent to the ticket office. Leakage appears to have occurred
in the roof flashing system where a slope transition occurs.
• Repaint interior walls as needed due to water damage and musty odor.
• Inspect attic insulation and replace batt insulation where damaged.
4.4 Concept Design
Figure 11 shows the site improvements that need to be made to prepare the bus station for use
as JEFFTRAN's transfer center. The modifications to the driveway are required to allow six
buses to stage on site.
Other improvements include a general site cleanup and repairs of sidewalks and curbs on and
adjacent to the site.
4.5 Cost Estimate
A very preliminary cost estimate to make the site suitable for a transfer center is $62,000
inclusive of all associated costs, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Renovation Cost Estimate
Building Renovation
Site Preparation
TOTAL
$34,000
$28.000
$62,000
These costs include labor, materials, design and other costs. Additional detail is provided in
Appendix A.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation
Figure 11: Bus Station Concept Design
1:tt:tJ -~+l::I:Htttmmttllllll 1 1 um
~~ ~-----------
~-, ----------------,---------"
/ / ' / J
~ 15+ SO . FT. NEW '\._ ',
'' PAVEMENT SURf ACE PROPERlY UN E "'
~..¥»;., /
BUS ~ ,
STA'TION ~ '
v~
v/ /
/
50 0 J!"! H
seAL[
, •• 50'
50 100
I
fEET
March2006
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March 2006
Section 5: Concept Design for New Downtown Off-Street
Transfer Center
5.1 Introduction
With the Steering Committee's conclusion to begin initial work on developing an off-street
transfer center in the downtown area a general concept was developed to illustrate the
possibilities and as a basis for a conceptual level cost estimate.
Many communities have used the development of a transit facility in the downtown area,
financed in part with FTA capital funding, to provide a convenient area for transit patrons and
assist with the rejuvenation of the area.
Some communities have developed transit centers in conjunction with parking structures, a
possibility in downtown Jefferson City. Generally, FTA will participate in the development of the
transit facility and related work up to 80 percent of the total cost. FTA does not typically fund
parking facilities unless they are transit related, such as a park and ride lot.
5.2 Space Requirements and Amenities
The downtown transfer center concept was dev eloped assuming the followi ng requirements:
• Off street staging area for eight buses and related drives for circulation.
• Loading platforms for passengers.
• Interior space for passenger waiting and bus driver accommodations.
• Passenger amenities sue h as shelters, benches, and other furnishings.
• Site landscaping.
Depending upon the configuration of the site the above would require about 0.8 acres. For
planning purposes a site of one acre is required.
5.3 Concept Design
A simple concept design is shown in Figure 12. This design uses a center loading platform with
adjacent bus loading areas. The design minimizes the distance between buses by providing a
"cross platform" transfer for most passengers.
Figure 13 includes several photos of downtown transfer centers in other cities. These photos
give a range of design types, and show that these transit facilities can be attractive sites that
relate well to surrounding land uses.
5.4 Cost Estimate
A preliminary cost estimate was prepared to provide an idea of the cost of such a facility. Table
4 shows the initial preliminary cost estimate. The cost of land is not included in the cost
estimate.
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation March2006
Table 3: Downtown Transfer Facility Preliminary Cost Estimate
Building & Structures
Site Preparation
TOTAL
$262,000
$417,000
$679,000
•Note cost of land is not included .
Additional detail on the cost estimate is included in Appendix B.
Assuming FT A funding of 80 percent, or $543,000 , the city's share of the cost would be
$136,000.
Figure 12: Downtown Transfer Center Conceptual Design
_--)
17D' ----:------"/I
JG760 SQUARE FEET
0.&4 IIClRES
20
I
I
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation
Figure 13: Downtown Transfer Center Examples from Other Cities
Sheboyga n
Wichita
March2006
2 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation
Appendix A: Bus Station Site Renovation Cost Estimate
Jefferson City TOP
Greyhound Station Renovation Cost Estimate
nem uuanmy Unit unn ~ost lotal
Building Repairs
Exterior
Roof Flashing Repairs 1 LS $1 ,500 $ 1,500
Exterior Painting 2,800 SF $1 .00 $ 2 ,800
Attic Insulation Replacement 1 LS $200.00 $ 200
Subtotal • Exterbr Building $ 4,500
Interior
Carpet Removal 450 SF $1.00 $ 450
Lobby Floor Refinish 450 SF $8.00 $ 3 ,600
HVAC Servicing 1 LS $200 $ 200
Interior Wall Painting 3,200 SF $1 .00 $ 3 ,200
New Electrical OuHets 4 EA $150 $ 600
New Hot Water Heater 1.5 LS $250 $ 375
Electrical Lamp Replacement 1.5 LS $150 $ 225
Ceiling Tile Replacements 1.5 LS $250 $ 375
Furnishings 1 LS $10,000 $ 10,000
Subtotal • Exterbr Building $ 19,025
Subtotal Building $ 23,525
Site Work
Driveways
Demolition 166 SY $5.00 $ 828
Subgrade prep. 166 SY $2.50 $ 414
Driveway Paving (7" cone.) 1,490 SF $5.00 $ 7,450
6" raised curb 170 LF $14.00 $ 2 ,380
Driveway Subtotal $ 9,830
Misc. Sitework
Relocate Light Pole 1 LS $2,000 $ 2 ,000
Repair Curbs & Sidewalk 1 LS $2,000 $ 2 .000
General Cleanup 1 LS $2,500 $ 2,500
Misc. Subtotal $ 6,500
Landscaping
Landscaping 1 LS $2 ,000.00 $ 2,000
Turf Sod 1 LS $1,000.00 $ 1,000
Landscaping Subtotal $ 3,000
Subtotal Site $ 19,330
Subtotal Construction $ 42,855
Contingency 30% $ 12,857
Total Construction $ 55,712
Geotech, survey, testing etc. $ 1,000
Design 6% $ 3,343
Construction Administration 4% $ 2.228
Total Cost $ 62,000
March2006
A-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Transfer Center Evaluation Mar ch 2006
Appendix 8: Downtown Transfer Center Cost Estimate
Jefferson City TOP
New Transfer Center Cost Estimate
Item
Building & Structures
New Structure
Furnishings
Shelters
Subtotal Building & Structures
Site Work
Site Prep
Utility Allowance
Driveways
Subgrade prep.
Driveway Paving (7 " con e.)
6" raised curb
Dnveway Subtotal
Sitework
Passsenger Platform
Elect./Lighting
Furnishings
Misc. Subtotal
Drainage
Structures
Pip ing
Drainage Subtotal
Landscaping
Landscap ing
Landscaping Subtota l
Subtotal Site
Subtotal Construction
Contingency
Total Construction
Geotech, survey, testing etc.
Design
Construction Administration
Total Cost
"Note cost of land is not included .
T~_.w
~ATIC>N ·--
Quantity Unit Unit cost
1,000 SF $150.00
1 LS $10,000
2 LS $5 ,000 .00
4,083 SY $5.00
1 LS $40 ,000
2,000 SY $2.50
12,000 SF $5 .00
960 LF $14 .00
5 ,000 SF $4 .25
12 ,000 SF $2.50
1 LS $5 ,000
3 EA $4,000.00
400 LF $35.00
1 LS $50 ,000
30%
8%
6%
Total
$ 150,000
$ 10 ,000
$ 10 ,000
$ 170,000
$ 20,417
$ 40 ,000
$ 5,000
$ 60 ,000
$ 13,440
$ 78,440
$ 21 ,250
$ 30 ,000
$ 5,000
$ 56,250
$ 12,000
$ 14,000
$ 26,000
$ 50 ,000
$ 50,000
$ 271,107
$ 441,107
$ 132 ,332
$ 573,439
$ 25 ,000
$ 45,875
$ 34,406
$ 679,000
B-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Potential Transit Service Modifications
Prepared for
CITY OF JlFFERSON
Prepared by
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Phone: (816) 329-8600
In Association with
ETC Institute
T J Brown and Associates
Revised March 9, 2006
Section 6 : Service
Alternatives
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
Table of Contents
March2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS •.••••...••.......•...••..•..•...•.•••......•••••......•••••.••..•..••.....•.....•....••••...•.....•......••.•. 11
LIST OF TABLES ••.•••.•••..••.••••..••....•...•.•.•.......•.•......•••.•....•••••.•.••......•......•••.•.........•••..•.•.•....••...••• 111
LIST OF FIGURES •••.•.•..••••••••.....••••....•.••..•••.••.•...••••••••..•••••••.••••.•••.•..••........•••..•••.••...•...•..•••.....•• 111
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ...••...........•....••...•.•.•••.••..•....•.....•.....•....•.•..........•..••••••.•.•••......••..• 1
SECTION 2: CURRENT SERVICES ...••.•..............•.•••....•..•....••••.........•...•..••..•.........•..•....••..•..•.. 2
2.1 TRANSIT SERVICE EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 6
2.2 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 7
SECTION 3: TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 9
3.1 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE .......................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 West Area ............................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2 Holts Summit .......................................................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Algoa Area .............................................................................................................. 12
3.1.4 Jefferson City North of the River ............................................................................ 13
3.1.5 Southwest Area ...................................................................................................... 13
SECTION 4: FLEXIBLE ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICES .......................................................... 15
SECTION 5: POTENTIAL TRANSIT SERVICE MODIFICATIONS ......................................... 16
5.1 EXTEND TRANSIT SERVICE HOURS .............................................................................. 16
5.1.1 Baseline Service Period Expansion ....................................................................... 16
5.1.2 Establishment of Evening Service .......................................................................... 17
5.1.3 Establishment of Saturday Service ........................................................................ 18
5.1.4 Summary ................................................................................................................ 19
5.2 MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING ROUTES-RELOCATE TRANSFER CENTER TO BUS STATION
EXTEND ................................................................................................................... 19
5.2.1 Alternative A ........................................................................................................... 20
5.2.2 Alternative B ........................................................................................................... 24
5.2.3 Alternative C ........................................................................................................... 27
5.2.4 Summary ................................................................................................................ 30
5.3 NEW SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................................. 30
5.3.1 West Area Service .................................................................................................. 31
5. 3. 2 North Area Service ................................................................................................. 31
5.3.3 Algoa Area Service ................................................................................................. 32
5.3.4 Southwest Area Service ......................................................................................... 32
5.3.5 Summary ................................................................................................................. 32
5.4 OTHER POTENTIAL SERVICE MODIFICATIONS ............................................................... 33
5.4.1 Summary ................................................................................................................ 34
SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS .................................................................. 36
T~TEMS~~
c:::::c:::RPC>RATIC>N ~-
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March2006
List of Tables
TABLE 1:
TABLE 2:
TABLE 3:
TABLE 4
TABLE 5:
TABLE 6:
TABLE 7:
TABLES:
TABLE 9:
TABLE 10:
TABLE 11 :
TABLE 12:
TABLE 13:
TABLE 14:
TABLE 15:
TABLE 16:
FIXED ROUTE DAILY RIDERSHIP .......•.............•............................................•..•.••..••••..•... 2
FIXED ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY .................................................................................................. 6
WEST AREA STATISTICS ........................................................................................................ 11
HOLTS SUMMIT STATISTICS .................................................................................•........•........ 11
ALGOA AREA STATISTICS ................•...................................................................................... 12
JEFFERSON CITY NORTH OF THE RIVER AREA STATISTICS ................................................ 13
SOUTHWEST AREA STATISTICS ............................................................................................. 14
SUMMARY OF SERVICE PERIOD EXTENSION OPTIONS ........................................................ 19
ALTERNATIVE A ROUTE SCHEDULES .................................................................................... 23
ALTERNATIVE B ROUTE SCHEDULES .................................................................................... 26
ALTERNATIVE C ROUTE SCHEDULES ................•................................•.......................•.••....... 29
SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROUTE MODIFICATION OPTIONS ................................................... 30
HOLTS SUMMIT SAMPLE SCHEDULE ..................................................................................... 31
SUMMARY OF SERVICE EXPANSION OPTIONS ...................................................................... 32
SUMMARY OF OTHER ROUTE MODIFICATION 0PTIONS .....................................................•. 34
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................ 35
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: REGULAR TRANSIT ROUTES .......................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 2: COMMUTER SCHOOL TRIPPER ROUTES ......................................................................... 4
FIGURE 3: SHUTTLE ROUTES ......................................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 4: ESTIMATED TRANSIT NEED .......................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 5: ALTERNATIVE A MAP ................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 6: ALTERNATIVE B MAP ................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 7: ALTERNATIVE C MAP ................................................................................................... 28
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
Section 1: Introduction
March 2006
The Jefferson City Transit Development Plan (TOP) was initiated to evaluate and develop
recommendations for the future of transit within Jefferson City and the surrounding urbanized
area.
As part of the Transit Development Plan, the TranSystems Team was charged with the
assignment to consider and evaluate creative, innovative, and more cost-efficient means of
providing transit services to the Jefferson City community. The process looked at alternative
approaches including downtown circulator routes, cross-town routes, employer express routes,
University routes, additional connector routes, and general public demand-response routes.
The study also looked at the possibility of secondary transfer locations. The study considered
unserved areas where there is potential demand for public transportation and opportunities for
possible expansion of service in the urbanized area surrounding the City. Preliminary cost
estimates were also developed as part of the service plan.
This report documents the development of various potential transit service modifications
including associated assumptions and service characteristics. These alternatives have initially
been developed for review by key stakeholders, including the Project Steering Committee.
This report deals primarily with fixed route services, and other services intended for the general
public. Potential modifications to the Handi Wheels paratransit service are covered in another
report.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
Section 2: Current Services
March2006
JEFFTRAN currently operates seven regular fixed routes, four commuter school tripper routes
and two state shuttle routes, which provide transportation for state employees from state
parking lots. The seven fixed routes are shown in Figure 1. Figures 2 and 3 show the
commuter school tripper routes and shuttle routes, respectively. An existing transfer site is
centrally located within the downtown area. Six of the seven fixed routes converge at the
transfer location at the same time, as the routes operate on a "pulse scheduling system." A
"pulse" operation has all routes "meeting" at a common point at the same time. Most of the
routes operate in a "loop" pattern, with vehicles traversing a route in either a clockwise or
counterclockwise direction.
JEFFTRAN also provides a complementary paratransit service called "Handi Wheels."
Complementary paratransit is a transportation service required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 for individuals with disabilities who are unable to use fixed-route
transportation systems. The service area for Handi Wheels is the entire city of Jefferson City.
Overall, the fixed routes have daily ridership of approximately 800. Individual route ridership is
shown in Table 1. The Missouri Boulevard route has the highest ridership.
Table 1: Fixed Route Dally Ridership
Route
Capital Mall
Missouri Blvd
Southwest
High Street East
High Street West
Renn Addition
Business 50
Total
Ridership
90
220
120
120
80
120
60
810
The Truman Shuttle averages about 160 passengers per day and the Eastside Shuttle averages
more than 400 passengers per day.
Handi Wheels provides about 200 trips per day.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March 2006
3. Modify current fixed routes to resolve the running time deficit, which results in late
operation.
4. Modify current routes to achieve efficiencies and improve effectiveness. This will include
consideration of alternative service delivery methods.
5. Evaluate new or expanded services to provide service in areas presently unserved .
T~IEIWS .~..~ ..
Cc::RPC>RAT/C>N W :.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
Section 3: Transit Needs Analysis
March 2006
The purpose of the Needs Analysis is to determine transit need in the portions of the Jefferson
City metro area not presently served by transit. The Needs Analysis was based on both
quantitative and qualitative techniques.
3. 1 Existing Transit Service
The study team developed a method to estimate demand in the portion of the study area without
existing transit service, based on an analysis of actual transit demand (i.e., ridership) in the
portion of the area now served by transit. First, demographic data was compiled for each
census block group in the study area, including population, population density, percent elderly,
and auto ownership. Based on the on/off counts made earlier in the study, the number of
people getting on the bus was compiled by census block group. An attempt was made to
include only areas where people initially originate. Secondary origins such as the Jefferson and
High transfer location, commercial areas along Missouri Boulevard, Gerbes Superstore and
Capital Mall were excluded.
Once the data was compiled for all the census block groups with existing transit service a
regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship among transit ridership and the
various demographic factors including population density, elderly population, and automobile
ownership. Auto ownership was found to have the strongest relationship as would be expected,
since those who do not have a vehicle would likely use transit if it is available. Population
density was found to be significant, while elderly population was not. A Mdummy" factor was
developed to account for the level of transit service available in each block group. A regression
equation using the adjusted population density, auto ownership, and level of transit service was
developed to predict the number of transit trips from each block group.
The regression equation was applied to those census block groups in the study area that
currently do not have transit service providing an initial indication of the need for transit in
Callaway County and the outlying parts of Cole County within the study area. Figure 4 shows
the results of this analysis. Areas that show some potential transit demand include Holts
Summit and the area southwest of Capital Mall.
9
---------
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Teeb Memo
Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan
Le,eoocl
-Regular Transit Roules
-commrter Transit Roules
C.ei..,_.M 'ft'an•lt N..cl
Low
C Ad justed Urbanized hea
Cly80undMY
Census Blodc Groups~ r ~ HIIJh
Existing Transt Service Sour~· T•anSvstem> ~lod"'
Censu& 2000 l!loc• Groopo
0~ , ... ,
' ~·+· ~A TION .
\ ......
'
Agure 4: Estimated Transit Need
( ' ' "-., .
\ /
'--,-./
---
-
~
r
.~
\
\
--
March 2006
~ '
. .
~ ,;
~I
]
.k
~.! ••. ~,
·"
....... ~ ~
' \.
'
10
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
3.1.1 West Area
March2006
This area includes the portion of the metro area generally north of Route 50 and south of
Business 50 between Big Hom Drive and Lo Mo Drive, and the area south of Lohman Road and
west of Big Hom Drive. Following is a summary of the area's statistics.
Table 3: West Area Statistics
Service Area
Population
Percent No Auto
Percent Elderly
WestArea1
2,378
5%
4%
Journey to Work Downtown2 680
1Assumes that West Area is block group 204.001 .
2Based on Census Tracts. Assumes downtown is
census tract 101 and West Area is census tract 204 .
Based on the analysis, the area does exhibit some potential for transit.
The area does not have any institutions or commercial concentrations that could be regarded as
a trip generator.
Based on a 1.2 percent annual growth rate in Jefferson City, this area could be expected to
have a population of 3,442 by 2030.
3.1.2 Holts Summit
This area includes the portion of the metro area generally along Route 54 north of the Missouri
River. Following is a summary of the area's statistics.
Table 4: Holts Summit Statistics
Service Area
Population
Percent No Auto
Percent Elderly
Journey to Work Downtown2
Holts Summit 1
3,047
8%
9%
1,005
1Assumes that Holts Summit is block groups
9708 .002 and 9708 .003.
2Based on Census Tracts. Assumes downtown is
census tract 101 and Holts Summit is census tracts
9707 and 9708.
Based on the analysis, the area does exhibit some potential for transit.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo Marcb2006
The area does have two elementary schools, but does not have any institutions or commercial
concentrations that could be regarded as a significant trip generator. The area does have some
commercial areas that could represe nt demand areas.
Based on a 2.3 percent annual growth rate in Holts Summit, this area could be expected to have
a population of 6,073 by 2030.
3.1.3 Algoa Area
This area includes the portion of the metro area generall y north of Route 50 east of the
urbanized portion of Jefferson City. The area is in the corporate limits of Jefferson City.
Following is a summary of the area's statistics.
Table 5: Algoa Area Statistics
Service Area
Population
Percent No Auto
Algoa 1
182 2
2%
Percent Elderly 8%
Journey to Work Downtown3 325
Journey to Work Algoa3 345
1Assumes that Algoa is block group 201 .981 .
20nly includes census blocks that are within
urbanized area boundary. Total does not include
approximately 3,000 prison inmates.
3Based on Census Tracts. Assumes downtown is
census tract 101 and Algoa is census tract 201 .98.
Based on the analysis, the area does not exhibit much potential for transit at the present time.
The area does not have retail commercial concentrations that could be regarded as a trip
generator. The area does have two state corrections facilities and employment within the
industrial park (Scholastic, Modern Litho Print, Command Web and Alpla) that could be
generators of trips.
According to Dave Dormire, superintendent of Jefferson City Correctional Center, the
Correctional Center has 700 employees and Algoa has 500. They have not had any problems
hiring primarily because most of their employees do not come from Jefferson City but from the
surrounding communities . Dormire has not heard much interest in transit from employees .
Dormire also has not had complaints from visitors regarding transportation. He said bus service
for visitors has been proposed in the past and there certainly would be some visitors that stay in
Jefferson City that may ride a bus to the prison.
Based on a 1.2 percent annual growth rate in Jefferson City, this area could be expected to
have a population of 1,211 by 2030.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March 2006
3.1.4 Jefferson City North of the River
This area includes the portion of Jefferson City north of the Missouri River. Following is a
summary of the area's statistics.
Table 6: Jefferson City North of the River Area Statistics
Service Area
Population
Percent No Auto
Percent Elderly
Journey to Work Downtown3
Jefferson City
North of the River 1
25 2
0%
8%
1Assumes that Jefferson City north of the river is
block group 9708 .004.
20nly includes census blocks that are within the
urbanized area boundary.
31ncluded in Holts Summit area journey to work data .
Based on the analysis, the area does not exhibit much potential for transit at the present time .
The area does have city park facility, Katy Trail access and a commuter parking lot, but does
not have commercial concentrations that could be regarded as a trip generator. The area does
have the general aviation airport that could be a generator of trips.
However, activity at the airport is limited and the current operation does not appear to represent
a market for transit.
Based on a 1.2 percent annual growth rate in Jefferson City, this area could be expected to
have a population of 476 by 2030.
3.1.5 Southwest Area
This area includes all of the area in the study area southwest of the Southwest and High Street
East routes. Following is a summary of the area's statistics.
Based on the analysis, the area does not exhibit much potential for transit at the present time .
The new St. Mary's Hospital is planned for this area adjacent to a new interchange along Route
179. Other medical, commercial and residential development is also planned for this area.
Development is also planned in the area along Christy Drive where Rt. B, Rt. 179 and US 54
merge. The area does currently have any land uses that c auld be regarded as a trip generator.
Based on a 1.2 percent annual growth rate in Jefferson City, this area could be expected to
have a population of 6,801 by 2030.
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
Table 7: Southwest Area Statistics
Service Area
Population
Southwest Area 1
4,699
Percent No Auto 4%
Percent Elderly 1 0%
Journey to Work Downtown3 2,050
1Assumes that Southwest Area is block groups
104.004, 107.003 and 107.004.
2 Based on Census Tracts. Assumes downtown is
census tract 101 and Southwest Area is census
tracts 1 04 and 1 07 .
T~IENfS ~~.,
Cc:RPC>RAT/c:>N ·W .
March 2006
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service AJternatives Tech Memo
Section 4: Flexible Route Transit Services
_ March 20 06
A family of transit services, generally referred to as flexible route services, has been used
successfully in many cities to serve lower density markets. Flexible services include route
deviation, point deviation, and general population demand response services . In each case
both the route and the schedule is determined at least in part by passenger demand. Unlike
fixed route services that continuously operate over a designated route with a designated t ime
schedule, these demand response services only go to a location at a time when an individual
has scheduled a trip.
Fixed route services operate most efficiently in areas with population densities of more than
3,000 persons per square mile, or more. Lower density areas, and areas with incomplete street
systems, are more efficiently served with one of these flexible route services. Generally, when
the demand falls below ten passengers per hour demand based services are likely to offer a
more effective service than fixed route service.
The advantage of demand based services is that they can offer transit service that is more
tailored to individual needs . These services can provide curb to curb service for many users ,
rather than requiring the individual to walk to a bus stop. Most people will not walk more than
two blocks to a bus stop . The ability to operate in this manner allows flexible route service to
provide more coverage in lower density areas. These services are also more efficient in certain
markets. The cost of providing this service can be lower than fixed route service because the
vehicle is only operating when there is demand for the service . Unlike fixed route service,
flexible routes do not require the provision of complementary paratransit service under ADA
regulations.
The disadvantage of demand based services are that they are more difficult to operate,
requiring dispatchers to take trip requests and schedule drivers and vehicles for the demand
pattern that may change from day to day. Thus, total costs can be higher when the cost of the
dispatcher is considered. Also, these services require transit passengers to change and
become more proactive . In many cases a daily call to dispatch is required. Some individua ls
are more comfortable with the predictive and repetitive fix ed route services.
Flexible route services will be evaluated for possible application in the Jefferson City area. For
example, an area like that served by the Capital Mall route might be better served by a point
deviation service. The bus regularly runs between two primary destinations but the bus can
"flex" to other intermediate destinations when a passenger makes a request. Some cities use
demand response service for night service when the density of trip making is lower.
New service in lower density areas may be better suited to one of the demand based service
types.
15
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March 2006
Section 5: Potential Transit Service Modifications
This section provides detail on the various service modifications that could be used to address
the objectives and considerations outlined in Section 2 of this report.
5.1 Extend Transit Service Hours
Extending transit service hours was the most frequently heard suggestion from the public
involvement program activities. Currently, service starts at about 7 AM and ends by 5:30 PM.
This limits use of the transit system for employment purposes. Shifts that start before 7:30 AM
or end after 5 PM are not served well. Transit users are therefore limited to a fairly tight
timeframe.
Evening and weekend service is also an option that many people requested through the public
involvement process.
Several different options were evaluated for extending service hours:
1. Expansion of the baseline service period by 1.5 hours, from 6:30AM to 6:30 PM.
2. Establishment of evening service to 9 PM using several different approaches:
• Extending the service period for all seven routes using the base period service
pattern (60/30 minute service intervals) five days per week.
• Extending the service period for select routes using the base period service pattern
(60/30 minute service intervals) five days per week.
• Extending the service period for all seven routes using the base period service
pattern (60/30 minute service intervals) one day per week.
• Establish evening service using demand response service five days per week.
3. Establish Saturday service from 7 AM to 5:30PM using several different approaches:
• Establishing Saturday service on all seven routes using the base period service
pattern (60/30 minute service intervals).
• Establishing Saturday service on select routes using the base period service pattern
(60/30 minute service intervals).
• Establish Saturday service using demand response service.
5.1.1 Baseline Service Period Expansion
The 1.5 hour service period expansion will provide significant additional flexibility for
employment trips as well as for other trip purposes. The change will add to JEFFTRAN costs in
two ways: 1) additional cost for bus driver labor, fuel, etc., and 2) additional overhead cost
associated with extending the hours for management personnel. The change will have
implication for how both drivers and supervisors are scheduled. In addition, ADA requires that
Handi Wheels service hours also be expanded a like amount.
T~IEWfS Ji\\;
C::CRPC>RATION ·W .
16
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March2006
The service modification is to simply extend the current service pattern by 30 minutes in the
morning and one hour in the evening. This change is estimated to increase operating costs by
$141,000 annually and attract an additional 80 daily passengers, representing a ten percent
increase in ridership. The additional cost reflects additional supervisory time and additional bus
drivers. The cost also includes extending Handi Wheels service hours. No additional buses
would be required.
5.1.2 Establishment of Evening Service
Several options were evaluated for providing evening service (i.e., after 6:30 PM). Although
evening service was requested by many individuals, the experience in other cities is that
ridership during evenings is significantly reduced compared with daytime.
The options are:
Extend the service period for all seven fixed routes using the base period service pattern
(60/30 minute service intervals) five days per week to 9 PM. This is the simplest way to
establish evening service, but also the most expensive. In all cases an extension into the
evening will have implications for JEFFTRANS' operations and manpower scheduling. Also,
Handi Wheels service will have to be extended accordingly. This change is estimated to
increase operating costs by $155,000 annually and attract an additional 80 daily
passengers, representing a ten percent increase in ridership. The additional cost reflects
additional supervisory time and additional bus drivers. The cost also includes extending
Handi Wheels service hours. No additional buses would be required.
Extend the service period for select routes using the base period service pattern (60/30
minute service intervals) five days per week. This option reduces costs by only extending
service hours for routes that are likely to perform well. In this case the Capital Mall and
Missouri Boulevard routes would be extended because they serve the commercial retail
areas, High Street East and Southwest would be extended because they are higher
ridership routes that serve the core of the city, and Renn Addition would be included for the
same reason, and because the route serves Lincoln University. This change is estimated to
increase operating costs by $128,000 annually and attract an additional 70 daily
passengers. The additional cost reflects additional supervisory time and additional bus
drivers. The cost also includes extending Handi Wheels service hours. No additional buses
would be required.
Extend the service period for all seven routes using the base period service pattern (60/30
minute service intervals) one day per week. This option would provide captive transit users
an opportunity to travel in the evening on a limited basis, one evening per week, at a
minimal cost. This change is estimated to increase operating costs by $30,000 annually and
attract an additional 40 daily passengers. The additional cost reflects additional supervisory
time and additional bus drivers. The cost also includes extending Handi Wheels service
hours. No additional buses would be required.
Establish evening service using demand response service five days per week. This option
reduces the cost of providing evening service through the use of demand based flexible
routes. This would involve the designation of a service zone which could be served by two
vehicles operating in a demand response mode (similar to Handi Wheels). The zone would
include the core of the City and the retail commercial areas to the west, including Capital
Mall. Time points could be established for certain key destinations, like Capital Mall, the
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March2006
transfer location and one or two key downtown bus stops. Passengers not boarding at
these established stops would have to call the dispatcher to arrange for a pick up . This
approach recognizes that the demand for transit in the evening is significantly lower than the
daytime and utilizes a more flexible approach with fewer vehicles. This service is estimated
to increase operating costs by $66,000 annually and attract an additional 60 daily
passengers. The additional cost reflects additional supervisory time and additional bus
drivers . The cost does not include extending Handi Wheels service hours because it is not
required by ADA. No additional buses would be required although the use of smaller buses
may be warranted .
5.1.3 Establishment of Saturday Service
The establishment of weekend service was the single highest response to the question from the
on board survey: "What would get you to use public transportation more often?" Transit
captives particularly need access to public transportation more than just five days per week .
Three options were evaluated forth e provision of Saturday service.
Establish Saturday seNice on all seven routes using the base period seNice pattern (60/30
minute seNice inteNals). This option is the simplest because it uses the current service
package and adapts it to Saturday. In all cases an extension to the weekend will have
implications for JEFFTRANS' operations and manpower scheduling. Also, Handi Wheels
service will have to be extended accordingly. This change is estimated to increase
operating costs by $112,000 annually and attract 400 passengers. The additional cost
reflects additional supervisory time and additional bus drivers. The cost also includes
extending Handi Wheels service hours. No additional buses would be required.
Establish Saturday seNice on select routes using the base period seNice pattern (60/30
minute seNice inteNals). This option reduces costs by only operating select routes that are
likely to perform well. In this case the Capital Mall and Missouri Boulevard routes would be
operated because they serve the commercial retail areas, High Street West and Southwest
would be operated because they are higher ridership routes that serve the core of the city,
and Renn Addition would be included for the same reason, and because the route serves
Lincoln University. This change is estimated to increase operating costs by $94,000
annually and attract an additional 360 daily passengers. The additional cost reflects
additional supervisory time and additional bus drivers. The cost also includes extending
Handi Wheels service hours. No additional buses would be required.
Establish Saturday seNice using demand response seNice. This option reduces the cost of
providing Saturday service through the use of demand based flexible routes. This would
involve the designation of a service zone which could be served by three vehicles operating
in a demand response mode (similar to Handi Wheels). The zone would include the core of
the City and the retail commercial areas to the west, including Capital Mall. Time points
could be established for certain key destinations, like Capital Mall, the transfer location and
one or two key downtown bus stops. Passengers not boarding at these established stops
would have to call the dispatcher to arrange for a pick up. This approach recognizes that
the demand for transit on Saturday is significantly lower than the weekday and utilizes a
more flexible approach with fewer vehicles. This service is estimated to increase operating
costs by $73,000 annually and attract an additional 280 daily passengers. The additional
cost reflects additional supervisory time and additional bus drivers. The cost does not
include extending Handi Wheels service hours because it is not required by ADA. No
additional buses would be required although the use of smaller buses may be warranted .
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
5.1.4 Summary
March 2006
Table 8 summarizes these options for extending service hours into the evening period .
Table 8: Summary of Service Period Extension Options
Service Period Extension Annual Operating Capital Estimated Funding
O~tions Cost Cost Riders hi~ Regulrement
Extend service b~ 1.5 hours/da~ $141,000 $0 80 $134,000
Night service ( 5 days to 9 PM) $155,000 $0 80 $148,000
Night service ( 5 days to 9 PM) $128,000 $0 70 $122,000 Select routes
Night service { 1 da~ to 9 PM} $30,000 $0 40 $29,000
Night service ( 5 days to 9 PM) $66,000 $0 60 $61,000 Demand res~nse
Saturday service -7 $112,000 $0 400 $105,000 routes/base service ~lan
Saturday service -select $94,000 $0 360 $88,000 routes/base service ~lan
Saturday service -demand $73,000 $0 280 $68,000 rese2nse
Any of these service expansion alternatives has significant implications for JEFFTRAN's
operations and cost. JEFFTRAN is essentially a one-shift operation. Operations later in the
day, or on weekends, will require realignment of employee shifts and likely the addition of
manpower. The expansion affects not only drivers, but supervisory/dispatch personnel and
maintenance personnel.
5.2 Modifications to Existing Routes -Relocate Transfer Center to Bus
Station Extend
Three service alternatives were developed to address the travel time problems and other
aspects of the current fixed routes. The alternatives were based on several planning inputs,
including on/off counts, field work, discussions with the Steering Committee and established
transfer patterns. All three of the alternatives assume the transfer point will be located at the
intercity bus station on West McCarty Street. Two of the three alternatives maintain the current
30 minute headway. Only Alternative C adds resources (vehicles-capital costs, and operating
costs) to existing operations.
It is important to note that the alternatives described in this section are conceptual in nature and
therefore subject to additional refinements once the Steering Committee chooses a preferred
approach . Each of the alternatives was developed based on the planning inputs and
subsequently tested in the field. Schedules were developed based on running times tested with
an automobile. The three alternatives are as follows :
• Alternative A
o Move transfer point to Bus Station Transfer Center
o Maintain 30 minute headways
o No additional resources needed
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
• Alternative B
o Move transfer point to Bus Station Transfer Center
March2006
o Establish 40 minute headways throughout the day (peak and off-peak would both
be 40 minutes)
o No additional resources needed
• Alternative C
o Move transfer point to Bus Station Transfer Center
o Maintain 30 minute headways
o Additional resources needed
5.2.1 Alternative A
The first service configuration option (Alternative A} assumes that all routes will operate on a
base 30 minute headway and from the bus station. This option minimizes impacts on current
riders and addresses current running time problems by eliminating unproductive portions of
routes. It can be expected that some increased ridership will occur because of improved
connections and transferability at the new downtown Transfer Center. Alternative A does not
include any cost additions and can be operated with existing resources. These proposed
service modifications could be implemented at any time once the transfer point is moved to the
bus station. A brief description of changes to each route is provided below along with sample
schedules and a map of Alternative A .
• Capital Mall -No changes.
• Missouri Boulevard -Hamilton/Dulle Towers is no longer served by the Missouri
Boulevard route (see Business 50 description below}. This eliminates running time
problems on the route and makes for a more efficient inter1ining operation with the
Capital Mall route.
• Southwest-The western loop serving Stadium, Buehr1e, Dogwood, and Edgewood
is eliminated on the current 5 trips in the morning and afternoon peak. Based on
on/off counts, a total of 1 passenger is boarding in this segment. The elimination of
the segment addresses running time problems on the route.
• High Street East -The western loop serving Winston, Rosewood, and Carol is
eliminated. Based on on/off counts, a total of one passenger is boa.rding in this
segment. The elimination of the segment addresses running time problems.
• High Street West -High Street West gains some running time with the bus station
now being the terminus. This allows the route to serve the free clinic on Dix Road,
between Industrial Drive and Route 50. The deviation will occur only on the
outbound trip to ensure the route arrives at the pulse point in time for the meet.
• Business 50-The Business 50 route will operate different routings during the peak
and off-peak periods. During the peak, the route will serve the Hamilton/Dulle
Towers (outbound trip only), and then the McCarty, Eastwood, Landwehr Hills loop.
The segment along St. Louis is eliminated because no passengers board throughout
the day. During the off-peak, the route will serve the Hamilton!Dulle Towers on both
the outbound and inbound trips but short tum at Landwehr Lane (operating via
McCarty -St.Louis -Landwehr -McCarty}. The reason for the different routing is
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March2006
that based on the on/off counts, no passengers are boarding on the eastern most
loop between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p. m.
• Renn Addition -Some time savings are achieved by reversing the loop north of
McCarty. This allows for the route to meet other routes at the pulse point.
T~IEMSJi.~·
c::::c:RPC>RAT/ON -~-
21
---
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
---
Figure 5: Alternative A Map
N +
--
Jefferson City TDP
Alternative A
Legend
-Bullnen50
" • • • ~ ·93 Peek Only
~c.Pit~M·~
-H'rvhEast
,, ......:.. High West
·Miisouri
-RennAdcfition
-Southwest
'· ..._Exls1ing Routes
City Limits
2
-
March 2006
22
-
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
6~50AM 6;155AM
7:1l3AM 7:20AM 7:25AM
7:33AM 7:50AM 7:55AM
8:1l3AM 6:20AM 8:25AM
8:33AM 8:50AM 8:55AM
9 :33AM 9 :50AM 9:55AM
10:33AM 10:50AM 10:55AM
11 :33AM 11:50AM 11:55AM
12:33PM 12:50PM 12:55PM
1:33PM 1:50PM 1:55PM
2:33PM 2:50PM 2:55PM
3:1!3 PM 3:20PM 3:25PM
3:33PM 3:50PM 3:55PM
4:1!3 PM 4:20PM 4:25PM
4:33PM 4:50PM 4:55PM
5:03PM 5:20PM 5:25PM
7:15AM 7:32AM 7:42AM
7:45AM 8 :02AM 8:1 2AM
8:15AM 8:32AM 8:42AM
8:45AM 9:02AM 9:12AM
9:45AM 10:02AM 10:12AM
10:45AM 11 :02AM 11 :12AM
11 :45 AM 12:02PM 12:12PM
12:45PM 1:02PM 1:12PM
1:45PM 2:02PM 2:12PM
2:45PM 3:02PM 3:12PM
3:15PM 3:32PM 3:42PM
3:45PM 4:02PM 4:12PM
4:15PM 4:32PM 4:42PM
4:50PM 5:07PM 5:17PM
5:20PM 5:37PM
T~slEM.s c::--<A?~A Tlr.JIV ,j})
6.:45 AM
7:15AM
7:45AM
8:15AM
9:15AM
10:15AM
11 :15AM
12:15 PM
1:15PM
2:15PM
2:45PM
3:15PM
3:45PM
4:15PM
4:50PM
5:20PM
7:15AM
7:45AM
8:15AM
8:45AM
9:45AM
10:45AM
11 :45AM
12:45 PM
1:45PM
2:45PM
3:15PM
3:45PM
4:15PM
4:50PM
5:20PM
----
Table 9: Alternative A Route Schedules
7!02 M1 7:10AM
7:32AM 7:40AM
8:02AM 8:10AM
8:32AM 8:40AM
9:32AM 9:40AM
10:32AM 10:40AM
11 :32 AM 11 :40AM
12:32 PM 12:40 PM
1:32PM 1:40PM
2:32PM 2:40PM
3:02PM 3:10PM
3:32PM 3:40PM
4:02PM 4:10PM
4:32PM 4 :40PM
5:07 PM 5:15PM
8:57AM 9:12AM
9:57AM 10:12AM
10:57 AM 11:12AM
11:57AM 12:12PM
12:57 PM 1:12PM
1:57PM 2:12PM
2:57PM 3:12PM
3:27PM 3:42PM
3:57PM 4:12PM
4:27 PM 4:42PM
5:02PM 5:17PM
5:32PM
6 ;45 AM 6..$7 AM 7:1D AM
7:15AM 7:27AM 7:40AM
7:45AM 7:57AM 8:10AM
8:1 5AM 6:27AM 8:40AM
8:45AM 8:57AM 9:10AM
9:15AM 9 :27AM 9:40AM
9:45AM 9:57AM 10:10AM
10:15AM 10:27 AM 10:40AM
10:45 AM 10:57 AM 11 :10AM
11 :15AM 11:27AM 11:40AM
11 :45AM 11:57 AM 12:10PM
12:15PM 12:27 PM 12:40 PM
12:45PM 12:57 PM 1:10PM
1:15PM 1:27PM 1:40PM
1:45PM 1:57PM 2:1 0PM
2:15PM 2:27PM 2:40PM
2:45PM 2:57PM 3:10PM
3:15PM 3:27PM 3:40PM
3:45PM 3:57PM 4:10PM
4:1 5PM 4:27PM 4:40PM
4:50PM 5:02PM 5:15PM
5:20PM 5:32PM
8:31AM
Greyhound TC Greyhound TC
r.1cCarty'Lndwhr
9:15AM 9:27AM 9:39AM
10:15AM 10:27 AM 10:39AM
11 :15AM 11:27AM 11 :39 AM
12:1 5PM 12 :27 PM 12:39 PM
1:15PM 1:27PM 1:39PM
2:15PM 2:27PM 2:39PM
3:15PM 3:27PM 3:39PM
Greyh ound TC Eastwood 50 Greyhound TC
3:45PM
4:15PM
4:45PM
4:50PM
5:20PM
4:01PM
4:31PM
5:01PM
5:06PM
5:38PM
4:13PM
4:43PM
5:13 PM
5:18PM
-
March 2006
e:•sAM G::.57AM 7,11 AM
7:15AM 7:27AM 7:41AM
7:45AM 7 :57AM 8:11AM
6:15AM 8:27AM 8:41AM
9:15AM 9:27AM 9:41 AM
10:1 5AM 10:27 AM 10:41 AM
11:15AM 11 :27 AM 11 :41 AM
12:15 PM 12 :27 PM 12:41 PM
1:15PM 1:27PM 1:41PM
2:15PM 2:27PM 2:41PM
3:15PM 3:27PM 3:41PM
3:45PM 3:57PM 4:11PM
4:15PM 4:27PM 4:41PM
4:50PM 5:02PM 5:16PM
5:20PM 5:32PM
23
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
5.2.2 Alternative B
March2006
Alternative B assumes that all routes will operate on a 40 minute headway. The establishment
of 40 minute headways accomplishes three primary goals. First, it solves all existing running
time problems. Secondly, it avoids the elimination of current route segments. And finally, it
allows JEFFTRAN the ability to serve additional areas in the City as well as potential new
developments in the future . The operation of 40 minute headways would occur throughout the
day. In effect, this reduces the level of service during the peak periods (currently 30 minutes on
all routes), but improves the level of service during the off-peak periods (most operating 60
minutes). Because new areas are served, additional ridership is expected . Alternative B does
not include any cost additions and can be operated with existing resources. Every proposed
service modification except for the Southwest route (see description below) could be
implemented once the transfer point is moved to the bus station. A brief description of changes
to each route is provided below along with sample schedules and a map of A ltemative B.
• Capital Mall -No changes . During field work, serving the area south of the Mall
along Country Club drive was investigated. At this point, the area appears to lack
sufficient demand. However, the area should be monitored in the future and perhaps
served on every other Capital Mall trip via Stadium -Edgewood-Country Club.
• Missouri Boulevard -The Missouri Boulevard route no longer serves the
Hamilton/Dulle Towers (see Renn Addition description below). With the additional
time afforded by the 40 minute headway, the route now serves the area further west
and south ofT arget and picks up some of the original Southwest route.
• Southwest-Because the Missouri route picks up portions of Southwest Boulevard,
the Southwest route can now be routed further west to serve the future St. Mary's
development. The route would operate directly west along Southridge to reach the
area . As plans are developed, exact routing through the St. Mary's development
would need to be determined. In the interim, the route could be routed directly to the
Capital Mall to provide express service from downtown.
• High Street East -High Street East operates the existing route with a deviation to
serve Lincoln University via Clark -Dunklin -LaFayette -Atchison -Moreau.
Again, the 40 minute headway allows sufficient time to serve this destination.
• High Street West -As noted in Alternative A, High Street West gains some running
time with the bus station now being the terminus. This allows the route to serve the
free clinic on Dix Road, between Industrial Drive and Route 50. With the additional
time afforded by the 40 minute headway, the free clinic can be served on both the
outbound and inbound trips. Additionally, the route is proposed to serve the Main
Street I Rock Hill Road area which includes the Hoover employment site and the
Department of Natural Resources.
• Business 50 -The Business 50 route will operate via McCarty to the Scholastic
company located east of St. Louis Road (serving as the turnaround point). The route
will then operate the Eastwood -Route 50 -Landwehr Hills loop before returning to
the bus station. While limited passengers are boarding on the loop, the 40 minute
headway allows for this portion of the existing route to continue.
• Renn Addition-The Renn Addition route will serve the Hamilton/Dulle Towers on
both inbound and outbound trips and operate the northern loop in reverse as
described in Alternative A.
24
-----
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
T~ ~ATI<?N .
--
Figure 6: Alternative B Map
N +
---
March 2006
'-1
Jefferson City TDP
Alternative B
Legend
-Bus~neuoo ,
--Capital Mall
-HighEaat
-High Well
Missouri
-ReM AdditiOn
-Southwest
-Exlstl~ Routes
City Umits
2
' \.
25
-
----
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
---
Table 10: Alternative 8 Route Schedules
----
March 2006
<:;~P;T;.L '·'-"LL (Al TER',ATIVE B'• ,,11SSOURI(Al TER'JATI'/E 8 ) SOUTHWEST (ALTERNATIVE B) H IGH EAST (ALTERNATIVE B )
·.,.qet '.1alt Geclles \'1 Greyhound TC Tarqet Greyhound TC Greyl10und TC Southndge I Greyhound TC Greyhound TC Hough/Ellis Greyhoun d TC
179
6:50AM 6:55AM 6·40AM 6:57AM 7:15AM 6 :40 AM 6:56AM 7:15AM 6·40AM 6:59AM 7·15AM
7:00AM 7:17AM 7:22AM 7:20AM 7:37AM 7:55AM 7:20AM 7:38AM 7:55AM 7:20 AM 7:39AM 7:55 AM
7:40AM 7:57AM 8:02AM 8:00AM 8:17AM 8:35AM 8 :00AM 8:18AM 8:35AM 8:00AM 8:19AM 8:35AM
8:20AM 8:37AM 8:42AM 8:40AM 8:57AM 9:15AM 8:40AM 8:58AM 9:15AM 8:40 AM 8:59AM 9 :15AM
9:00AM 9:17AM 9:22AM 9:20AM 9:37AM 9:55AM 9:20AM 9:38AM 9:55AM 9:20 AM 9:39AM 9 :55AM
9:40AM 9:57AM 10:02 AM !O:OOAM 10:17AM 10:35AM !O:OOAM 10:18AM 10:35AM 10:00AM 10:19AM 10:35AM
10:20AM 10:37 AM 10:42AM 10:40AM 10:57 AM 11 :15AM 10:40AM 10:58AM 11 :15AM 10:40AM 10:59AM 11:15AM
11:00AM 11 :17AM 11 :22AM 11 :20AM 11 :37AM 11:55AM 11:20AM 11 :38AM 11:55AM 11 :20AM 11:39AM 11:55 AM
11:40AM 11 :57 AM 12:02PM 12:00 PM 12:17PM 12:35PM 12:00 PM 12:18 PM 12:35PM 12:00 PM 12:19 PM 12:35 PM
12:20PM 12:37PM 12:42 PM 12 :40PM 12:57 PM 1:15PM 12:40 PM 12:58 PM 1:1 5PM 12:40 PM 12:59 PM 1:1 5PM
1:00PM 1:17PM 1:22PM 1:20PM 1:37PM 1:55PM 1:20PM 1:38PM 1:55PM 1:20PM 1:39PM 1:55 PM
1:40PM 1:57PM 2:02PM 2:00PM 2:17PM 2:35PM 2:00PM 2:18PM 2:35PM 2:00PM 2:19PM 2:35PM
2:20PM 2:37PM 2:42PM 2:40PM 2:57PM 3:15PM 2:40PM 2:58PM 3:15PM 2:40PM 2:59PM 3 :15PM
3:00PM 3:17PM 3:22PM 3:20PM 3:37PM 3:55PM 3:20PM 3:38PM 3:55PM 3:20PM 3:39PM 3 :55PM
3:40PM 3:57PM 4:02PM 4:00PM 4:17PM 4:35PM 4:00PM 4 :18PM 4 :35PM 4:00PM 4:1 9PM 4:35PM
4:20PM 4:37PM 4:42PM 4:40PM 4:57PM 5:15PM 4 :40PM 4:58PM 5:1 5PM 4:40PM 4:59PM 5:15 PM
5:00PM 5:17PM 5:22PM 5:20PM 5:20PM 5:38PM 5:55PM 5:20PM 5:39PM
t-<:;'-' \':FST lf•L TER':'•"VE 8! RE'II'J (ALTERNATIVE B ) BUSINESS 50 (ALTERNATIVE 8)
Grp,~-,~~· 1·'"J -c Peck H•11 Gr>:).'hound TC Greytwund TC Gerbes Greyhound TC Greyhound TC Scholastic Greyhound TC
rot~ Ill
6:40AM 6:56AM 7:13AM 6:40AM 6S6 AM 7:15AM 6 :40 AM 6 ;56 AM 7!13AM
7:20AM 7:38AM 7:53AM 7:20AM 7:38AM 7:55AM 7:20AM 7:38AM 7:53AM
8:00AM 8:16AM 8 :33AM 8:00AM 8:18AM 8:35AM 8:00AM 8:16AM 8:33AM
8:40AM 8:56AM 9:13AM 8:40AM 8:58AM 9:15AM 8:40AM 8:56AM 9:13AM
9:20AM 9 :38AM 9 :53AM 9:20AM 9:36AM 9:55AM 9:20AM 9:36AM 9:53AM
!O:OOAM 10:16AM 10:33AM 10:00AM 10:16AM 10:35AM !O:OOAM 10:16AM 10:33AM
10:40AM 10:56AM 11 :13AM 10:40AM 10:56AM 11 :15AM 10:40AM 10:56AM 11 :13AM
11:20AM 11 :38AM 11 :53AM 11 :20AM 11:38AM 11 :55AM 11:20AM 11 :36AM 11 :53AM
12:00 PM 12:16PM 12:33 PM 12:00 PM 12:16PM 12:35PM 12:00 PM 12:16PM 12:33 PM
12:40PM 12:56PM 1:13PM 12:40PM 12:56PM 1:15PM 12:40PM 12:56PM 1:13PM
1:20PM 1:38PM 1:53PM 1:20PM 1:38PM 1:55PM 1:20PM 1:38PM 1:53PM
2:00PM 2:16PM 2:33PM 2:00PM 2:16PM 2:35PM 2:00PM 2:16PM 2:33PM
2:40PM 2:56PM 3:13PM 2:40PM 2:56PM 3:15PM 2:40PM 2:56PM 3:13PM
3:20PM 3:38PM 3:53PM 3:20PM 3:38PM 3:55PM 3:20PM 3:38PM 3:53PM
4:00PM 4:16PM 4:33PM 4:00PM 4:16PM 4:35PM 4:00PM 4:16PM 4:33PM
4:40PM 4:56PM 5:13PM 4 :40PM 4:56PM 5:15PM 4:40PM 4:56PM 5:13 PM
5:20PM 5:38PM 5:20PM 5:36PM 5 :20PM 5:36PM
~ .•. 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
5.2.3 Alternative C
March2006
Alternative C assumes 30 minute headways and additional resources to operate a downtown
shuttle (see cost figures in the description below). The downtown shuttle (Downtown Circulator
#1) provides downtown coverage, allowing for other routes to operate more directly to
destinations outside of downtown. It can be expected that some increased ridership will occur
due to the higher level of service. These proposed service modifications could be implemented
at any time once the transfer point is moved to the bus station. A brief description of changes to
each route is provided below along with sample schedules and a map of Alternative C.
• Downtown Shuttle (Downtown Circulator #1) -The shuttle will operate throughout
the day on a 30 minute headway, serving several locations on existing routes today,
including Hamilton/Dulle Towers, Gerbes, the High/Jefferson area, and the new
transfer station. A total of 12 revenue hours would be required each weekday,
resulting in an estimated annual operating cost increase of approximately $103 ,000.
Capital costs for the extra vehicle are estimated at $300,000 for an additional bus.
• Capital Mall -No changes.
• Missouri Boulevard -Hamilton/Dulle Towers is no longer served by the Missouri
Boulevard route (see Downtown Shuttle above). This eliminates running time
problems on the route and makes for a more efficient interfining operation with the
Capital Mall route.
• Southwest -The western loop serving Stadium, Buehrfe, Dogwood, and Edgewood
is eliminated on the current 5 trips in the morning and afternoon peak. Based on
on/off counts, a total of 1 passenger is boarding in this segment. The elimination of
the segment addresses running time problems on the route.
• High Street East -Lincoln University is now served with a direct routing from the bus
station made possible by the downtown shuttle picking up the High Street and Clark
Avenue portions of the existing route. The route then operates similar to the existing
route to the bus station.
• High Street West-High Street West will operate the same as it does today. The
route gains some running time with the bus station now being the terminus, easing
the current tight schedule.
• Business 50-The Business 50 route will operate the same as it does today.
• Renn Addition -The Renn Addition route will operate as it does today with one small
change . After completing the northern loop, the route will operate to the bus station
via McCarty, rather than operating via Clark-Dunklin-LaFayette . This segment is
now served by the down town shuttle.
27
--
Jeffenoo City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
T~
~ATK">N
----
Figure 7: Alternative C Map
N +
--
March 2006
Jefferson City TDP
Alternative C
I
I
Legend
Clreulator
-Business 50
-CaplaiMaft
-High East
-High liVest
Muouri
-Renn Addition
1
-Southweat
' -Ex'-ting Routes
City Umfta
2
28
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
-
Table 11: Alternative C Route Schedules
--
March 2006
~ c.~·T ~L '.'ALL IAL TER'IJATI\ E C' ',11SSOURI I r,L TER'IJATIVE C) SOUTHWEST (ALTERNATIVE C) HIGH EAST (A LTERNATI VE C)
'1·:1·-t •.~.1 1 l G..,l,~:>o; I.'J Grr·y~ound TC T<HgPt GrC'yhoum1 TC GrPyhound TC Southwesl 1 Eilts GrPyhound TC Greyhound TC HoughtEI!is Greyhound TC
6 :50AM 6·55 AM
7:03AM 7:20AM 7:25AM
7:33AM 7:50AM 7:55AM
8:03AM 8:20AM 8:25AM
8:33AM 8:50AM 8:55AM
9 :33AM 9:50AM 9:55AM
10 :33AM 10:50AM 10:55AM
11:33AM 11 :50AM 11 :55 AM
12:33 PM 12:50 PM 12 :55 PM
1:33PM 1:50PM 1:55PM
2:33PM 2:50PM 2:55PM
3:03PM 3:20PM 3:25PM
3:33PM 3:50PM 3:55PM
4:03PM 4:20PM 4:25PM
4:33PM 4:50PM 4:55PM
5:03PM 5:20PM 5:25PM
6:45AM
7:15AM
7:45AM
8:15AM
9:15AM
10 :15AM
11 :15 AM
12:15 PM
1:15PM
2:15PM
2:45PM
3:15PM
3:45PM
4:15PM
4:50PM
5:20PM
7:02AM
7:32AM
8:02AM
8:32AM
9:32AM
10:32AM
11:32 AM
12:32 PM
1:32PM
2:32PM
3:02PM
3:32PM
4:02PM
4:32PM
5:07PM
7:10AM
7:40AM
8:10AM
8:40AM
9:40AM
10:40AM
11 :40AM
12 :40 PM
1:40PM
2:40PM
3:10PM
3:40PM
4:10PM
4 :40PM
5:15PM
6:45AM 6:57AM 7;10 AM 6:45AM 6:57AM 711AM
7:15AM 7:27AM 7:40AM 7 :15AM 7:27AM 7:41AM
7:45AM 7:57AM 8:10AM 7:45AM 7:57AM 8:11AM
8:15AM 8:27AM 8:40AM 8:15AM 8:27AM 8:41AM
8:45AM 8:57AM 9:10AM 9:15AM 9 :27AM 9:41AM
9:15AM 9:27AM 9:40AM 10:15AM 10 :27 AM 10:41 AM
9:45AM 9 :57AM 10:10AM 11 :15AM 11 :27AM 11 :41 AM
10:15AM 10:27 AM 10:40AM 12 :15PM 12 :27 PM 12 :41 PM
10:45 AM 10 :57 AM 11 :10 AM 1:15PM 1 :27PM 1:41PM
11 :15AM 11 :27AM 11:40AM 2:15PM 2:27PM 2:41PM
11 :45AM 11 :57AM 12 :10PM 3:15PM 3:27PM 3:41PM
12:15PM 12 :27 PM 12 :40 PM 3:45PM 3:57PM 4:11PM
12:45PM 12 :57 PM 1:10PM 4:15PM 4 :27PM 4:41PM
1:15PM 1:27PM 1:40PM 4 :50PM 5:02PM 5:16PM
1:45PM 1:57PM 2:10PM 5:20PM 5:32PM
2:15PM 2:27PM 2:40PM
2:45PM 2:57PM 3:10PM
3:15PM 3:27PM 3:40PM
3:45PM 3:57PM 4:10PM
4:15PM 4 :27PM 4:40PM
4:50PM 5 :02PM 5:15PM
5:20PM 5:32PM
"•G'< \',EST •:OL TEP'<AT 1VE C• RE''~' 1AL TEPNATIVE C) BUSINESS 50 (ALTERNATIVE C) CIRCULATOR #1 (ALTERNATIVE C)
G·• ',,_ ·.·'cl T.: E=!t-1•"1Q<'t G·f") hcJI'd ... ( Gr~;:hound rc Gerbes Grj"'yround TC Grf'yhound TC Eastwood 50 Greytlound TC Greyhound TC Dunklin I Greyhound TC
\orrrs _____________ LaFayette
6 :45AM 7:02AM 7:12AM 6:45 AM Go57 AM 712AM 6:45AM 7 :01AM 7:13AM 6 :45AM 6 57 AM 7:05AM
7:15AM 7:32AM 7:42AM 7:15AM 7:27AM 7:42AM 7:15AM 7:31AM 7:43AM 7:15AM 7:27AM 7:35AM
7:45AM 8:02AM 8:12AM 7:45AM 7:57AM 8:12AM 7:45AM 8:01AM 8:13AM 7:45AM 7:57AM 8:05AM
8:15AM 8:32AM 8:42AM 8:15AM 8:27AM 8:42AM 8:15AM 8:31AM 8:43AM 8:15AM 8:27AM 8:35AM
8:45AM 9:02AM 9:12AM 8:45AM 8:57AM 9:12AM 9:15AM 9:31AM 9:43AM 8:45AM 8:57AM 9:05AM
9:45AM 10:02AM 10:12 AM 9:45AM 9:57AM 10:12 AM 10:15AM 10:31 AM 10:43AM 9:15AM 9:27AM 9:35AM
10:45AM 11:02AM 11:12AM 10:45AM 10:57 AM 11:12AM 11:15AM 11 :31 AM 11:43AM 9:45AM 9 :57AM 10:05 AM
11:45AM 12:02PM 12:12 PM 11:45AM 11:57AM 12 :12PM 12:15PM 12 :31 PM 12:43 PM 10:15AM 10 :27 AM 10:35AM
12:45PM 1:02PM 1:12PM 12 :45 PM 12:57 PM 1:12PM 1:15PM 1:31PM 1:43PM 10:45AM 10 :57 AM 11:05AM
1:45 PM 2:02PM 2:12PM 1:45PM 1:57PM 2:12PM 2:15PM 2:31PM 2:43PM 11 :15AM 11 :27AM 11:35AM
2:45 PM 3:02PM 3:12PM 2:45PM 2:57PM 3:12PM 3:15PM 3:31PM 3:43PM 11 :45AM 11 :57 AM 12 :05 PM
3:15 PM 3:32PM 3:42PM 3:15PM 3:27PM 3:42PM 3:45PM 4 :01PM 4:13PM 12 :15PM 12 :27 PM 12 :35PM
3:45 PM 4:02PM 4:12PM 3:45PM 3:57PM 4:12PM 4:15PM 4:31PM 4 :43PM 12 :45 PM 12 :57 PM 1:05PM
4:15PM 4:32PM 4:42PM 4 :15PM 4:27PM 4:42PM 4 :50PM 5:06PM 5:18PM 1:15PM 1:27PM 1:35PM
4:50PM 5:07PM 5:17PM 4 :50PM 5:02PM 5 :17PM 5:20PM 5 :36PM 1:45PM 1:57PM 2:05PM
5:20PM 5:37PM 5:20PM 5:32PM 2:15PM 2:27PM 2:35PM
2:45PM 2:57PM 3:05PM
3:15PM 3:27PM 3:35PM
3:45PM 3:57PM 4 :05PM
4:15PM 4 :27PM 4:35PM
4:45PM 4 :57PM 5:05PM
5:15PM 5:27PM 5:35PM
5:45PM 5:57PM 8:05PM
6:15PM 6:27PM 6:35PM
6 :45PM 6:57PM 7:05PM
T~
c-.-e:::.?Pc""'::lRA TIC?N 1).
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
5.2.4 Summary
March 2006
All of the alternatives have the transfer location at the intercity bus station and each addresses
the running time problems. Each alternative offers different advantages and disadvantages.
Alternative A uses existing resources and maintains a 30 minute headway, but unproductive
segments of routes have to be eliminated to address running time problems and to allow routes
on the east side of town to get to the relocated transfer center on time. Alternative B uses
existing resources and utilizes a 40 minute headway which addresses running time issues and
allows service to expanded areas. Under 40 minute headways there would be less service
during the peak period but more service during the midday compared to existing conditions.
Alternative C uses additional resources and operates on a 30 minute headway. The added
resources allow service to expanded areas. Table 12 summarizes each proposed service
alternative.
Table 12: Summary of Existing Route Modification Options
Modifications to Existing
Routes
Alternative A -30 Minute Service
Alternative B -40 Minute Service
Alternative C -30 Minute Service
with Downtown Circulator #1
5.3 New Service Areas
Annual Operating
Cost Capital Cost
$0 $0
$0 $0
$103,000 $300,000
Estimated
Ridership
n/a
n/a
50
Funding
Requirement
$0
$0
$99,000
The needs analysis discussed in Section 3 of this report evaluated the potential for transit in
portions of the study area not presently served. The needs analysis looked at five areas:
• West along Route 50
• Jefferson City North of the Missouri River
• Holts Summit
• The Algoa area in the ea stem part of the City
• Southwest generally along US 54 and Route 179.
Of the five areas the West area and Holts Summit appear to have the most potential, however
even these areas have characteristics that make for a difficult transit market. Population
densities are well below the level that makes fixed route services viable, and, as expected
income and auto ownership do not favor transit usage 1 • The state corrections facilities at Algoa
and the airport just north of the Missouri River do not appear to offer much of a transit market
and neither appears to have a need for transit. The Southwest area is expected to develop, but
currently does not appear to have a need for transit.
There are generally three types of services that can serve these types of areas:
1. Flexible Route service anchored by a significant traffic generator and tied into the larger
system
2. Express service designed for central area employment trips
3. Paratransit service for individuals with mobility limitations
1 This information is contained in the Study Area Data Inventory technical report.
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo
5.3.1 West Area Service
March 2006
Two types of services were evaluated: a flexible service route and an express route. These
services are distinctly different in terms of service type, operation and market.
West Area Flexible Route. This type of service is described in Section 4 of this report. A
service zone would be designated which could be served by one vehicle operating in a demand
response mode (similar to Handi Wheels). The zone would include all of the area in the study
area west of the Capital Mall route. The route would have a terminus at Capital Mall providing a
connection to the JEFFTRAN transit network. The route would serve Thomas Jefferson Middle
School, residential areas and commercial areas. This service is estimated to increase operating
costs by $133,000 annually and attract an additional 50 daily passengers. The additional cost
reflects an additional bus driver. The cost does not include extending Handi Wheels service
hours because it is not required by ADA. An additional bus would be required. A small bus,
similar to a Handi Wheels vehicle is suggested.
West Area Express Route. The peak period only service would consist of one bus making two
trips in both the morning and the afternoon. The schedule would be set to serve the primary
shifts at the state office buildings in the downtown area. An important component of the service
package would be a park and ride lot on the west end of the route allowing commuters to
access the bus with a short auto trip. This service is estimated to increase operating costs by
$56,000 annually and attract an additional 40 daily passengers. The additional cost reflects an
additional bus driver. The cost does not include extending Handi Wheels service hours because
it is not required by ADA. An additional bus would be required. A smaller, light duty bus, similar
to the Freightliner vehicles is suggested.
5.3.2 North Area Service
Holts Summit Flexible Route. A flexible route was developed to operate on a 60 minute
headway from the bus station terminating at the shopping center located at Summit Drive and
Simon Boulevard. The route would operate on a fixed schedule but would be permitted to
deviate off the route within a % mile buffer to pick up or drop off passengers. This type of
service is referred to as "route deviation." The route could be operated to allow dev lations to the
Jefferson City Airport to provide service on a demand basis. Table 13 shows a sample
schedule for the proposed route: ·
Table 13: Holts Summit Sample Schedule
Greyhound TC
7:00a.m.
8:00a.m.
9:00a.m.
Summit I Simon
7:32a.m.
8:32a.m.
9:32a.m.
Greyhound TC
7:55a.m.
8:55a.m.
9:55a.m.
-Route would operate throughout the day to 6:00 p.m.
-Travel time to Summit I Simon is 17 minutes, the extra 15
minutes allows for deviations.
This service is estimated to increase operating costs by $133,000 annually and attract an
additional 60 daily passengers. The additional cost reflects an additional bus driver. The cost
does not include extending Handi Wheels service hours because it is not required by ADA. An
additional bus would be required. A small bus, similar to a Handi Wheels vehicle is suggested.
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March2006
Holts Summit Express Route. This peak period only service would consist of one bus making
two trips in both the morning and the afternoon. The schedule would be set to serve the primary
shifts at the state office buildings in the downtown area. An important component of the service
package would be a park and ride lot near the northern terminus of the route allowing
commuters to access the bus with a short auto trip. This service is estimated to increase
operating costs by $56,000 annually and attract an additional 60 daily passengers. The
additional cost reflects an additional bus driver. The cost does not include extending Handi
Wheels service hours because it is not required by ADA. An additional bus would be required.
A smaller, light duty bus, similar to the Freightliner vehicles is suggested.
5.3.3 Algoa Area Service
East Side Employment Shuttle -Transit service to the Algoa correctional facilities and
employment sites to the east of the City could be served by an employment shuttle route
operating on a 60 minute headway. The route would operate via Route 50 to the Militia Drive
exit, serving the prison, Scholastic, and Modem Litho Print Company. The round trip for the
route was timed at 42 minutes, leaving additional time to serve the new Wai-Mart, once built.
The route would likely operate to the prison and Wai-Mart throughout the day and to the
employment sites during the peak periods only. This service is estimated to increase operating
costs by $133,000 annually and attract an additional 60 daily passengers. The additional cost
reflects an additional bus driver. The cost does not include extending Handi Wheels service
hours because it is not required by ADA. An additional bus would be required . A smaller, light
duty bus, similar to the Freightliner vehicles is suggested.
5.3.4 Southwest Area Service
Southwest Area Flexible Route. This type of service is described in Section 4 of this report. A
service zone would be designated which could be served by one vehicle operating in a demand
response mode (similar to Handi Wheels). The zone would include all of the area in the study
area southwest of the Southwest and High Street East routes. The route would connect to the
JEFFTRAN transit network at points along the existing routes. This service is estimated to
increase operating costs by $133,000 annually and attract an additional 30 daily passengers.
The additional cost reflects an additional bus driver. The cost does not include extending Handi
Wheels service hours because it is not required by ADA. An additional bus would be required.
A small bus, similar to a Handi Wheels vehicle is suggested.
5.3.5 Summary
Table 14 summarizes the service expansion options.
Table 14: Summary of Service Expansion Options
Service Expansion -New
Services
West Area Flex Route
West Area Express
Holts Summit Flex Route
Holts Summit Express
Algoa Area Shuttle
Southwest Area Flex Route
Annual Operating
Cost Capital Cost
$133,000 $80,000
$56,000 $150,000
$133,000 $80,000
$56,000 $150,000
$133,000 $150,000
$133,000 $150,000
Estimated
Ridership
50
40
60
60
30
30
Funding
Requirement
$129,000
$53,000
$128,000
$51,000
$130,000
$130,000
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March2006
JEFFTRAN operates as a City department, thus operations outside the City limits may require
some modifications to current practice and even policy. For one, JEFFTRAN may be limited to
operation inside City limits by a council directive. This needs to be determined.
Another matter is funding. If service is provided to residents and areas outside the City's
corporate limits there may need to be agreements in place to provide for funding. These
agreements provide for funding from the outside jurisdiction and use some means to allocate
costs and revenues between the jurisdictions.
These types of agreements are common and many municipal transit operators like JEFFTRAN
operate in other jurisdictions.
5.4 Other Potential Service Modifications
A number of other service improvement possibilities were evaluated as part of the project.
Increased seNice levels on existing routes. The 30 minute frequency currently provided during
the peak periods was concluded to be adequate for the foreseeable future. Market research
conducted for the study supports this conclusion-users are generally satisfied with the service .
Market research also revealed that nearly 60% of individuals who would consider using transit
indicate that service intervals of 20 minutes or less are sufficient. It would take service intervals
of 15 minutes or better to attract another 35% of respondents. Improving the service frequency
to 15 minutes would nearly double operating costs. This is not considered a practical option.
Substitution of fixed route seNice with flexible routes. As explained in Section 4 of this report,
fixed route services do not typically perform well in areas with population densities lower than
about 3,000 persons per square mile. Most of the JEFFTRAN routes have portions of their
service area with lower densities. The Capital Mall route operates totally in an area with
densities less than 1,000 per square mile (although the route does serve commercial retail).
One possibility is to replace the Capital Mall fixed route with a flexible route service. This would
be the same as explained in Section 4 and would be similar to the West Area Flexible Route
described in Section 5.3.1 of this report. In this case Capital Mall would be served by an
extension of the Missouri Boulevard fixed route and the new flex route would operate in the
general area, with connections to the fixed route at Capital Mall and Wai-Mart on West Stadium
Boulevard. This type of service is estimated to increase operating costs by $133,000 annually
and attract an additional 40 daily passengers. The additional cost reflects an additional bus
driver. An additional bus would be require d. A small bus is suggested.
Downtown Area Circulator Route (Downtown Circulator #2). Some interest has been expressed
in a shuttle or circulator route that would connect various attractions and destinations in the
downtown area. A new downtown development referred to as the Missouri State Prison (MSP)
Redevelopment area will change travel patterns in the area. This development is a mixed use
development that is far enough from the City's current retail commercial core and the State
Capital complex that casual walking would be discouraged. An intra downtown shuttle
(Downtown Circulator #2) could link these areas and reduce reliance on auto travel and the
need for parking. To be effective the shuttle would have to operate with a high service level with
intervals of ten minutes or less. Some cities have found that shuttles using distinctive vehicles,
such as rubber-tired vintage trolleys, are effective because they are easily identifiable and
attractive to visitors and tourists. Shuttles such as these are often operated without fare to
encourage spontaneous usage. Such a service would increase operating costs by $267,000
annually and attract 450 daily riders.
33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March 2006
5.4.1 Summary
Table 15 summarizes the service expansion options .
Table 15: Summary of Other Route Modification Options
Other Service Modifications Annual Operating Estimated Funding
Cost Caeltal Cost Ridershie Reguirement
Improve Frequency to 15 min. $933,000 $2,400,000 320 $906,000 Peak and 30 min. base
Downtown Circulator #2 $2671000 $750,000 480 $2671000
Caeital Mall Flex Route $133,000 $150,000 40 $130,000
Table 16 on the following page provides costs, ridership and performance information on each
of the service modifications. Table 16 also includes very preliminary assessments of the need
or priority associated with each modification.
34
------------------
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March 2006
Table 16: Summary of Alternatives
Potantlill TI'MSit Service Annual Opanotlng Ca ibll Cost Estlmabld --Funding
llodlflc:Mions Coet p RldarshiD Raaulramant
............. l!daMion OptiDne
Extend seMce by 1.5 hounldll)' $141.000 so 80 $134,000
e-•~~~ een~ce ! 5 !!m toe PM! !155,000 !!! 80 !148,000
E-*19 Mnlce ( 5 dllyiiO 9 PM) $128,000 so 70 $122,000 Selec:l niUie8
E-*'v NMa1 ( 1 day lo 9 PM) $30,000 so 40 $29,000
E-*19 Mnlce ( 5 days to 9 PM) $86,000 so 110 $61,000 o.n.nc~--s.tunl8y Mnlce-7 roulalbae
Cost par
N-Ridar
$6.57
!7.25
$6.83
$14.22
$3.99
Priority
High
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Comment
'· .. ;_;,:~,~~::· ~ : -~ ·:·:J:;~:; ·:·.·:.. .. :..:r..:.-. ;}'!::t ~'.:;, ~.i:;f-~:~:: .... ~ .• ;~;:·;:~~).~1-~:--
Highly recommended because the eX1enslon win make the
service more attrac:tNe to choice riders.
$112,000 so 400 $105,000 $5.15 Low Mnlcel!!!!! ., -· Saturday service should be an important priority for the near
SlllunMy ....tee -Hiecl $94,000 so 360 $88,000 $4.79 Medium ·•· fulure because transit dependants have no transportation on
_....., , weekends . The method used to provide the service should ~---1!!!!!
5aJrc111r senolce -dem8nd $73,000 .. so 280 $68,000 $4.76 Medium minimize cost.
lea-. . tDI!Iddna ~ ···:; :" ::::~·~:~~~-.. · .. : .. --:· .r: ·.-=-'~,, : ... :;-.:.~~.::.it.~~;\: ·' ·_::-i,:..>l 't:'.~' ~~-~-:~t<t;·~· ·,:;_:
Memai!WI A-30 Minute SeMce so so nla so so .oo N/A ----------------------------------------------One of these options must be selected because of the
MematiWt 8-40 Minute SeMce SO SO n/a SO SO.OO N/A impending move to the Greyhound station and to resolve the
Memai!WI C 30 Minute SerW:e running time problem. Altemative A is recommended. _, o-n.ow:. Clrallator•1 $103.000 $300.000 50 $99,000 $7.76 High
...... Elciai ......... lelvlole --------:: .. ~:. :~1~~:.:~:' ~;i.!:;-~:;;.:..-~·;).ft,(~/f.~~-·~::;:?:i'"i.~~~;-n;:t:,~'·~~~i.ti:fi!J.~1
Transft service In this low density area Is not a prtorlty at thi s
West Area Flex Route S 133.000 $80.000 50 $129,000 $10.12 Low time. An lntergovemmental agreement would be required for
fundlna.
Not recommended unless there Is a coop!lfaliYe effort with
West Area Express $56.000 $150.000 40 $53,000 $5.20 Low the state to reduce auto commuting to the central part of the
City. An lntergovemmentalegreement for funding would be
reaulred.
Tranalt aenolce In lhla low denally area Ill nol a prtortty Ill this
Holts Summft Flex Route $133.000 $60,000 60 $128,000 $8.37 Low lime. An intergovernmental agreement would be required for
"'m!!!!ll·
Not recommended unless there Is a coopereliYe effort with
Hafts Summft Express $56,000 $150,000 eo $51,000 $3.33 Low the state to reduce euto commuting to the central part of the
City. An lntervovemmentalegreement for funding would be
!!9Uired.
Not recommended unlesa there Is a cooperative effort with
AlgOa Area Shuttle $133.000 $150,000 30 $130,000 $16.99 Low the state to reduce auto commuting to the central part of the
City. An intergovemmental agreement for funding would be
!!Siulred.
Transit service In this low density area is not e priority 111 this
Southwest Area Flex Route $133.000 $150.000 30 $130,000 $16.99 Low time. Future gruwth. including the development of St. MillY's
HosJ!IIal1 would mllke transit service viable.
lllona . :: ~-~:~ ·.:.,: ....... :.' ... :,(:, · -:':'·';ts:,;-,;1,~-~.
lmprvve Frequency to 15 min. $933,000 $2,400,000 320 $906,000 $11 .10 Low Pellk end 30 min. base Not recommended.
Downtown Cln:ulalor 12 $267.000 $750,000 480 $287,000 $2.18 Low Viable as a future enhancement If It Is part of downtown
redevetooment.
Capital Mall Flex Route $133.000 $150,000 40 $130,000 $12.75 Low Should be conaldered as a future option to serve portions of
the City currently unserved.
T~& c-'~PC":JRA TJc-:;,tv --
35
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Service Alternatives Tech Memo March 2006
Section 6: Conclusions and Next Steps
The next steps to be taken include the identification of priorities for various transit
improvements. The conclusions and recommendations in this DRAFT report are intended to be
examples of how decisions might be made. This version of the report reflects only the
consultant's evaluation . City staff, the Steering Committee and other stakeholders should
provide input to the cone Ius ions presented at the final public meeting.
The recommended priorities will be packaged into a five-year program with complete operating
and capital funding requirements for final present ation.
An implementation plan will be developed based on the preferred service options. The purpose
of the implementation plan is to provide information on the steps necessary to make the
recommendations of the TOP a reality. The implementation plan will include project and
program timing and a financing plan .
The TOP must recognize that transit is not affected only by transportation-related decisions.
Transit in a community is affected by decisions and policies regarding development and land
use. Development patterns can either promote or inhibit the ability to successfully provide
transit in a community. Development patterns can support transit in many ways. A few
examples include:
• Land uses that serve transit dependant populations, such as social service agencies,
low income housing and senior centers should be located along existing transit routes.
• Higher density development should be foe used near transit stops and corridors
• Compact development with a mix of uses that locates housing near jobs, shops and
services, schools and other community facilities should be encouraged.
• Shops and services should be located near employment centers; infill development
should be encouraged.
• Streets and sidewalks should be designed to ensure safe and convenient access for
pedestrians and transit users.
• Individual development projects should be designed to provide safe, convenient
pedestrian access to transit stops and nearby services
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Southwest Area Flexible Bus Route
November 8, 2005
The use of a flexible route service is a new concept for JEFFTRAN. JEFFTRAN does provide
paratransit service for persons with disabilities, Handi Wheels. However, the primary
JEFFTRAN service type is fixed route scheduled service operated with standard transit buses .
The following is a summary of the flexible route service concept.
Flexible Route Services
The term "flexible route services" or "innovative services" actually covers a range of services
ranging from "pure" demand response services to route and point deviation services. The
Southwest flex route would be designed as a flexible route service that would operate only
within a defined zone or.sector. Transfers to other routes would be required for travel to other
parts of the city.
The flex route service design is better able to serve lower density areas, and is more adaptable
to the transportation needs of seniors and persons with mobility limitations. In addition, this
service can supplement fixed route service and address the needs of the reverse commute
market. Unlike fixed route transit service, the vehicles are scheduled only at a few points in the
service area and the vehicles are otherwise free to move within the service area to provide more
convenient service to residents. Passengers could access flex vehicles in one of three ways:
1. Passengers can board at any of the scheduled points in the service area, much like regular
transit service .
2. Passengers can have a "standing order" or subscribe to the service. In this manner, the
passengers would have a guaranteed pick-up near their residence or work place on a daily
basis, unless the passenger cancels the reservation.
3. Passengers could call the JEFFTRAN flex dispatcher and arrange for a scheduled pick-up
near their home or work place. These calls can be made as early as a day in advance or
within an hour of the pick-up, although the service is provided on an availability basis (first
come -first served) for same day calls.
The experience from other areas is that most passengers will subscribe to the service ,
minimizing calls to the dispatcher.
Flex Route Service Design Options
A single vehicle Southwest Area flexible bus service could operate along Truman Boulevard ,
Fairgrounds Road, Edgewood Drive and Highway 179. Sites served include Covington
Gardens Subdivision, Thomas Jefferson Middle School, businesses along Wildwood and
Edgewood, Capital Mall , Wai -Mart and the future St. Mary 's Hospita l. Deviations could also
serve other homes and businesses within the specified service area. The proposed service
area is illustrated in Figure 1. Service days, span of service and "schedules" would likely
coincide with fixed route service. A sample schedule is presented in Tables 1 and 2. Timed
transfers would be provided for at key locations, probably with the Missouri Boulevard route at
Wai-Mart. Service could be provided at 60 minute intervals by carefully designing the service
area .
The TranSystems Team 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Figure 1: Southwest Area Flexible Bus Route Service Area
Jefferson City ~-f\ W_,.SLVO ~ .Jl
Transit Development Plan i! E ---··-?~ /) t-. _. .
~~--:1_ ·. rl!~t:H:~ .
-l.b!out!&Jd . -~ --o -""'"""...... -~-~t,J,,.:;;::::::;o..".-l
C.tyUrra -...::::::
m Fuue Sl Mar,;'• Holpdal
! ThcMre5 ~son Md<f4e SchOol
aa ~Ae· s.rr~AtN
v;s 01~ o --
9CRIJGGS
l.up...,oR
'MSfPCfn OR
!
1!
Jf otL'\-· .. ·,~
~'!!. ~,(' ---~ ,..,.
The TranSystems Team 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Table 1: Sample Schedule for Southwest Area Flexible Route
SOUTHWEST FLEX (ALTERNATIVE C)
Leave Service Area Arrive
Wai-Mart Wed-Mart
7:10AM
8:10AM
9:10AM
10:10 AM
11:10 AM
12:10 PM
1:10PM
2:10PM
3:10PM
4:10PM
5:10PM
7:35AM
8:35AM
9:35AM
10:35 AM
11:35 AM
12:35 PM
1:35PM
2:35PM
3:35PM
4:35PM
5:35PM
7:00AM
8:00AM
9:00AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00PM
2:00PM
3:00PM
4:00PM
5:00PM
Table 2: Sample Schedule for Southwest Area Flexible Route (Alternative C Extended Hours)
SOUTHWEST FLEX (ALTERNATIVE C ~EXT}
Leave Service Area Arrive
Wai-Mart Wai-Mart
6:30AM
6:40AM 7 :05AM 7:30AM
7:40AM 8:05AM 8:30AM
8:40AM 9:05AM 9:30AM
9:40AM 10:05 AM 10:30 AM
10:40 AM 11:05 AM 11:30 AM
11:40 AM 12:05 PM 12 :30 PM
12:40 PM 1:05PM 1:30PM
1:40PM 2:05PM 2:30PM
2:40PM 3:05PM 3:30PM
3:40PM 4:05PM 4:30PM
4:40PM 5:05PM 5:30PM
5:40PM 6:05PM 6:30PM
The TranSystems Team 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
It takes approximately 15 minutes to travel from one end of the service area to the other. With
15 minutes of travel in either direction and 10 minutes of deviation time in either direction, the
vehicle could operate for 50 minutes before returning to the Wai-Mart for a ten minute layover to
intercept transferring passengers. Because the Capital Mall/Missouri Boulevard route does not
return to Wai-Mart on the inbound trip, this scheme would require that the Capital Mall/Missouri
Boulevard route make a second pass by Wai-Mart on the return trip to pick up passengers
transferring from the Southwest Area Flex route. If a return pass by Wai-Mart is not provided
then another opportunity needs to be provided for passengers to be able to transfer from the
Southwest Area Flex route.
An example trip could begin at Covington Gardens subdivision and travel to Capital Mall. The
driver could then take a passenger to the new St. Mary's Hospital. The bus would then need to
go to Wai-Mart to meet the Missouri Boulevard route at the scheduled hourly time so that people
can transfer to and from the fixed route network.
Operating Needs of Flexible Route Services
It is important to understand the changes JEFFTRAN would be required to make to operate the
flexible services. Following is a brief outline:
1. Operating Plan and Policies
• Service type -Demand response versus route or point deviation schemes.
• Service access -Curb to curb or nearest intersection.
• Service access -advance reservation versus immediate response; subscription
reservations.
• Define service area and limits.
• Identify key transfer points.
• Determine transfer guarantee policies (i.e., do buses wait for connecting trips,
and if so, how long?).
2. Vehicles
• Smaller vehicles preferred (12 to 15 passenger body on chassis).
3. Trip Reservations & Dispatching
• Agent required to accept trip requests
• Scheduling and dispatching similar to Handi Wheels demand response
• Trip scheduling key to service effectiveness
4. User Information
• Flexible service requires more involvement on the part of the rider.
• User information must be more detailed and is critical to success.
• Many useful examples exist from other cities to serve as a template.
5. Training
• The service is much different than traditional service. Drivers, supervisors,
dispatcher, reservation (customer service) agents all require training.
The TranSystems Team 4
I
I
I
I
I
Section 7: Paratransit
Evaluation
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Paratransit Evaluation
Prepared for
CITY OF JEFFERSON
Prepared by
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Phone: (816) 329-8600
In Association with
ETC Institute
T J Brown and Associates
Revised March 9, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Paratransit Evaluation March2006
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the evaluation of JEFFTRAN's
paratransit service .
Handi Wheels is the curb-to-curb paratransit service operated by JEFFTRAN that meets the
requirements for complementary paratransit service from the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990. Handi Wheels services operate within the boundaries of Jefferson City, and all
eligible residents can use the service. Handi Wheels provides service beyond that which is
requ ired by ADA because the service area is larger than required . Trips can be scheduled
Monday through Friday by contacting the Handi Wheels office. The service operates from 6:45
AM to 5:45 PM weekdays, the same hours as JEFFT RAN fixed route service.
Handi Wheels currently has eight vehicles , six operating vehicles and two spares , and six
drivers dedicated to the Handi Wheels service. The service uses modified Ford E-450 chassis
mini-buses. All vehicles are equipped with wheelc hair lifts and are ADA compliant.
Handi Wheels carries about 200 to 220 passenger trips per day. Passengers rate the service
very high in all performance areas.
Handi Wheels is funded by a mix of sources, including passenger fares , City funding and
funding from the Missouri Department of Social Services and the Department of Mental Health.
ADA Eligibility
A key part of the paratransit evaluation was to check for compliance with the ADA requirements .
Although a complete AD A compliance evaluation is beyond the scope of the project and was not
conducted , a cursory review of procedures was conducted . The following summarizes the
results of this review.
1. Check service area to make sure it at least includes all areas within % of a mile of a Mnon-
commuter" fixed route:
• Examine and compare the fixed route system map to the paratransit area map (or to
the way the paratransit service area is described in public information materials).
• Ask reservationists about their understanding of what trip origins and destinations
can be requested and how they determine if trips are in the ADA paratransit service
area.
The JEFFTRAN paratransit service area is coincidental with the City's boundaries. The
operating policy goes beyond ADA requirements for service area. Operating personnel appear
to understand service requirements .
2 . Check "response time:"
• Examine the public information and what it tells riders about when they can make
their trip requests . Make sure it allows people to place trip requests up to the close
of the reservation hours on the day before their trip (not 24 hours ahead or 2-3 days
in advance). Complies
• Make sure the ride reservation line Is open on •normal business hours• (8-4, 9-5) on
every day before a day of service (e.g ., open Sunday for Monday trip requests, open
holidays to take requests for trips the day after a holiday, etc.). If the actual office is
not staffed, make sure there is some way for trip requests to be received (e.g., tape
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeffenon City Transit Development Plan
Paratransit Evaluation March2006
recording). Complies . Passengers can leave trip requests on a telephone
answering machine on S undays.
• Make sure that as trips are being requested, the reservationists are giving people
pickup times that are no more than one hour from their requested times. Trip times
are generally not negotiated .
3. Check fares:
• Look at the public information for the paratransit and fixed route systems to be sure
that paratransit fares are not more than twice the fixed route fares for similar t rips.
Handi Wheels fares are $1.00, twice the base fare .
4. Compare days and hours (for equality):
Go through all of the fixed route schedules and write down the earliest pick-ups on
the schedules and the latest drop-off on the schedules for every route and for
weekdays , Saturdays, and Sundays. Compare this to the advertised days and hours
for the paratransit service. Make sure the advertised paratransit hours cover all of
the times that fixed route buses are on the road. The service hours are the same.
5. Check trip purposes :
• Examine the paratransit public information to be sure it tells riders they can ask for
trips for any trip purpose and that all trips are treated equally with no priority for
certain types of trips . All trip purposes are served.
• Interview the reservationists and schedulers to be sure they are not limiting or
prioritizing trips by trip purpose. Complies
• Talk to riders and local agency staff to see if their experience is that any type of trip
is served and served equally. No complaints were noted ; passengers and agency
staff rate the service highly .
6. Check for "capacity constraints:"
• Check to see if the agency has established appropriate service standards for trip
denials , waiting lists, trip caps, on-time performance, ride times, and telephone
service .
Trip denials ....... None
Waiting lists ...... None
Trip caps .......... None
On-time performance:
• 95% of pick-ups either early or within the on-time performance window.
• 95% of drop-offs no later than stated appointment times and no more
than 30 minutes before appt times
• Ride times ......... 95% of rides with times that are comparable to fixed
route times (allowing for walking tome to and from stops)
• Phones ............. 95% of hold times less than three minutes and no hold
times more than 10 minutes.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Paratransit Evaluation Marc:h 2006
The Handi Wheels operation appears to transport clients to their destination in a timely manner.
As a spot check, a total of 15 passenger trips were evaluated on August 11 , 2005 for on time
performance and passenger pickup/discharge procedure (wheelchair. only). Ten trips arrived at
their pickup location 3 to 5 minutes before their scheduled arrival time and the remaining five
arrived at the scheduled time. All passengers were discharged at their destination on time.
Evidence of a problem in this regard was not found.
7. To check eligibility determination:
• Make sure there is a process for applying to be detennined MAD A paratransit eligible"
• Look at a sample of recent determinations to make sure decisions are being made
within 21 calendar days of the receipt of a completed application fonn.
• Look at the number of applications received, the detennination outcomes, and the
total number of certified riders to be sure there are a reasonable number of eligible
riders who are ADA (for the size of the area) and that there isn't an unreasonably
high denial rate.
• Make sure applicants are notified in writing of the eligibility determination and if
denied (or limited) they are told about the process to appeal.
• Make sure there is an established appeals process with appeals decided by people
not involved in the initial determination.
After reviewing the Handi Wheels application and files it was determined that compliance
measures are in place that ensures applicants are not being denied appropriate transportation
services. In the last 12 months , Handi Wheels accepted 170 applications for service. They
currently have 11 inactive clients and denied certification to 2 applicants. Handi Wheels through
its application process and procedures appear to be in compliance with ADA guidelines . They
are complying with all application notification requirements and provide a process for application
appeals; they are tracking applications received and application rejections.
Summary: JEFFTRAN makes every attempt to provide service to every resident and to ensure
they are using the appropriate transit service. They could however provide a better infonnation
pamphlet that explains all their Paratransit service and travel options .
Review Driver Training and Certifications
All Handi Wheels drivers go through an extensive hiring process that the City of Jefferson uses
for all its employees. Because Handi Wheels transports passengers for the Department of
Social Services in the Non-Emergency Medical Transportation and the Department of Mental
Health the following driver checks are required;
1. Criminal Background Check
2. Child Abuse Check
3. Elder Abuse Check
The Human Resources department keeps account of all employee records and they were not
available for review. Additionally, each driver is required to complete additional training courses
in:
1. Emergency Accident Procedures
2. FirstAid
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Paratransit Evaluation
3. Passenger Assistance
4 . Wheel Chair/Lift Training
5. CPR Training
6. Defensive Driver Training
March 2006
Summary: Verification of these items is available in drivers working files. It was clear that driver
training is conducted on a regular basis; however Handi Wheels needs to be more consistent in
documenting completion dates for their training modules, and placing verification in the working
files of all employees. Although management indicated they talked to all employees about
confidentially of information there was no documentation of employees meeting the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
Vehicle Inventory
The Handi Wheels fleet is in excellent condition. There are a total of eight vehicles in the Handi
Wheels fleet. Vehicles are not older than seven years of age and have less than 160,000 miles.
All vehicles are Ford model mini-buses with a modified chassis and wheelchair lift equipped with
a standard seating capacity of 20 passengers. Table 1 is the Handi Wheels vehicle roster.
JEFFTRAN conducts all maintenance services and has a preventative maintenance schedule
for all vehicles.
Table 1: Hand I Wheels Vehicle Roste r
Manufacture
Ford-Eldorado
Ford-Diamond
Ford-Goshen
Ford-Goshen
Ford-Diamond
Ford-Giaval
Ford-Diamond
Ford-Goshen
Model
Aerotech -E Series
E-450
E-450
E-450
E-450
E-450
E-406
E-450
Year
1998
1999
2005
2004
2001
2002
1999
2005
A cursory safety check of each Handi Wheels vehicle was conducted. Attachment 1 shows the
conclusions from that review. All vehicles were found to meet the safety guidelines.
Summary: Although the modified mini-buses allow grouping of clients and are well maintained it
may be prudent to investigate the addition of sedans to the vehicle fleet for Handi Wheels.
Sedans are more energy efficient, more personal and more maneuverable in some residential
areas. At times when single trips are the norm, sedans may be less expensive.
Handl Wheels User Info nnation
Information on Handi Wheels services is very limited. There are two small paragraphs in the
JEFFTRAN schedule book along with the following items supplied by JEFFTRAN:
1. A Handi Wheels application
2. Request for Verification of Disability
3. An ADA determination form
4. An Eligibility Rejection letter
Summary: Although these items meet the existing need they are short of providing a clear
picture of the services available. The Handi Wheels information in the schedule book should be
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Paratransit Evaluation March 2006
revised, given greater emphasis and separated from the fixed route service data. There is no
mention of Non-Emergency Medical Transportation service or Mental Health Services or the
difference between them .
Trip Scheduling
A review of passenger pickup assignments was conducted to seek possible service efficiencies .
Trip reservation hours are from 6:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. There is a
telephone recording for trip requests to be made over the weekend. It can also be used to
cancel trips . Handi Wheels is currently using a Data Base program that was designed by
Richard Turner (Transit Division Director) in 1996 and has been adjusted periodically to serve
the changing requirements in various paratransit programs and contracts. The program allows
for relatively easy trip matching and verification.
Summary: While monitoring the trip matching process it was quite evident that Handi Wheels
dispatchers need to be using a hands free phone system. Dispatcher's productivity was slowed
because they could not utilize the entire keyboard with both hands, because they were holding
the phone with their off hand. Most difficulties occur when clients are making will call returns,
because they stretch the system at inopportune times. At busy times several calls had to be put
on hold longer than necessary. Additionally the dispatch office appears under staffed at times.
During peak times the task of inputting reservations, taking calls, radio dispatching and handling
other office needs can be overwhelming.
Demand Analysis
Handi Wheels currently carries about 200 to 220 passenger trips per day. Ridership has been
increasing at about four percent annually, a rate greater than the overall rate for the JEFFTRAN
system. If this trend continues Handi Wheels ridership will reach 270 daily trips within five
years. It is likely to assume that the need for more service will increase as the population in the
city continues to age and more seniors give up driving because of medical and economic
reasons. The cost of operating a car can compete with the need of prescription drugs, lodging
and food. Increasing paratransit ridership will result in challenges for JEFFTRAN.
As with other forms of transportation, the demand for paratransit services among persons with
disabilities varies during the course of the day. Many of the passenger trips made on Handi
Wheels are work-related; therefore demand demonstrates the traditional peaking during the
morning and afternoon. Figure 1 is a graph of Handi Wheels passenger pickups by 30-minute
periods taken from a trip manifest for one day. Because Handi Wheels ridership patterns are
repetitive, a summary for this one day is presumed to be reflective of the overall demand for
Handi Wheels.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Paratransit Evaluation
Figure 1: Daily Demand for Hand I Wheels Trips
40
35
30
• Q,
25
'1: ....
"0 20 J
E
::0 z 15
10
5
March2006
Handi Wheels operates six vehicles each day, with about 45.5 daily service hours. Thus, the
paratransit system's productivity is between 4.4 and 4.8 trips per hour. At times JEFFTRAN
must deploy more than the scheduled service to meet the demand. Handi Wheels has a very
high productivity rate compared with other similar paratransit services. The relatively compact
service area , and the resultant short trips, are undoubtedly factors in this high productivity rate.
However, it is also the case that Handi Wheels is operated in an efficient manner.
Table 1 shows how Handi Wheels drivers are deployed.
Table 2: Handi Wheels Driver Shifts
Driver First Shift Subtotal Second Shift Subtotal Total
1 6 :30 11:45 5.3 2 :15 5:30 3 .3 8.5
2 9:00 4:00 7 .0 7 .0
3 6 :45 9:45 3.0 12:00 4:30 4.5 7 .5
4 6:30 1:30 7 .0 7.0
5 6:30 8 :45 2 .3 10:15 4:30 6 .3 8 .5
6 6:30 10:30 4.0 12:45 5 :15 4.5 M
Total Pay Hours 47.0
Prep & Allowances Time 1 .5
Total Service Hours 45.5
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Piau
Paratraosit Evaluatioo March2006
A challenge in providing efficient paratransit service is to match the supply of service to the
demand for the service. The capacity of a paratransit system is difficult to measure because it
is a function of so many variables, such as the length of the trips, the dispersal of origins and
destinations and the ability to group trips, and passenger boa rding and alighting times.
Figure 2 shows the approximate paratransit capacity available during the day , estimated based
on scheduled vehicles in operation and assumed trip lengths and origin/destination dispersal.
The estimated capacity during the peak periods assumes that the demand is such that multiple
trips can be scheduled on each vehicle and that orig ins and/or destinations are clustered , as in
the case of a workshop or high density residential area .
Figure 2: Handi Wheels Estimated Capacity
16
I I' '
14 r--:-
12 I -H r--: 1--
I
I
~ 10 u ;-1-'-r---1-• ... • u .. 8 • ~ ~ -r-r-r-1-
D c • • • • 6 D.
4
~ --r-1----I r-1-
-
-~ r-r-r--. --I----I-,..... --I-r---r-r-~
2 -r-E-r---r----I-1---I-!---1-r--
0 I
~~~~~~~##~~A$$~A~~~~~A
I ' # I I I I ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ I # ,• ;• I I ' ' ~ ,~~''''~~~~~~''''~'''' ~ ... ~ ...... ...... ~ ... -r~
Half Hour Period
Comparing actual demand from Figure 1 and estimated capacity in Figure 2 it can be seen that
demand exceeds capacity during certain periods. The result is longer waits for service,
especially for "will call" trips that are not scheduled a day in advance . Another result is that
JEFFTRAN must deploy additional vehicles at times, using supervisory personnel or other
available personnel, to meet the demand.
An opportunity may exist to reduce peak demand and make other adjustments to avoid having
to increase service and costs.
It is difficult to determine how to best address this situation at this time. Decisions regarding the
fixed route service hours need to be made , and the demand for paratranslt service needs to be
evaluated In greater detail.
T~JE'J\4S ~AT/C>N &_ 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Paratransit Evaluation
Other Paratransit Providers
March2006
Other paratransit providers operate in the Jefferson City area. Most are funded under the Non-
Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) program contract with the Department of Social
Services (Medicaid). These providers bring users from outside the city limits to medical facilities
in the city. Very few pickup and drop offs occur within the city unless it is a three way trip with
the final destination outside the city limits. Those trips inside the city limits are usually stops to
the pharmacy or the grocer before returning home outside the city. Several of the above
mentioned providers transport special clients in alternative facilities or group homes .
Below is a list of those providers, the surrounding counties they serve and their company status.
Company County
Advantage Medical Transportation Boone & Cole
Capital City ACSS Cole
Care Tran Boone
Checker Livery Boone/Cole/Mont
Cole County Residential Cole
Huck's Taxi & Shuttle Boone & Calloway
Independent Living Resource CenterCole
John Luter Transportation, B/Ca/Co/Mon
Medical Transit Co. B/Ca/Co/Mon
Missouri River Taxi Boone & Moniteau
New Horizons Cole
OATS, Inc. B/Ca/Co/Mon
Serve, Inc. Calloway
SKT Medical Transportation Calloway & Cole
Smith Medical Transportation B/Ca/Co/Mon
Status
Private for Profit
Private Not for Profit
Private for Profit
Private for Profit
Private Not for Profit
Private for Profit
Private Not for Profit
Private for Profit
Private for Profit
Private for Profit
Private Not for Profit
Private Not for Profit
Private Not for Profit
Private for Profit
Private for Profit
One of the provisions of the New Freedom program from the recently passed SAFETEA LU
transportation bill is a requirement for a coordinated public transit -human services
transportation plan. JEFFTRAN will be expected to work with these other paratransit providers
in developing this coordinated transportation plan, probably through the aegis of the MPO .
Guidance for this activity is not available as yet. Attachment 2 shows program information
available at this time.
Conclusions
The following are conclusions and recommendations based on the evaluation of JEFFTRAN
Handi Wheels paratransit service.
• Overall Handi Wheels is a well run operation that provides good service to the mobility
limited residents of Jefferson City. Based on a cursory review, Handi Wheels is
compliant with the pertinent provisions of the ADA complementary paratransit service
requirements. JEFFTRAN should continue to monitor compliance matters, and be alert
to comments and inquiries from the public and passengers that may indicate a
developing problem in this regard.
• In recent years Handi Wheels has benefited from a significant increase in funding from
the NEMT and Medicaid Waiver programs. This has reduced the need for City funding
and has helped fund an increase in paratransit ridership. With the possibility of funding
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Paratransit Evaluation March 2006
reductions in these programs, Handi Wheels is vulnerable to reduced funding which
would trigger a need for service reductions or increased City funding. The City Council
and JEFFTRAN should be aware of this situation and be prepared to respond in an
appropriate manner, if necessary.
• Proposed service expansion in the fixed route service will require parallel increases in
Handi Wheels service, particularly regarding the length of the service day. JEFFTRAN
needs to be able to respond to these changes, particularly as the changes affect the
scheduling of drivers and dispatch personnel. JEFFTRAN will change from a one shift
weekday operation to a two shift operation, potentially with weekend service. This will
require JEFFTRAN to modify work practices related to driver assignments as necessary
to cover the longer service day. JEFFTRAN should consider integrating paratransit and
fixed route shifts, not to reduce Handi Wheels service, rather to achieve more flexibility
and greater efficiency in driver assignments.
• As demand for Handi Wheels service continues to grow there will be increased pressure
on JEFFTRAN to deliver timely service. Handi Wheels' passenger per hour statistic is
already high and scheduling is difficult during the peak times. Currently Handi Wheels is
operating at nearly five passengers per hour with an increase to nearly six passengers
per hour by 2011. Several changes in practice a re suggested:
o JEFFTRAN should institute a practice to negotiate trip times to move trips away
from the peak time. This is allowable under ADA regulations and can be used as
a tool to better balance supply and demand in transit operatic ns.
o JEFFTRAN should work with agencies and organizations that serve mobility
limited individuals to schedule services in a manner that reduces the peaking that
is currently present.
o JEFFTRAN should begin a program to encourage individuals to use the fixed
route service instead of Handi Wheels. The new Gillig low floor buses are much
easier for persons in wheelchairs to use. Improved fixed route schedule
information, travel training and fare incentives are among the methods that can
be used to move some trips to fixed route.
o JEFFTRAN must consider additional service if demand for Handi Wheels
continues to grow . Additional service will add to both capital and operating
expenses.
• JEFFTRAN should take the lead and begin to prepare for work on the Coordinated
Human Services -Public Transit Transportation Plan. This will be required in 2007 to
access the New Freedom funding program. In addition, this work will give the City an
opportunity to assess the need for paratransit services in other parts of the metropolitan
area.
• JEFFTRAN should update and improve Handi Wheels user information as
recommended in the Marketing Plan .
T~IENIS~:-: ~AT/ON~-
9
-----
ATTACHMENT 1
Haadi Wheels Vehicle Safety Cheddlst
VeloldeN ....... : 1120 621 1122 623 1124 625 626 627
Velolde ldadllcatloa N••ber: 1FDXE40F2WBH84058 1FDXE40StXHC04252 1FDXE45S35HEI44339 1FDXE45P44HA91628 1FDXE45S41HB3692 1FDXE45582HA94421 1FDXE40F9XHC30414 1FDXE45S15HB44336
Velolde Mate: Fonf.Eidomda Ford Foni-Goohen Ford -Goohen Ford-Diamond FotO-GiaYal Ford-Diamond Ford-Goehen
valdeModll: -od1-E-E~ E~ E-450 E-<150 E-450 E-<108 E-450
~.r.cmr ... Medii v-: 1998 1999 200!i 2004 2001 2002 1999 200!i
Mlalp: 1511044 107224 6802 13848 102018 91895 15ee39 7597
o.teefllllllbnte lo.-at 511712005 7 f20I2(](Yj 611212005 1/21/2005 3I25I200!i
I. Are iadividu.ll maiotenaoce records available for each vehicle"'
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
2. Are -belts in wod:ing onlor1
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
J. rs the Wheelchair Lift in womug on1or1
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
4 . Are llelhlg ...S Air Coaditiooing opentioool?
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
5. Are Windshield Wipen in workiag onlor1
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
6. Does the v<llicle have righlmd left .--view mirrors?
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
7. Are No Smoking siJDS JM*ed in the vehiele?
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
8. Are the iDicrior ...S exterior in 111 KCqlllble cooditioa?
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
9. o.e oflo!t bnke repeirlreplocemenr?
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
10. Is the v<llicle equipped with the following safety equipment•
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
II. F"nt-Aid lU1
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
11. F"n &tiaguisber (ABC Type)
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
13. Triqle!FI-kits or Glowsticks
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
14. Blood Borne l'llbogea spill kits
Yes X X X X X X X X
No
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT 2
SAFETEA-LU AND TRANSIT OPTIONS
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The recently enacted highway and transit bill, known as SAFETEA-LU, continues all the transit
programs and aspects that have helped address the mobility needs of persons with disabilities. It
also adds a new program and several new aspects that further enhance the national commitment
to access and mobility.
THE NEW FREEDOM TRANSIT PROGRAM
SAFETEA-LU establishes a new program of formula-based transit grants, the Sec. 5317 New
Freedom Program. This is part of a larger, government-wide "New Freedom Initiative" that
President Bush has been promoting since his first presidential campaign. Formally established in
2001 through Presidential Executive Order, the New Freedom Initiative is a means to integrate
persons with disabilities into the workforce, and into daily community life, through a variety of
strategies carried out by the federal departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing
and Urban Development, Education, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and-now-Transportation. For
more information on the government-wide initiative and its related resources, go on-line to
www .disabilitvinfo.gov.
The Sec. 5317 transit program allocates money based on states' and urbanized areas' populations
of persons with disabilities. Sixty percent of each year's Sec. 5317 appropriation is distributed to
the urban transit systems in areas with populations greater than 200,000. Twenty percent is
distributed to the states for use in their urban areas with populations between 50,000 and
200,000, and the remaining twenty percent is distributed to the states for use in their rural areas.
SAFETEA-LU guarantees the following levels of Sec. 5317 New Freedom Transit funding:
FY 2006, $78.0 million
FY 2007, $81.0 million
FY 2008, $87.5 million
FY 2009, $92.5 million
States and large-urban transit systems receiving these Sec. 5317 allocations are not to engage in
New Freedom transit activities themselves. Instead, they are to carry out areawide competitive
solicitations for local New Freedom projects. The eligible subrecipients are units of state or local
government, nonprofit organizations, and other operators of public transportation services.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Starting in FY 2007, these projects, if they are to receive Sec. 5317 funds, are to be selected
through locally develoned, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plans. This
is the same type ofprocess that SAFETEA-LU now requires of states and urbanized areas with
regard to Sec. 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute grants, and for states' Sec. 5310 elderly
and disabilities transit grants.
Sec. 5317 funds are to be used to provide public transportation services and alternatives above
and beyond the baseline requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), especially
to help persons with disabilities access jobs and employment-related services. These funds may
be used for capital expenses (at an 80 percent federal share) or operating expenses (at a 50
percent federal share); the "non-federal" share may be derived from cash, service agreements
with state, local or private social services organizations, or from other federal funding sources,
including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), that allow their funds to be
expended on transportation activities.
Thus far, there are no further pieces of guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
on the details of the New Freedom transit program. Some information is likely to be issued in
conjunction with the FY 2006 annual apportionment of Ff A formula grants, whenever that
occurs, but most of the Ff A guidance on this program is likely to be timed to help states and
urban areas prepare for the FY 2007 program year.
OTHER SAFETEA-LU PROVISIONS FOR THE
DISABILITY COMMUNITY
Easily overlooked, but perhaps most significant in the long run, SAFETEA-LU now requires that
representatives of the disability community have a meaningful voice in statewide and
metropolitan transportation planning processes.
In the realm ofFfA grant programs, SAFETEA-LU continues all the programs that have been of
greatest value to the disability community, including the Sec. 5307 and 5311 formula grants for
public transit in urban and rural areas, and the Sec. 5310 program of capital assistance for elderly
and disabled persons' transit. Other "Capitol Clips" discuss these programs in greater detail, but it
should be noted that SAFETEA-LU calls for a seven-state demonstration of Sec. 5310 operating
assistance eligibility, with the details yet to be determined by Ff A. SAFETEA-LU continues to
allow all transit systems in areas with populations of more than 200,000 to spend up to 10
percent of their Sec. 5307 allocations on ADA-mandated complementary paratransit services,
and the law also calls for special paratransit pilot projects in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Okla.
For official information on New Freedom and other federal transit programs, visit the Ff A
"SAFETEA-LU" web page, at http://www.fta.dot.gov/17003 ENG HTML.htm.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Questions & Comments
From a variety of questions FT A listeners recognized the following concerns:
• Desire to keep coordinated plans (all planning document) consolidated as well as an
overall concern that additional planning requirements fit efficiently within planning
requirements. Concern as to whether or not the 5317 program details will be in the
goals and policies with projects in the TIPs or in the UPWP (UPWP: MPO Unified
Planning Work Plan).
• Desire for human service organizations to be eligible to compete for New Freedoms
program funds in areas, such as some rural areas, where community transportation
services/organizations do not exist.
• Query over whether or not program funding recipients will be restricted to serving
only people with disabilities, or on the other hand if recipients will be required to
serve dual users, i.e. youth, non-disability employment, etc.
• Will all persons with a disability automatically qualify for service eligibility?
• Clarification from FT A as to whether or not the 5317 funding is new or if it is
coming from other plans.
Q: When do coordinated planning guidelines kick in?
A: 5317 Planning: Fiscal Year 2007
5310 Planning: Fiscal Year 2007
JARC Planning: Fiscal Year 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 8:
Public Involvement
Public Involvement Plan
City of Jefferson Transit Development Plan
Public Involvement Program
April 19, 2005
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
Public participation and communication are integral to any successful planning process. An informed
public is an invested public. As such, the goals for this public involvement plan include the following:
• Provide an adequate and equal opportunity for all citizens of Jefferson City to learn about and
participate in the planning process.
• Collect input from the public, including transit riders and non-riders, regarding transit service needs,
expectations, impressions and observations.
• Generate consensus on the final Transit Development Plan.
• Garner preliminary support for the implementation phase of the resulting Transit Development Plan.
TARGET PARTICIPANTS:
General Public
The Public Involvement Plan for the Jefferson City TDP will encourage participation by all public
groups and the general public who have an interest in transit, who may be affected by transit services,
or who may by influenced by the issues to be addressed by the study, including the following:
•
•
•
•
Current transit riders in the project study area .
Property owners and businesses in the project study area.
Residents and tenants in the project study area .
Elderly populations in the project study area .
Transit-dependent and transit-user populations in the project study area .
Disabled and/ or physically-challenged populations in the project area.
A database will be developed, updated and maintained for the purposes of identifying interested
citizens in the project study area.
Government and Interest Groups
Comment and participation will be solicited from local, State, and Federal agencies and groups with a
vested interest in the project study area. Small group meetings will be the principal public participation
method for agency coordination. Such meetings will not be publicly announced, but will be
summarized in meeting records.
APPROACH:
Public participation will be welcome throughout the project but targeted at specific decision points in
project planning. A series of meetings will be conducted that will provide the framework for the public
involvement program.
Stakeholder Meeting
It is understood that JEFFI'RAN will identify a group of stakeholders. We will subsequently convene
this group to assist in the development of objectives to guide the TDP. As such, a stakeholder
meeting will be conducted upon inception of the TDP process. Stakeholders may include social
service agencies, area employers, public agencies, and other groups whose constituents will be directly
impacted by the TDP. These stakeholders ideally would be able to gauge receptiveness and support of
new concepts that may be considered during the TDP as well as at time of implementation, e.g.
employer-provided subsidies to employees who use JEFFTRAN as a primary means of transportation
to work.
Page 1 of 3
3/9/2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Public Involvement Plan
Focus Groups
Focus groups with residents/JEFFTRAN riders, JEFFfRAN employees and others identified by
JEFFTRAN will enable the project team to better understand the current level of awareness that
residents and stakeholders have about alternative forms of transportation, their willingness to use
alternative forms of transportation, and their expectations of transit services. Data from each focus
group will be used to design a statistically valid survey and to help prepare informational materials
used in public outreach efforts. This data will also enable the project team to better understand the
obstacles that are likely to arise when it comes time to begin evaluating alternatives .
Public Meetings -Open Houses
Public meetings will be held at strategic decision points of the project. Public meetings will be
conducted in open-house style, thereby providing an interactive and engaging environment in which
to facilitate dialogue between the public and the project team. In an effort to attract as many
participants as possible, public meetings will be announced formally via public notice as well as other
less formal announcements such as flyers, posters, public service announcements, etc. Public meetings
will be held in the evening to allow the majority of participants an opportunity to attend. Efforts will
be made to determine and provide special requirements needed to accommodate disabled and/ or
physically challenged participants. Exhibits will be prepared to allow review by attendees at several
stations throughout the meeting room.
Participation in public meetings by the elderly population was noted to be of particular concern, due
to their reliance on JEFFfRAN, as well as the safety concerns held by this population. Local senior
centers will be contacted to determine effective means of reaching out to this specific population.
Informational kiosks may be developed for display at such locations as deemed necessary. Large-print
informational pamphlets may also be produced. Another option may be to conduct brief
informational meetings at senior centers during daytime hours.
Community Surveys
A statistically valid survey of transit riders, residents and stakeholders in the study area will be
conducted. Community surveys will be used to quantify a variety of issues, including the number of
people in the study area who will consider using various transit alternatives, and citizens' expectations
regarding various levels of service.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT METHODS:
Effective announcement methods that reach all targeted populations are critical to a public involvement
plan's ability to meet the intended goals. Public announcement methods will include, but not be limited
to the following: ·
Public Media Notices
A required and reliable announcement method, notices of each public meeting will be published in
area newspapers, cable television public access channels and local government broadcasting. Task
force meetings with selected community representatives will not be publicly announced.
Media Relations
It is ideal to keep area news outlets -including newspaper, radio and television -apprised of project
progress and public meetings through a series of news releases and coordinated media relations
efforts. If desired, we will work with the City's media relations department to coordinate this effort.
Flyers
Flyers placed in public transit vehicles will help bring public attention to upcoming meetings. The City
may also consider publicizing meetings on its web site at www.jeffcitymo.org.
Page 2 of 3
3/9/2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Public Involvement Plan
Public Announcement Methods
Announcement methods that may work for the general population may not be effective for certain
disabled and/or physically-challenged populations. All public participation opportunity notices will
include the following text:
If you require special assistance due to a disability in order to participate at this Public Meeting,
please contact [LOCAL CONfACI] by mail at the address below or by telephone at [PHONE
NUMBER] at least five (5) working days prior to the meeting date.
While responses to this notice may be received, pointed outreach will be vital for the successful
announcement of public meeting opportunities to disadvantaged populations. Key groups will be
identified and added to the public participation database for focused coordination.
PUBLIC COMMENT SOLICITATION METHODS:
A record of all public comments on the project will be maintained and referenced by the project team
throughout the decision-making process. All original comment records (i .e., handwritten, typed and
signed, electronic, e-mail and telephone records) will be read, sorted as to the substance of the comment
and maintained in the project database. The project team will appropriately respond to each comment
and inquiry received.
Meeting Comment Forms
Each public meeting will include informational hand-outs and a comment form . Each comment and
response will be recorded and responded to by the project team.
On-board Comment Forms
Comment forms will be made available on board JEFFfRAN routes for specific time periods
following completion of the on-board surveys.
SCHEDULE:
Stakeholder, focus group and public meetings will be held at key points throughout the TDP process.
Tentative meeting dates are as follows:
Pag e 3of 3
3/9/2006
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Public Involvement Summary
March 9, 2006
As per the Public Involvement Plan, the following public involvement activities have been
completed:
Public Involvement Component
Passenger Survey
Stakeholder Meeting
Transit Riders Focus Group
Employees Focus Group
Public Meeting
Public Meeting Survey
Public Comments (via phone, email or mail)
Community Survey
Final Public Meeting
Date Completed
27-Apr-05
10-May-05
10-May-05
10-May-05
14-Jun-05
14-Jun-05
Through March 9, 2006
Aug-05
20-Sep-05
The findings from each of the aforementioned are summarized on the matrix that follows.
Complete summaries of each meeting have been submitted.
The City has added the summary from each public involvement component to its web site
(http://www.jeffcity.net/transit/) to solicit further input by the community as well as to keep the
public up to date regarding the status of the Transit Development Plan.
The TranSystems Team 1
General Comments Expanded Service Schedules & Service Levels Expanded Coverage and Central Transfer Center Fares Funding Ideas
Hours More Bus Stoos
Stakeholder • Be sure routes are designed to meet • The Greyhound station is too isolated. • Move from purchasing buses on an 80-
Focus Group the needs of the people. • Assuming that it would be manned, air 20 to a 50-50 basis.
Summary • Marketing is a big, big, issue. conditioned and have rest rooms it would • Dedicated transportation tax.
• Need for diverse, all inclusive be a vast improvement. • Use property tax for those with
options for public transportation. • As long as space could be opened up developmental disabilities as do 85 out
• Need to make it easier for citizens to with a big enough tum area. of 140 Missouri counties.
walk to work or to walk to a bus stop. • Inter-city buses could use it-we could • Need an overview of what kinds of
sell tickets for them. dedicated taxes are available.
• Concern about the impact on downtown. • Illinois uses general revenue and
spends 20 times per capita what
Missouri does. That would take the
pressure off of localities trying to match
funds.
Transit Rider • Keep service the same but add • Concern about the buses not having room • Everyone believes • Suggested that the age of children who
Focus Group weekends. to tum around at Greyhound. excellent value is ride free should be changed from 7 to 5.
• Obtain information from this study • If the transfer location is moved the received for the fare.
and then, most importantly, move opportunity for shopping between buses • 7 out of 8 participants
into implementation. would be eliminated. indicated that they
• Public transportation is very • Air conditioning at Greyhound would be would be willing to pay
important. Don't let this issue die-good. upto$1.
keep up the dialogue. • Traffic from state parking lots may interfere • None of the participants
with buses indicated that they
• Concern about drainage from heavy rains would be willing to pay
around the building more than $2.
• "Wherever it is, we will get used to it."
Employee • Rest Facilities need to be provided • Generally not in favor of • Route schedules have too little time • The Scholastic area (Algoa) • Relocating transfer location to old
Focus Group along the routes. extending service hours. resulting in drivers rushing to maintain • Service to the prisons (Algoa) Greyhound station would be a positive
• Vehicle storage facilities are needed. • Ridership would be limited, schedules. • Service to DNR Elm Street facility by move.
New buses are generally larger than particularly late in the month. • Missed transfer connections due to an extended state route shuttle • Current location in downtown is too tight for
the current buses. • Extend hours into the evening buses being late. • Large apartment complex being built buses and some turns can't easily be
• Install bike racks. one or two days a week. • Renn Addition (very tight schedule-by the Jefferson City Medical Group at made, resulting in delays.
• Extend service by 30 minutes suggestion to eliminate one pass by Edgewood and Stadium. • Concerns about the adequacy of the
in morning and in the evening. Lincoln University) • New St. Mary's Hospital Greyhound site to accommodate all of the
• Drivers are already working 40 • New Wai-Mart on the east side next to buses.
hours with considerable Gerbes Superstore • The move would generally be positive for
overtime. • Extending High Street West Route riders, although some may be
• Security issues associated with further out to area with low-income inconvenienced.
handling change and passes housing • Downtown location allows shopping.
during evening hours. • Area north of river along Summit Dr. • Intersection of Bolivar and McCarty should
• Lewis & Clark Middle School be made into a four-way stop to avoid
possible conflicts at the railroad crossing.
• Potential conflict from vehicles at state
parking lots adjacent to the Greyhound
facility:
Community • 36% of those surveyed indicated that • 35% ofthose surveyed indicated that • 92% of those surveyed thought it was
Survey they would be very or somewhat they would be very or somewhat likely very or somewhat important for the City
likely to use public transportation if to use public transportation if buses of Jefferson City to fund public
their employer provided incentives to arrived at stops more frequently. transportation; only 2% did not think it
use public transportation. • 20% of those surveyed indicated that was important, and 6% did not have an
they would use public transportation at opinion.
least four days per week if the service • 70% ofthose surveyed indicated that
were convenient to use. they would be very or somewhat
supportive of a slight tax increase to
fund improved public transportation
services in Jefferson City.
Table Continues/
/Table Continued
General Comments Expanded Service Schedules & Service levels Expanded Coverage and Central Transfer Center Fares Funding Ideas
Hours More Bus Stops
Public • The overwhelming opinion • Expand service hours to • Service frequency is adequate. • Request to extend service on the • Prevailing opinion was that it doesn't matter • Most would be willing to • Advertising on the buses.
Meetings expressed that JEFFTRAN's include evenings and weekends • Change service frequency to 40-minute Capital Mall route to better service where the transfer connections are made pay more $1-$1.50 per • Allow businesses to purchase audible
services are very good but limited. for both fixed route service and intervals if transfers are made and routes Thomas Jefferson Middle School. as long as they are convenient. trip, particularly if there advertisements.
• Negative comments were mostly Handi Wheels. are timed to arrive and depart based on Lack of transit service makes • Support for the fonmer Greyhound station were service • Partnerships with businesses.
directed at the limits of the service. • Extension to 8-9 p.m. would work schedules. attendance at after-school activities that would afford interior air conditioned improvements. • Private businesses help fund service on
• One individual stated that she often be sufficient. • Concern that the change to 40-minute difficult. and heated waiting area and restroom • It was noted that many at least one Saturday a month.
felt harassed due to her disability. • Service could be extended later head ways would make it more difficult to • Extension of the Missouri Blvd. facilities. people paid $.25 per trip • Cooperative agreement with University
• One individual noted that she did not on select days to reduce costs. remember bus schedules. route was requested. • Overwhelmingly in favor of the move to the under JEFFTRAN's to allow student ID use to access transit.
ride the bus because the routes and • Most attendees said they did • Posting schedules at key stops and • Concern expressed about the bus station, with 18 individuals responding reduced fare program. • Fundraisers
schedules are confusing. not travel when bus service was making printed schedules available would length and circuitry of some of the yes, no one responding no and seven • Issue unlimited monthly • State subsidies for bus passes.
unavailable. offset the inconvenience. routes. responding "not sure." ride pass. • Solicit participation by key businesses to
• Between expanded service • Use of the radio system helps passengers • Create secondary transfer centers. • Support a fare increase help pay for shelters and amenities.
hours, Saturday service and make transfer connections. • A Shuttle from Amtrak to the prison. to 75 cents, but are not • Survey major employers to assess
evening service, Saturday supportive of an interest and support
service was rated highest, with increase to $1.00.
expansion of the base service
hours a close second.
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Public Meeting Summary
June 14, 2005
A public meeting was held in the city council chambers as part of the public outreach effort of
the Transit Development Plan (TOP). The purpose of the public meeting was to inform
interested members of the public of the TOP project and solicit input from the public on
improvements they would like to see.
The public meeting was held from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m . Over 40 individuals attended the
meeting; most attendees were users of the transit system . The following is a summary of
comments and suggestions received through the discussion with attendees. Attendees were
also encouraged to complete a comment form (attached).
The second section of this report summarizes responses and comments.
General Comments on the Transit System
The overwhelming opinion expressed was that JEFFTRAN services are very good.
Complimentary remarks included "courteous , helpful bus drivers, clean buses and good (but
limited) service ." This is consistent with market research performed earlier in the project that
found high levels of satisfaction with JEFFTRAN services.
There were negative comments as well, mostly directed at the limits of the transit service.
• One attendee stated that she felt "harassed" at times when she used the bus because of
her disability .
• Several individuals noted that the policy limiting the number of grocery bags that could
be taken on a Handi Wheels vehicle has unreasonably restricted their ability to use
transit for shopping.
Expanded Service Hours
Expanded service hours would include evening service on weekends and weekend service for
both the fixed route service and Handi Wheels. This improvement is by far the most favored
among the attendees .
• Various comments were made regarding how late service should be extended into the
evening. Generally, the attendees seemed to indicate that 8:00p.m. or 9:00p.m. would
be sufficient for most purposes .
• Several individuals noted that the service should start earlier in the morning to allow
people to get to work by 7:30 a.m., for example.
• It was stated that perhaps service could be extended later on select days to reduce the
cost impact. For example, it was suggested that Wednesday evening service might be
useful because merchants in the downtown area stay open later on Wednesday
evenings. One opinion expressed was that it would be better to have service extended
to 9:00 p.m. 2 days/week than to 6 :30 p .m. 5 days/week.
• When questioned about the need for extended hours, most attendees said they simply
did not travel in the evenings or weekends when bus service was unavailable. They
indicated that cab fares were simply too high.
The TranSystems Team 1
I
I
I
I
I
Schedules and Service Levels
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
There were no comments or suggestions relative to more frequent service. Generally, the
attendees seem to feel the service frequency was adequate.
Individuals were asked to comment on the possibility of extending the service frequency from 30
minutes to 40 minutes to accommodate increased bus travel times. Generally, the group
seemed to think this was an acceptable approach as long as timed transfers were made among
the routes and care was taken in the development of schedules to make sure people would get
to and from work in a timely manner.
• It was noted that even though buses run late at times, transfers are made because
drivers call the need for transfers using the radio system.
• Change to 40 minutes headways would disrupt the current "clock headways" making it
more difficult to remember bus schedules. It was suggested posting scheduled times at
key stops and making printed schedules available would offset this inconvenience.
Expanded Coverage and More Bus Stops
Service expansion was not discussed much, perhaps indicating general satisfaction with
JEFFTRAN's coverage . This would be expected from a group largely consisting of existing bus
riders. There were a few specific comments in this category:
• An extension of service on the Capital Mall route to better service Thomas Jefferson
Middle School was requested. It was noted that a number of the pupils from the middle
school reside in the central parts of Jefferson City. The lack of transit service makes
attendance at after-school activities difficult.
• Extension of the Missouri Blvd. route was requested to better serve employment for the
portion of Missouri Blvd between Commerce Drive (Hwy 179) and Wildwood that
currently has no transit service. This area includes several auto dealerships, a
McDonald's and several other retail establishments. The nearest bus stops to the
McDonald's for example are at either Lowe's or at Hwy 179 and there are no sidewalks
for pedestrians to safely navigate to businesses between Wildwood and Hwy 179.
• There were a few comments about the length and circuity of some of the routes. The
mall route was cited as a route that is too long, leading to extended travel times.
• One attendee suggested that service could be improved by creating secondary transfer
centers so that riders would not have to come all the way downtown to transfer.
• There was some discussion about providing service to the prison although no one in
attendance had any idea the level of demand or need for the service. A suggestion was
made that perhaps a shuttle from Amtrak to the prison could be run once a week or a
few times a month and advertised by the Department of Corrections so individuals could
plan their visits.
Central Transfer Center
Questions were asked of the group about the advisability of changing the location of the central
transfer center. Some background was provided on the concepts that have been discussed so
far, and the reasons the relocation is being considered .
The TranSystems Team 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Generally, the group did not react negatively to the idea of relocating the transfer center. About
half of those in attendance were Handi Wheels users thus not required to transfer, and some of
the others do not transfer for their trip on the fixed route service.
• Prevailing opinion was that it doesn't matter where the transfer connections are made,
as long as they are convenient.
• Several attendees indicated support for the former Greyhound bus station that would
afford interior air conditioned and heated waiting area and restroom facilities.
Fare Structure
Many of the attendees expressed the opinion that the fare for JEFFTRAN services is quite low.
• A number of individuals stated that they would be willing to pay a higher fare, particularly
if there were some service improvements.
• It was noted that many people paid 25 cents per trip under JEFFTRAN reduced fare
program for elderly and disabled persons.
• In discussion, people indicated they would be willing to pay $1-$1.50 per trip with some
comments as high as $3.00/trip.
• Some interest was expressed in an unlimited monthly ride pass.
• It was stated that the last fare increase for JEFFTRAN services was in 1982 or 1983.
Funding Ideas
In response to the statement that service improvements require additional funding, several
ideas were offered for additional funding:
• Advertising on the exterior of buses was suggested, although it was noted that
advertisement was somewhat unsightly. A suggestion was made to form a committee to
review submitted advertisements to ensure appropriateness.
• One attendee suggested allowing businesses to purchase audible advertisements.
• Several ideas were offered for sponsorships or partnerships, for example, having
downtown merchants provide funding for evening service on Wednesdays consistent
with the extended commercial retail operating hours on Wednesday evenings.
• A similar suggestion was made to have private businesses help support service on at
least one Saturday a month.
• One individual suggested a cooperative agreement with the University similar to what is
done in other cities whereby students can use their student ID to access transit.
• It was suggested that JEFFTRAN could do "other kinds" of fundraisers to raise additional
funding. No specific ideas were offered.
• It was suggested a partnership with state government could be a way to obtain
additional funding. The idea would be for the state to subsidize bus passes or pay for a
portion of the service. The suggestion included the State providing a subsidy for bus
passes in conjunction with requiring employees to pay for parking instead of providing
"free" parking.
• A suggestion was made to solicit participation by key businesses (K-mart, Wal-mart, etc)
to help pay for improved shelters and other amenities.
• A suggestion was made to survey major employers such as Scholastic, Algoa, State of
Missouri, Wal-mart, Target, Lincoln University to assess interest and support for transit.
Marketing and Public Awareness
The TranSystems Team 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
There was some discussion that the City needed to provide more information about the bus
service. Decisions for this ranged from simply increasing public awareness to encouraging
more ridership.
• It was suggested that JEFFTRAN take advantage of public service announcements
(since they are free) to publicize the service.
• One individual noted that she did not ride the bus because the routes and schedules are
confusing.
• One individual suggested a Trolley-type vehicle as a means of promoting transit use for
the Missouri Boulevard route.
• One attendee suggested running a TV ad showing a guy scraping ice off his car in the
wintertime while a bus full of "warm" and waving transit riders passes behind. Another
TV ad format suggested would be to show a person pumping gas into his car while a bus
full of happy transit riders passes behind.
• One individual suggested that JEFFTRAN sponsor a free day to encourage people to
get on and try riding the bus.
Handi Wheels
Although not a specific topic for the public meeting, about half of the participants indicated they
were Handi Wheels users. Generally, Handi Wheels users indicated satisfaction with the
service.
• One individual noted Handi Wheels was not like the previous OATS service in that
OATS was more personalized (reasons stated was OATS drivers took care to ensure
the rider was safely in their residence, etc.)
• One attendee expressed desire for Handi Wheels to provide extended hours of
operation in order for those with disabilities to have more social opportunities and added
independence.
The TranSystems Team 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City TOP
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting
Summary of Input
Thirty individuals signed the attendance sheet. Twenty five individuals completed and
submitted the public input form provided entitled "JEFFTRAN Transit Survey."
The first question on the input form asked attendees to rank possible service expansion
improvements, 1) extending service from 6:30AM to 6:30 PM, 2) establishing Saturday service
and 3) establishing evening service to 9 PM. The results are as follows:
First Second Third
Expand service hours 13 5 7
Saturday service 15 4 6
Evening service 11 4 10
Saturday service was rated highest, with expansion of the base service hours a close second.
Individuals were also asked to indicate whether they would support a fare increase to 75 cents
or an increase to $1.00. The results are as follows:
Yes No Not Sure
Increase to 75 cents 17 2 6
Increase to $1.00 9 8 8
The attendees clearly support a fare increase to 75 cents, but are not supportive of an increase
to $1.00.
The final question asked whether the attendees are in favor of moving the transfer center to the
bus station at 620 McCarty. The results were overwhelmingly in favor of the move, with 18
individuals responding yes, no one responding no and seven responding "not sure."
The following is a summary of the written comments received:
• Look into future Missouri Blvd. loop, like downtown loop.
• Look into Columbia connector.
• Look into Amtrak connection with downtown loop.
• Transfer station needs no change-would be a waste of money.
• Still need a disability discount.
• Need additional routes, such as to recycling center on ldlewood.
• Evening service will be cutting into ILC evening transportation program.
• Does bus still go to JCMG and back to town?
• Improve Handi Wheels
• Consider Missouri Blvd. express.
• Consider a route out west Edgewood for students and parents of Thomas Jefferson
Middle School
---
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Public Comments (as of March 9, 2006)
--
om Organization/Representing/Title Comment
May26, 2005 Cole County Public Administrator I will be unable to join you at the Transit Public Meeting on June 14, 2005, but would like to share my ideas with you in reference
to your flyer asking for ideas, suggestions or concems about JEFFTRAN services. /I would like to see JEFFTRAN expand its
hours of operation to be available on weekends. JEFFTRAN is the only means of transportation for most of my disabled clients,
and it would be very helpful for them if they had this benefit in order to go to and from work on the weekends. Cab fare is
prohibitive for them. I Thank you for the opportunity to include my suggestions and ideas.
June 7, 2005 Resident To whom it may concem : /I was pleased to read that the City is having an Open House to discuss expansion of coverage and
increase of hours. As a daily rider, I have seen the great need. I have not only seen the need, but, also , have heard comments
from other passengers on the bus, and, while waiting for a transfer, the comments cover from they wish the hours would increase,
because some get off of work later and/or their beginning hours of work don1 coincide with the bus schedule. /I will give you my
daily routine as an example and why I use City Transportation, I do own a car, but, my husband's work schedule and mine are on
different shifts, I drive to work in the rnoming to work, I live off of EasUand and Woodlander, I walk up the hill on Woodlander and
waik to where I live on Alpine Ct., at noon, I go home for lunch, my husband then brings me back to work, I work at JCMG, I get off
at 4:20 pm, walk to Stadium and Edgewood, to catch the last bus at 4:30 pm. I am rushing daily, but, make it, j ust a couple of
times have I missed the bus and have had to find a ride . Once downtown I then transfer to Super Gerbes on Eastland,
I am dropped off there and I either walk home which is about 20 minutes, or on bad weather days, or, if I am rea lly tired I call a taxi
from Gerbes. So, an increase in routes, for soma of us would be more convenient. I Not, only would it be much better if the hours
increased too, but, also, for those that I have seen using transportation at JCMG that come for later hours to see their doctors and
have their pharmacy needs met, even though, they may have to walk up a hill to get to JCMG, and walk down to the only and
nearest bus stop, on Edgewood and Stadium. A closer bus stop would also be more convenient. I remember when Jefftran came
up to the JCMG door and it was a convenience for those patients. I do see though Jefftran buses for the Ha ndicap come up and
pick up those in need, which I think is great! I Also, I see a great need of shelters at the bus stops, co ming from the state of
California recently, and getting use to the Missouri weather, I have been many a time caught in the sun , snow, ra in and thunder
storms with only an umbrena as protection, I have gotten use to that and can handle that, but,
I have seen elderly and other riders without a seat, or covering. /I am going to make an effort to attend the Open House, if, I can
find a ride for that day. If I cannot I hope that this email can be considered and be submitted .
June 8, 2005 Resident
There are hundreds of Jefferson City residents who might be interested in a monthly bus tour three or four times each year to
different areas of our city to see -and learn • about the past, present and future of our "needs to expand" metropolis. I Mid-
morning, mid-afternoon times can be set, pick-up stations clearly marked. I Volunteers can be found -or trained -and a small fee
charged for passengers-$3.50 (?)I Reservations must be made. Microphones must be used for ali to hear./ Good luck! Interest
aH in bus riding!/ Long-time resident.
--------
319/2006 Page 1 of 5
---
om Organlzatlon/Representlngmtte Comment
June 10, 2005 Resident
This resident read about the upcoming public meeting, but is unable to attend for more than 30 minutes and still catch her bus and
get back home, so she called. I She is an elderly widow, and a long time bus rider. She does not d rive. I She has good things to
say about the drivers, but would like to see later service and more frequent service. I She wonders if there could be more than one
transfer site? one in the east, one in the west, and one downtown. I She also commented on the extra length of time required
spent traveling due to the circuitous routes of the buses. I She would also like to have inter city service if possible. She
commented on Oats not being here anymore, so she has trouble getting to locations outside of Jefferson City. I She also
commented that certain times of the month are extremely busier ( more riders) than at other times of the month. I She also
commented that shopping trips take a great deal of time, depending on where you live and what the shopping trip is for. I
Groceries are more difficult to shop for and frequently require an expensive taxi. I She regrets that she w ill be unable to attend the
open house.
!June 10, 2005 Resident Greetings, I Please strongly consider expandi ng service hours to evenings and weekends so that those of us who depend on the
bus for transportation can be fully particioatina citizens. I Thank you.
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "I Believe that a Bus driver that drive on Handi Wheels. I have report him a couple time Because of his driving, it scares me very
much."
Ju ne 14, 2005 Comments on Tran sit Survey "I would like to see people who can take me other places then my familv."
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "I think that Jefftran has the most courteous, polite, and agreeable drivers anywhere in this state, and I would be in favor of them
getting a modest raise."
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey In response to question 4 -"change to one hour!" /In response to question 9 -•no transfer center•
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey In response to question 9 -"'oesn, matter" I" I would like to be able to use my bus service, to purchase my food, and shopping
as cab fares are not high for me, living on a fixed income. There are a lot of people where I live, have this problem, and concern.
Could this be possible? My thanks to Jefftran for their good treatment and kindness to me." (name omitted)
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "They run out of transfers too run. Bigger buses (Handi-Wheels). Sam-Midnight (Hours). Weekend hours past midnight. 24-hour
operation in the future. VCRIDVD player."
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "If a Saturday schedule is begun, consider a 1-day pass, so could make several stops on Saturday to shop, etc. Try to get
businesses to sponsor a Saturday or week nlghfs transportation -which would increase their business. On regular buses,
announce what next stop will be as pUll out from each stop (automated systems are available)."
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey In response to questions 1-10, "Not applicable to me at this time, but to the people with whom I work."/"l'm here as a m iddle
school employee at Thomas Jefferson Middle School. We have parents, who cannot attend school functions and students who
cannot participate in after school activities because they have no transportation and cab fares are prohib itive. Bus service to t he
comer of West Edgewood and S . County Club/Fairgrounds may allow our citizens more opportunities. Thank you!" (name
omitted).
June 14, 2005 Comments on Tran sit Survey "Bus Stop on Linden/Hawthorn removed not sure why. Confusing route for Simeson Students I think they need better bus service.
C larification of existing routes would be helpful."
June 14, 2005 Comments on T ran sit Survey Response to question 1 and 2 -"Handi-Wheeis especially" I "Consider private advertising on busses. Once-a-month Handi-
Wheels ride similar to fixed routes. Merchants help subsidize evening, weekend, holiday rides even if only twice daily. Combine
H andi-Wheels with shuttles on an occasional but regular basis."
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "I d o not use bus not but may rely on it in future. Only bus stop near my residence req uires 1/2 mile walk and crossing Route 179.
I work downtown I would ride bus If it were convenient. Since it's not at present, I am mainly concerned with future availability of
public transportation as I retire and have no family to depend on for transport."
June 14,2005 Comments on Transit Survey "(One driver) goes 45mph in 30, stops in middle of street to look at girts, or opens door to get attention of g irts/women. Pulls out in
traffic and makes oncoming cars to stop, don't stop for animals crossing street."
319/2006 Page 2 of5
---------
Dm OrganlzatlonJRepresentlng/Tltle Comment
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "My particular interest is in having service provides out on South Country Club -near the Special Learning Center and Thomas
Jefferson Middle School. I worlc in that area and would like to use the bus. My experience with Handi Wheels was excellent.
Compared to other cities our Handi Wheels is Tops! In my worlc I hear from clients of other services.•
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "Please also consider adding revenue by accepting advertising from the businesses (restaurants, etc.) that would benefit from the
extended service before raising fares. •
June 14. 2005 Comments on Tra nsit Survey "Put ads on inside and outside of busses. See if businesses (Scholastic, etc) would help support a bus line to serve them, jails to
serve their employees and prisoner's visitors. Start routes earlier and end later to accommodate more worlcers. Check with
businesses for help. lincoln for night dasses. Less time for commute would draw more riders. 112 hour ride and 112 hour wait to I
transfer = too lon!l if vou can drive it in 15 minutes. •
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "I would like lon!ler hours and weekend hours at least Saturday."
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey Response to questions 3-6 "Depends on location• I"Handi Wheels bus driver speeds and scares the clients (?) He honks
continually at beautiful women."
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "Doing their job really good"
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey "Consider using paid advertising as an extra source of revenue. Extending hours of operation (and weekends) will lead to further
business activitv, oromotin!l economic Qrowth."
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survev "What, If any, evaluation of cost has been done"
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey Response to question 5 -"Depends" I "We need to make the shuttle more user-friendly and more downtown friendly with better
connections to the route buses. State and businesses could save money by using buses instead of building parlcing garages.
Design and build the community so that it is transit friendly. More people downtown, on major routes and in certain areas. Have
businesses and the state marlcet bus service to their employees."
June 14, 2005 Comments on Transit Survey Response to question 7 "Not at expense of service. • I Response to question 8 -"Not critical with improved scheduling• I "There is
no access downtown businesses and restaurants with one hour service. Depends on when I need service. Half hour in morning
and evenin!l worlc well for schedulin!l"
June 14. 2005 Comments on Transit Survey Response to q uestion 4 "30 minutes· I "Longer hours would be great. For weekends. I feel that the buses should start at 7 and
end at 3 at least I feel 30 minute intervals will be better than 40 minutes. •
June 17, 2005 Residant A resident expressed the need for the City to provide opportunities for discussion of new stops for newly annexed areas. She also
expressed the need for transit in the area west of the Mall in the Apache Aats area. There is no current access to transit for this
area. The area has a lot of children with some new and some older (20 plus years) homes. For those residents in the area
without a vehicle a cab ride is very expensive. There is a need for children during the summer to have the opportunity to use
transit to get to the library or to the P®l.
July 25, 2005 Residant A resident said he would use buses more if hours were extended to evenings and weekends. He thinks there should be a daily
shuttle between Jeff Citv and Columbia ..
31912006 Page 3of5
--------
Dllte OrganlzatlonJRepresentlngmtte Comment
August 1, 2005 Resident/State Employee We met at one of the JEFFTRAN information meeting at the Jefferson City Hall and you gave me one of your cards. I have had a
couple of thoughts that I would like to pass on. I Missouri Boulevard-This business loop area, the major shopping area in
Jefferson City, is a real bottleneck in the loop-transfer bus system we have here. To provide service, the transfer-loop for access
in an hour long. On the other hand, access to businesses for your non-<iriving bus patron is very important There has been
minimal accommodation for pedestrian use of this business area. Crossing the boulevard is treacherous for the able bodied,
much less disabled or elderly. I would like to propose the consideration of a continuous boulevard loop bus d istinct from the 30
minute loop-transfer routes. This bus could run continuously from say Walmart to Target to Hastings lot etc. then perhaps
turnaround at the Dix Road loop exchange. Frequency of the bus would depend on passenger load and traffic.
Without frequency people will still drive between stores. A transfer substation could be provided at maybe the Jefferson Bank Dix
Road loop (or anywhere else along its route) for connection with a 30 minute loop-transfer bus. Best case scenario would be
subsidy from businesses served such that the service could be free or very low cost As it is run now, potential bus commuters on
the existing hour loop-transfer buss are discouraged from using JEFFTRAN due to the long commute. I have a coworker who was
interested in the bus, but his commute would be almost an hour long each way. This is hard to stomach when you can drive cross
town in 20 minutes. I Promotion -Information about the bus system is weak to nonexistent
JEFFTRAN needs to develop an outreach program with government offices and businesses to inform people of the services they
provide. There is a misconception that busses serve minorities, the poor and the disabled. I would suggest tapping into state
training and brown bag lunch seminars to talk with employees about the benefits of commuting by bus. The Chamber of
Commerce would seem to be another potential. On the other hand, there needs to be a JEFFTRAN employee (or volunteer) that
would be willing to call businesses and offices along the bus routes and set up face to face meetings. With fuel prices high, they
could offer their employees a bus pass bonus or subsidy to encourage bus usage. At 50 cents a trip, the fare is low enough that
JEFFTRAN is already offering a bargain. JEFFTRAN is not just going to happen, it needs to be promoted. Other aspects that
need to be emphasized are safety & cleanliness of JEFFTRAN busses, reduced wear and tear on private vehicle, reduced stress
by letting someone else drive, potential for needing one less vehicle for double income families, and safety during bad weather. I
Feel free to contact me if you have questions about my comments. (name omitted)
September 20, 2005 Resident Downtown merchants should help pay for transit service improvements. Businesses could help pay for Saturday and evening
service.
seDtember 20, 2005 Resident Businesses could oav for audible recorded advertisements of show times, stores and sales.
September 20, 2005 Resident I see a high cost to move out of the downtown. I don't see the congestion downtown. It is okay as long as there are good
connections d owntown. Suggestion to make a tight loop downtown.
SeDtember 20, 2005 Resident What about inte!lratin!l the Truman Shuttle with the Downtown Circulator?
Seotember 20, 2005 Resident What bus will be used for the downtown circulator? If the smaller buses, then thev have oroblems w ith their lifts.
September 20, 2005 Resident Fares should be increased. We need to make sure everyone is given access to the buses. The bus station is a good place for a
transfer center.
sei>tember 20, 2005 Resident The Citv should be commended for the new buses.
SePtember 20, 2005 Resident Saturdav should be a orioritv over weekends.
September 20. 2005 Resident The Independent living Resource Center (ILRC) is now offering service on weekday evenings. They now have two buses. They
started service in August. They provide about 5 to 8 trips per week. The service is for those 55 or older or with a disability. This
is an earlier age bracket than OATS. They provide service to anywhere in Cole County, Jefferson City or Holts Summit. Service
is on Monday through Thursday from 5 p.m. to 10 p .m . and Friday from 5 p .m . to 11 p.m . as per their grant stipulation from
MoDOT.
September 20, 2005 Resident I have concerns. I feel we've strayed away from what was recommended at the last meeting. I think there should be service from
6 a .m. to 9 p.m. and also impl.ement higher fare for the evenings.
Seotember 20, 2005 Resident Daily service until 8:30 would be nice. I had to quite a job at the mali because there was no bus service.
Seotember 20, 2005 Resident It may be cheaper to provide a subsidy to taxi operators.
Seotember 20, 2005 Resident Demand response Handi Wheels has been unreliable.
31912006 Page 4of5
--------------
Date Organlzation/Representingmtte Comment
September 20, 2005 Resident less freouent evenina service is okav as long as service is there. I don't mind waiting 45 minutes.
September 20, 2005 Resident I don't think it's right that thev announce "MC" over the radio on Handi Wheels vehicles for Medicaid passengers .
September 20, 2005 Resident I would support a fare increase. In Kansas City I paid $1 .00. I think an increase fare Is appropriate. I wholeheartedly support the
unlimited pass. I think it would help those struggling a lot.
September 20. 2005 Resident I think the number one priority is to extend the service time. Evenings is a low prio rity and Saturdays w ou ldn't have to start as
eartv. Businesses could q ive a perk to employees.
September 20, 2005 Resident The downtown loop could serve the train station on demand.
September 20, 2005 Resident There are larger employers such as Scholastic that could provide an incentive to employees. There would have to be
collaboration between the City and the business.
September 20, 2005 Resident If the downtown loop works consider running a loop on Missouri Boulevard.
September 20. 2005 Resident Please retum bus service to JCMG. There is another altemate entrance on the south s ide of the building. Maybe there is a need
for a JCMG bus. Perhaps a deal could be neQotiated with JCMG.
September 20, 2005 Resident There are residents that are now and who soon will be using the loop on Carol Street on the H igh Street East ro ute that is
proposed to be cut.
September 20, 2005 Resident I would l ike to see Handi Wheels service expanded in the evenings and on the weekend.
Seotember 20, 2005 Resident Differential fares could be considered for the evening hours.
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment Look into future Missouri Blvd. loop, like downtown loop.
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment Look into Columbia connector.
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment look into Amtrak connection with downtown loop.
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment Transfer station needs no change -would be a waste of money.
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment Still need a disability discount.
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment Need additional routes such as to recycling center on ldlewood.
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment Evening service will be cuttina into ILC evening transportation program. I
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment Does bus still go to JCMG and back to town?
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment Improve Handi Wheels
September 20, 2005 Public Meeting Written Comment Consider Missouri Blvd. express.
September 20, 2005 Public Meeti119 Written Comment Consider a route out west Edaewood for students and parents of Thomas Jefferson Middle School
September 26, 2005 Resident We're wondering if the bus routes ever change. If they do change, could the Business 50 East Bus come down Scenic (off of
Landwehr HUis) to Eastland, and then on to East McCarty, instead of continuing through the Landwehr Hills a nd Scenic
intersection and then gelling on to E. McCarty. Fr om Eastland, it could get back on to E . McCarty and continue with it's normal
-route. Please res11Qnd . This route would be greatl~ a~~riated . --------
31912006 Page 5 of5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Steering Committee Meeting Summary
Stakeholders Focus Group
May 10,2005
In Attendance
Committee Members:
Councilman Ken Ferguson, City of Jefferson City Council
Councilman Dean Martin, City of Jefferson City Council
Councilman Brian Crane, City of Jefferson City Council
Steve Billings, Missouri Dept. of Transportation-Multi-modal Operations
Jim Casey, Cole County Residential Services
Brian Wekamp, Jefferson City Chapter, National Federation of the Blind
Roger Schroeder, Jefferson City Chief of Police/Jefftran Rider
Bonnie Schroder, Jefftran Rider/City of Jefferson Admin
City Staff and Study Team:
Charles Lansford, Assistant to the Director
Richard Turner, Transit Division Director
Alan Morrison, Long Range Transportation Planner
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant, Planning & Transportation Services
John Dobies, TranSystems Corporation
Cody Christensen, TranSystems Corporation
Margaret Fitzgerald, TranSystems Corporation
Chris Tatham, ETC Institute
Karen Falk, ETC Institute
Meeting Purpose: Briefing on the Transit Development Plan Project
Review Project Scope & Schedule
Interactive Discussion on Transit in Jefferson City
I. Project Overview
A. Study Purpose
Section 9: Steering
Committee Meetings
Dobies said the study's purpose is to evaluate transit services and identify possible
improvements to service and facilities . This will include an evaluation of the routes and an
evaluation of financing and funding.
B. Project Scope
C. Project Goals & Objectives
Christensen provided a packet to each attendee containing a list of goals and objectives.
D . Public Involvement Program
Fitzgerald said that the public involvement program will provide an opportunity for input, an
opportunity to generate consensus, and provide an element of accountability so that decisions
are not made in a vacuum.
E. Project Schedule
Dobies said the study will conclude in the fall with a report completed in October. Interim
reports will be submitted throughout the study .
The TranSystems Team 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
II. Background Material
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
The packet provided to each attendee included two sample charts from the on/off count, the
executive summary and charts and graphs from the passenger survey, and a peer comparison
table.
A. Transit Service Levels
B . Results of On/Off Count
C. Results of the Passenger Survey
Dobies said that noteworthy items from the survey include : 1. higher percentage of people who
ride by choice versus dependent riders (25%) and 2. most people surveyed are satisfied or
more than satisfied (42% -excellent and 40% -good) with transit service in Jefferson City .
Dobies said this is something to be proud of and it is certainly something to build on .
D. Peer Comparison
Ill. Interactive Discussion
The summary of comments from the stakeholder focus group is attached on the following
pages .
A. Perception of JEFFTRAN, its service and its value to the community
B. What would the group would like to see from the TDP study
C. What type of service changes does the group think are likely for JEFFTRAN
D. Ideas for service changes
E. Service expansion into parts of the metro area outside the city's boundaries
F . Possible change in location of the transfer center to the Greyhound site
G. Fund ing for Transit in Jefferson City
The Steering Committee will meet two other times during the study. The next meeting will be in
mid-July. The other meeting will be at the end of the study.
The TranSystems Team 2
I
I
I
I
In Attendance
Committee Members:
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Steering Committee Meeting Agenda
July 19, 2005
Councilman Ken Ferguson, City of Jefferson City Council
Councilman Dean Martin, City of Jefferson City Council
Councilman Brian Crane, City of Jefferson City Council
Steve Billings, Missouri Dept. of Transportation-Multi-modal Operations
Bill Robinett, Missouri Dept. of Transportation-Transit Section
Carrie Carroll, Downtown Jefferson City, Inc.
Paula Hartsfield, Jefferson City School District
Brian Wekamp, Jefferson City Chapter, National Federation of the Blind
Bonnie Schroder, Jefftran Rider/City of Jefferson Admin
Dan Massie, City Citizen
City Staff and Study Team:
Janice McMillan, Deputy Director of Planning and Transportation
Alan Morrison, Long Range Transportation Planner
Richard Turner, Transit Division Director
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant, Planning & Transportation Services
John Dobies, TranSystems Corporation
Meeting Purpose: Briefing on the Transit Development Plan Project
Review Project Scope & Schedule
Interactive Discussion on Transit in Jefferson City
Meeting Purpose: Status Report on the Transit Development Plan Project
Review Public Input
Review Findings to Date and Preliminary Conclusions
Discussion of Next Steps
I. Project Status Report
Dobies provided an overview of the project's status to date. He noted that the project is on
schedule and has been going smoothly. No problems have been encountered .
Regarding the project schedule, Dobies asked the committee whether a steering committee
meeting prior to Sept. 20th would be useful. He explained that the schedule calls for the next
meeting to be Sept. 20th on the same day as the final public meeting.
Towards the end of the meeting it was concluded that it would be helpful for the committee to
have another steering committee meeting in approximately six weeks (towards the end of
August) to review conclusions and preliminary recommendations prior to the public meeting in
September.
II. Public Involvement Program
Dobies provided an overview of input received through the public involvement program to date.
He referred the group to the brief report that includes a matrix showing comments received from
The TranSystems Team 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
each of the public involvement activities. He stated that input received from the public would be
an important consideration in the development of conclusions and recommendations in each of
the areas, such as transfer center location, service levels, etc.
Dobies concluded that the input received form the public has been very useful.
Dobies explained that the last significant pubic involvement activity is the home interview survey
which will be conducted during the next several weeks. He stated that the survey results will be
compiled and a report will be available in approximately 4-5 weeks. The summary report will be
made available to the committee.
Ill. Review of TOP Work Tasks
A. Transit Operating Facilities Evaluation
Dobies stated that one of the tasks in the project is to inspect and evaluate the transit operating
facilities such as the maintenance shops, storage buildings, etc. He explained that the initial
inspection has been completed and compiled in a technical report but the evaluation cannot be
completed until later in the study when it is determined whether JEFFTRAN services will be
expanded, and if so how much.
Dobies stated that the inspection found the operating facilities to be in good condition, well
maintained, and functional. He went on to say that it does appear that the facilities have limited
capacity. He said that capital cost estimates for improving or expanding the facilities will be
included in the capital program that will be developed as part of the project.
B. Transit Center Evaluation
Dobies stated that the question regarding the location of the central transit center was very
important to the other study tasks and it would be most helpful if the committee would provide
some direction on the preference. He went on to say that JEFFTRAN has outgrown the transfer
center at Jefferson and High streets and there are essentially 4 alternatives:
1. Stay at Jefferson & High but make as many improvements as possible to mitigate
operating problems.
2. Move to another on street location in the downtown area.
3. Move to an off street location in the downtown area (site undetermined)
4. Move to the Greyhound site.
lh discussion it was concluded that moving from the current location was preferable due to the
constraints and conflicts. It was noted that a move to the Greyhound station would resolve the
current operating problems, but would represent only a fair solution for the transfer center
relocation. As such, it was suggested that the city should pursue a different location for the
ultimate solution.
Janice McMillan pointed out that there are funding and timing issues associated with creating a
new transit center. A new transit center would require about an acre or 1.5 acres of land, cost in
the range of $700,000 to one million dollars to develop and require at least 4-5 years for total
The TranSystems Team 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
project development. This amount of time was needed to secure funding, select a site design,
etc.
In discussion it was concluded that the preferred approach was to move to the Greyhound
location as soon as practical as an interim measure. The city will concurrently begin the initial
work on developing a transfer center at a different location in the downtown area.
TranSystems will perform the following in support of this approach:
• Verify the space program for a transit center, provide a design concept at a generic site
and provide photo examples of transit centers developed in other communities.
• TranSystems will review the measures required to make the Greyhound station a
functional transit center and develop a "least cost solution" cost estimate for achieving
these improvements.
• TranSystems will prepare a route and service plan for the relocated transit center.
It was concluded that all service plans developed as part of the project will assume that the
transfer center is located at the Greyhound station .
C. Transit Service Improvement Plans
There was a discussion on the matter of 30 minute service intervals versus 40 minute service
intervals related to the tight running times the routes currently have. Dobies explained that
something has to be done because the tight running times lead to late operation and interfere
with the timed transfers. He explained that there are essentially three ways to address the
problem:
• Add a bus to each of the routes to cover the expanded running time and possibly reduce
the service frequency to 20 minutes . This would result in a near doubling of costs and is
considered impractical.
• Maintain the 30 minute service interval but trim back the routes as necessary to reduce
the required running time. Target should be having buses able to complete the cycle in
25 minutes.
• Increase the service interval to 40 minutes which would allow a cycle time up to 35
minutes.
In discussion, it was clear that there was a trade-off between the 30 minute and 40 minute
service intervals. While maintaining the 30 minute frequency would require some portions of the
routes to be discontinued, expanding the interval to 40 minutes would complicate schedules.
Committee member Billings stated that he thought maintaining the 30 minute interval was
preferable because going to 40 minutes would be a discernable reduction in service. Moreover,
he was of the opinion that portions of the existing routes with no ridership or light ridership could
be discontinued with a small negative effect on current riders .
Committee member Massie stated that he felt the complication to the schedules would be
significant if the 30 minute frequency were not maintained. He asserted that it was important to
be able to express the scheduling terms of 2 departures per hour at the same clock time.
The TranSystems Team 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
At the suggestion of Committee member Martin, it was concluded that the committee should
review a route and schedule plan for each option. Dobies agreed that this was a reasonable
way to address the question . TranSystems will prepare two service concepts, one with 30
minute intervals and another with 40 minute intervals .
The TranSystems Team 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting Notes
Transit Development Plan
Steering Committee Meeting
Tuesday,August30,2005
11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Boone/Bancroft Room #200
John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 E. McCarty Street, Jefferson City, Missouri
Steven Billings
Missy Bonnot
Carrie Carroll __
Jim Casey .
Councilman Brian Crane
Councilman Ken Ferguson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Janice McMillan
Richard Turner
Alan Morrison
Anne Stratman
CONSULTANT TEAM
John Dobies, TranSystems Corporation
Cody Christensen, TranSystems Corporation
GUESTS PRESENT
Bill Robinett, Missouri Department of Transportation
Kris Hilgedick, News Tribune
Project Status Report
A. Project Schedule
Dr. Paula Kindrick Hartsfield_-.
Councilman Dean Martin
Bonnie Schroder
Chief Roger Schrqeder
Brian Wekamp
Mr. Dobies stated that the Community Survey was completed in August, 2005 and the
summary results were included in your meeting packet. He explained that completion of the
study is still on schedule for the latter part of October, 2005.
B. Household Survey Results
Mr. Dobies stated that more than half of those surveyed were not familiar with
JEFFTRAN and that fewer than half would not use JEFFTRAN if the bus stop were more
than two (2) blocks away. He stated that most people would pay more than the current fare
and over 90 percent indicate that supporting transit is important.
Transit Center Evaluation
C. Improvements to Greyhound Station
Mr. Dobies reiterated that the transfer center at the intersection of Jefferson and High
Streets will be relocated to the former Greyhound Bus Station on West McCarty Street. He
explained that improvements will be necessary for the parking lot and building.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting Notes/Transit Development Plan
August 30, 2005
Page 2
Ms. McMillan discussed the possibility of cultivating a relationship with Columbia for
regional service.
D. Downtown Transfer Center Concept
Mr. Dobies showed a conceptual transfer site that is approximately one (1) acre and
accommodates eight (8) buses. He discussed a conceptual timeline for securing funding,
conducting an environmental analysis and construction.
Financial Projections
Mr. Dobies explained that he has received new legislation on the transportation bill for
federal operating assistance and will need to recalculate the projections before reporting to
Committee members.
Fares and Revenue
Mr. Dobies stated that a fare increase is recommended for inclusion in the Transit
Development Plan. He suggested establishing a policy for periodic fare review and
adjustments, plus establishing an unlimited monthly ride pass. Mr. Dobies discussed ways
to mitigate adverse effects when increasing fares.
Transit Service Evaluation
Mr. Dobies stated that since service is fundamentally sound, he is hesitant to make
changes. He discussed alternatives for service modifications, as well as, suggestions for
expansion and stated that a 30 minute service is preferable.
Preparation for September 20, 2005 Public Meeting
Mr. Dobies invited Committee members to attend the public meeting scheduled for
September 20, 2005 from 4:00 to 6:00p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Adjournment. With no other business the meeting adjourned at 1 :30 p.m.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting Notes
Transit Development Plan
Steering Committee Meeting
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
11:30 a .m. to 1:30 p.m.
Boone/Bancroft Room #200
John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 E. McCarty Street, Jefferson City, Missouri
Steven Billings
Missy Bonnot
Carrie Carroll
Jim Casey -_
Councilman Brian Crane
Councilman Ken Ferguson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Janice McMillan
Richard Turner
Alan Morrison
Anne Stratman
CONSULTANT TEAM
John Dobies, TranSystems Corporation
Cody Christensen, TranSystems Corporation
GUESTS PRESENT
Bill Robinett, Missouri Department of Transportation
Project Status Report
Dr. Paula Kindrick Hartsfield
Councilman Dean Martin
Bonnie Schroder · ·
Chief Roger Schr<:>eder
Brian Wekamp ·
Mr. Dobies invited Committee members to attend the public meeting scheduled for
September 20, 2005 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. He stated that the
study is on schedule to be completed in late October, 2005. Mr. Dobies explained that the final
Transit Development Plan will include information collected, as well as, recommendations and
an implementation plan.
Preview of Public Meeting
Meeting Purpose
Mr. Dobies explained that the purpose of today's meeting is to review preliminary
recommendations with the public and project stakeholders and to solicit input to verify and
modify recommendations for the Transit Development Plan.
Preliminary Recommendations
Mr. Dobies stated that it is an accepted action to relocate the transfer center from
Jefferson and High Streets to the former Greyhound Bus Station on West McCarty Street.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting Notes/City of Jefferson Transit Development Plan
September 20, 2005
2
Mr. Dobies recommended that the City increase regular fares either to $.75 or $1.00 and
establish a monthly unlimited ride pass to mitigate the adverse effects of a fare increase.
Reduced fares would continue to be one half of the regular fare and Handi Wheels fares would
continue to be twice the amount of the regular fare.
Mr. Dobies stated that expansion of service hours is the most requested service
modification. He stated that flexible service hours and new routes and services need to be
examined more closely. Mr. Dobies explained that service improvements are most likely to be
funded by the City and would need to find ways to utilize available federal funding.
Adjournment. With no other business the meeting adjourned at 1 :30 p.m.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting Notes
Transit Development Plan
Steering Committee Meeting
Monday, December 19, 2005
11:30 a.m. to 1 :30 p.m.
Boone/Bancroft Room #200
John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 E. McCarty Street, Jefferson City, Missouri
Steven BillingsJ
Missy Bon not
Carrie Carroll
Jim CaseyJ
Councilman Brian CraneJ
Councilman Ken Ferguson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Janice McMillan
Richard Turner
Alan Morrison
Anne Stratman
Steve Macintyre
CONSULTANT TEAM
John Dobies, TranSystems Corporation
Cody Christensen, TranSystems Corporation
GUESTS PRESENT
Kris Hilgedick, News Tribune
Project Status Report
Dr. Paula Kindrick HartsfieldJ
Councilman Dean MartinJ
Bonnie Schroder
Chief Roger Schroeder
Brian WekampJ
Mr. Dobies stated that a presentation of the final plan has been tentatively scheduled for the
January 19, 2006 meeting of the Public Works and Planning Committee. He explained that the
Steering Committee, CAMPO Technical Committee and Board of Directors will be invited to
attend.
Review of TOP Recommendations
A. Fixed Route Service
Mr. Dobies reviewed the following recommendations for fixed route service:
1. Reconfigure routes to the hub at the bus station on West McCarty;
2. Extend service 30 minutes earlier in the morning and one hour longer in the
3.
evening;
Establish evening service, Saturday service, new Capital Mall route,
downtown circulator, express routes and transit service beyond the Jefferson
City corporate limits.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting Notes/Transit Development Plan
December 19, 2005
B. Paratransit Service
Page2
Mr. Dobies explained that the new Federal Transportation Bill contains a new category of
funding called New Freedom, specifically for paratransit services. He stated that before a
metropolitan area is eligible for those funds, they must have a coordinated human services plan
in place.
C. Capita/Improvements
Mr. Dobies stated that the vehicle replacement program is on schedule and recommends
heavy duty transit busses, such as the new Gillig Busses, for their durability and low
maintenance.
D. Fare Structure
Mr. Dobies explained that the City has not increased fares since 1982 and is recommending
an increase of either $.75 or $1.00. He stated that the public has indicated acceptance of a fare
increase to $. 75 rather than $1.00. Mr. Dobies clarified that reduced fares will increase, as well.
He recommended implementing a fare increase when relocating to the bus station on West
McCarty and making service improvements because the public is more receptive to a fare
increase when improvements or service modifications are implemented. Mr. Dobies stated that
a periodic review of fare increases will be part of their recommendation.
Mr. Dobies distributed a draft of the Transit Service Deployment Guidelines which provides
guidance for the development and modification of transit services as part of the Jefferson City
Transit Development Plan. He explained that the purpose of the guidelines are to create an
objective basis for designing transit service; achieve a degree of consistency in the deployment
of service across the City and metro area; and reflect policy and financial considerations in
transit service design in a structured manner.
Mr. Dobies explained that the Steering Committee will be asked to assist with developing
priorities for the transit service modifications and fare structure modifications included in the
draft Transit Development Plan. He distributed questionnaires requesting committee members
to rank each potential service modification and indicated preference for each fare structure
modification options using attached forms. Mr. Dobies stated that the implementation period for
the transit service modifications and fare structure modifications is six (6) years from 2006
through 2011. He explained that the rankings and input will be compiled and summarized and
included as input to the Transit Development Plan. Mr. Dobies requested that staff distribute
the questionnaires to those members who are absent and once those results are received they
will be compiled and returned to staff for distribution.
Financial Analysis
Mr. Dobies explained that the Financial Analysis shows that an increase in City funding of
about 33 percent by 2011 is necessary to maintain the current level of service. He distributed a
table outlining five year total operating and capital funding requirements.
Adjournment. With no other business the meeting adjourned at 1 :25 p.m.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Summary of Prioritization Exercise
January 31, 2006
At the December 19, 2005 Steering Committee meeting for the Jefferson City Transit
Development Plan (TOP), the Steering Committee was asked to assist with developing priorities
for the transit service modifications and fare structure modifications included in the draft T DP.
Questionnaires were distributed at the meeting requesting committee members to rank each
potential service modification and indicate preference for each fare structure modification option.
It was explained that the rankings and input would be compiled and summarized, and included
as input to the TOP. City staff distributed the questionnaire to those members who were absent
and once all responses were received the results were compiled.
The questionnaire listed information on costs, ridership impacts and pros and cons for various
options developed during the course of the TOP. The forms also showed the results of public
involvement and consultant team's recommendations.
Potential Transit Service Modifications
Each committee member was asked to rank each service modification as a priority based on the
following categories:
1. High
2. Medium
3. Low
4. Do not pursue
For the exercise, the implementation time period was assumed to be six years from 2006
through 2011.
Nine committee members completed this exercise. The rankings were compiled and
summarized as shown in Table 1.
Fare Structure Modification Options
Each committee member was asked to indicate preference for each fare structure modification
by marking "yes" or" no" to indicate their preferred action.
For the exercise, the implementation time period was assumed to be six years from 2006
through 2011.
Nine committee members completed this exercise. The input will be compiled and summarized
as shown in Table 2.
--
01-31-06
Annual Potential Service Funding Modification Requirement
Extend service $134,000 span by 1.5 hrs.
Evening service (5 $122,000 days to9 PM)
Evening service (1 $29,000 davto9 PM)
Saturday service -$88,000 selected routes
Route revisions for
transfer center $99,000 change; downtown
shuttle
West Area Aex $129,000 Route
West Area $53,000 ExPress
Holts Summit Flex $128,000 Route
Holts Summit $51,000 Express
Algoa Area Shuttle $130,000
Southwest Area $130,000 Flex Route
Improve
Frequency to 15 $906,000 min. Peak and 30
min. base
Downtown Area $267,000 Circulator
Capital Mall Flex $130,000 Route ----
The TranSystems Team
----
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
-
Table 1: Potential Service Modifications Prioritization Results
Capital Daily Consultant Public Pros Ridership Conclusion Input Cost Change
Yes-very Helps existing
$0 +80 important Important riders; attract new
riders
Helps existing $0 +70 Medium Important riders
Low-Helps existing $0 +40 ineffective Important riders
Most Helps existing $0 +360 Medium important riders
Corrects operations
Yes-most problem $300,000 +50 important Support Helps existing
riders
$80,000 +50 Low Low Expands service
area
$150,000 +40 Low Low Expands service
area
Expands service $80,000 +60 Low Low area
$150,000 +60 Low Low Expands service
area
$150,000 +30 Low Low Expands service
area
Expands service $150,000 +30 Low Low area
Substantial $2,400,000 +320 Low Low ridership increase
Substantial $750,000 +480 Low Low ridership increase
$150,000 +40 Low Low Better service
--
Cons Cumulative
Rating
Cost 1.4 Change to JEFFTRAN
Cost 2.4 Change to JEFFTRAN
Cost 2.3 Change to JEFFTRAN
Cost 1.9 Change to JEFFTRAN
Cost 1.0
Cost 3.1 High per rider cost
Cost 3.2
Cost 3.7 High per rider cost
Cost 3.6
Cost 3.1 High per rider cost
Cost 3.3 High per rider cost
Very High cost 3.1 High per rider cost
High cost 2.1
Cost 3.1 High per rider cost
2
-
01-31-06
Potential Fare Annual
Structure Revenue
Modification Impact
Increase base
fare to 75 +$36,250
cents.
Increase base
fare to 75 +$36,250
cents, then to +$35,250
$1.00
Increase base +$59,500 fare to $1.00.
No fare
increase None
---·-
The TranSystems Team
------
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
--
Table 2: Fare Structure Modification Options -Decision Results
Dally Consultant Ridership Conclusion Public Input Pros Cons Preferen ce
Change
Fares should Minimizes ridership loss Does not maximize be increased Acceptable to -10% to at least 75 most while generating revenue increase 6 Yes/3 No
cents. additional revenue . potential
Increase to 75 Introduces $1.00 fare in
-10% cents, then to Acceptable to two steps in an attempt Requires two fare 5 Yes/4 No -7% $1.00in3 many to minimize adverse increases
years reaction
Assuming $1.00 is the
appropriate level for the
An increase to next several years this
accomplishes that and Would result in the
-25% $1.00 may be Acceptable to avoids needing to have greatest ridership 5 Yes/4 No too much many
initially. a second fare increase. reduction.
This action generates
the most revenue.
Avoids ridership Keeps fares
Fares should Fares should reduction. artificially low.
None be increased . be increased. 0 Yes/9 No
Avoids work associated Fails to generate
with a fare increase. revenue.
-
'
'
3 '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
01-31-06 City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Prioritization Exercise Results
Service Improvements
The results of the service improvements prioritization exercise show the highest priority
(cumulative ranking between 1 and 2) assigned for the folio wing improvements:
• Route revisions for transfer center change; downtown shuttle
• Extend service span by 1.5 hours
• Saturday service -selected routes
Improvements given medium priority (with ranking between 2 and 3) incl ude:
• Downtown Area Circulator
• Evening service (1 day to 9 PM)
• Evening service (5 days to 9 PM)
The rest of the improvements were assigned low priority (with ranking between 3 and 4) and
include:
• West Area Flex Route
• Algoa Area Shuttle
• Improve Frequency to 15 min. Peak and 30 min. base
• Capital Mall Flex Route •
• West Area Express
• Southwest Area Flex Route
• Holts Summit Express
• Holts Summit Flex Route
Fare Structure Modification Options
The results of the prioritization exercise on the various fare structure modification options show
the strongest support for increasing the base fare to 75 cents. The other fare increase options
(increasing the base fare to 75 cents followed by increase to $1.00; and increasing the base
fare to $1.00) ranked equally with only slightly less support. There was no support for keeping
fares the same.
It is important to recognize that the prioritization exercises are input from the Steering
Committee, and will be considered as final recommendations are developed for the Transit
Development Plan. The determination to proceed with any action rests with the City Council.
The TranSystems Team 4
I
I
I
I
I
03-09-06
Jefferson City Transit Development Plan
Financial Analysis
Section 10:
Financial AMlysis
This section provides information on JEFFTRAN finances for both capital and operating
purposes and projections of costs and revenues related to possible future improvements.
Revenue Sources
It is common in the transit industry to separate operating and capital expenses for both reporting
and evaluation purposes. FTA has distinctly different programs and guidelines for capital and
operating grant programs. Jefferson City funds operating and capital expenditures separately.
Operating Funding
The primary sources of revenue for JEFFTRAN operations, both fixed route and paratransit, are
local funds from city general revenue and federal funding from FT A's 5307 formula program.
Operating expenses for transit are generally funded from the city's general fund whereas capital
projects are typically funded from the city's Capital Improvement Fund. FTA's 5307 program
includes an apportionment amount based on a formula that takes into account the population
and characteristics of the metropolitan area, as well as other factors.
JEFFTRAN receives operating funding for paratransit services through Medicaid
reimbursements and the Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) program that are
used for local match. Payments from the State for the operation of the parking shuttles also
represent a significant source of revenue for JEFFTRAN's operations.
Fares from passengers represent a relatively small portion of the total revenue compared with
these external funding programs. Table 1 shows the total operating revenue from each of these
sources from the 2006 JEFFTRAN budget.
Table 1: JEFFTRAN 2006 Budget Operating Revenue Sources
Funding Source Amount %of Total
Grants & Revenues
FTA 5307 $591,381 33%
State Operating $68,377 4%
Passenger Revenue $91,378 5%
State-Shuttle Route Fee $270,408 15%
Total Grants & Revenue $1,021,544
Local Match
City of Jefferson $514,421 29%
Medicaid $164,000 9%
Non Emergency Medical $29,000 2%
Cole County Special Servic $30,000 2%
Other operating revenues ~19,000 1%
Total Local Match $756,421
TOTAL $1,777,965
Capital Funding
As mentioned previously, capital improvements are typically funded from the city's Capital
Improvement Fund. These funds are used as local match for federal capital grants. Capital
,
I
I
I
I
I
03-09-06
projects, such as bus acquisition and construction, can be funded through the FT A Section 5309
capital program. The 5309 program is discretionary; Jefferson City must compete for funding
with other areas through a process referred to as congressional earmarking. Jefferson City has
received FTA Section 5309 earmarks in the past and will continue to pursue this funding in the
future.
Future FTA Funding
With the recent passage of the new Federal Transportation Bill, known as SAFETEA-LU, the
level of federal funding available to the city, through FY2009 is part of the legislation. Although
the apportionments do not represent guaranteed amounts, there is a reasonable certainty that
the level of funding will be made available.
Based on information provided by FTA, the total Section 5307 funds available to Jefferson City
will increase each year of the program. In addition, the new transportation bill includes two new
categories of formula funding, Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom.
JARC is intended to provide funding for services designed to provide access to employment
opportunities, particularly the people traveling in the reverse of the traditional commuting
patterns (traveling from the city center to employment in outlying areas). The JARC program
was a discretionary program in previous legislation and JARC funding was not accessed by
JEFFTRAN. The New Freedom program is intended to support paratransit services for persons
with mobility limitations beyond the level of service required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. Although the funding for these two programs is not great, these programs do
represent additional funding for JEFFTRAN. JEFFTRAN does provide services that are eligible
to be funded by these programs. It behooves the city to ensure that these federal funding
programs are accessed to their fullest extent.
Table 2 shows the total federal funding available under FTA formula programs. Because
SAFETEA-LU expires at the end of 2009 the amounts for 2010 and 2011 are estimated based
on the assumption that the FTA program will continue with a 4% annual increase. Estimating
these amounts for 2010 and 2011 is necessary to complete the 5-year projections for
JEFFTRAN.
Table 2: Apportionments and Estimates of FTA Formula Funding
Program
5307
JARC
New Freedom
Total
2006
$520,146
$34,381
$22.278
$576,805
2007
$541 '111
$35,876
$23.135
$600,122
2008
$586,814
$38,865
$24,992
$650,671
2009
$624,170
$40,983
$26.420
$691,573
2010
$649,137
$42,622
$27.477
$719,236
2011
$675,102
$44,327
$28.576
$748,005
Note: The amounts shown for years 2010 and 2011 are estimated based on the assumption
that these funding programs will increase at 4% annually.
Projections of FT A capital funding from the 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities program were not
developed because this funding is allocated on a discretionary basis. For purposes of
projecting future funding levels it is assumed that 5309 funds will be available at the levels
needed for the JEFFTRAN capital program. It will be the responsibility of JEFFTRAN to request
earmarks and make application for these funds.
Financial Projections -Operating Costs and Revenues
Baseline projections were prepared to provide information on the likely financial requirements to
support JEFFTRAN operations. The projections are termed "Baseline" because they assume
2
I
I
I
I
03-09-06
the continuation of JEFFTRAN services as they are currently. Later in this section projections
are shown for various transit improvement scenarios.
The following procedure outlines how the future year projections of operating costs, revenues
and funding were developed.
1. Operating Costs: Operating costs were projected by applying an annual inflation factor
to 2006 budgeted cost levels. In today's economy a 3% to 4% increase per year is
typical. Transit operating costs are comprised of 70-75% personnel costs, thus the
expected increase in wages and benefits tends to determine the annual increase.
Additional costs for new services or new programs should be added to the projected
operating cost.
2. Operating Revenues: Operating revenues are those derived from the operation of the
transit system. Operating revenues include passenger fares, direct payments for service
(e.g., charters) and other fees. Projections were made by evaluating each revenue type
and determining any change likely in the future. A conservative method is to assume
that operating revenues will remain constant in the future.
Passenger fare revenues are likely to constitute the largest percentage of operating
revenues. Changes in passenger revenue resulting from changes in fare levels or
significant ridership changes should be added to the operating revenue projections.
3. Net Operating Cost: The net operating cost, or operating deficit, is the result of
subtracting operating revenues from operating cost. This is the amount of external
funding required to balance the projected operating budget.
4. External Funding: The net operating cost must be funded through external programs,
such as federal and state grants and subsidy from city funding sources. Transit systems
sometimes receive funding from a number of sources that add to the total funding
available. These funds include payments for services from municipalities and social
service agencies, Medicaid and other social service reimbursements. The level of
funding from the federal and state government is usually known within a reasonable
level of certainty. Local funding is used to close the gap between total net cost and
available funding from other sources.
Table 3 shows the baseline financial projections for JEFFTRAN operations . The figures for
2006 are from JEFFTRAN's 2006 budget.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
03-09-06
Table 3: Baseline Projections of JEFFTRAN Operating Costs and Revenues
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operating Cost $1,778,179 $1,832,000 $1,887,000 $1,944,000 $2,002,000 $2,062,000
Operating Revenue ~11 0,592 ~113,000 ~114,000 ~116,000 ~118,000 ~120,000
Operating Deficit $1,667,587 $1,719,000 $1,773,000 $1,828,000 $1,884,000 $1,942,000
Funding
Federal Operating $591,381 $713,000 $740,000 $773,000 $822,000 $745,000
State Operating $68,377 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000
State Shuttle Contract $270,408 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000
Paratransit Funding $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000
City Funding ~514,421 ~445,000 ~472,000 ~494,000 ~501,000 ~636,000
Total Funding $1,667,587 $1,719,000 $1,773,000 $1,828,000 $1,884,000 $1,942,000
Key assumptions are as follows:
• Operating costs will increase by 3% each year; no significant changes in service or
program are included.
• Operating revenue remains constant except that passenger fare revenue increases
slightly as a result of projected ridership increases.
• Federal operating assistance includes the 5307 funding and the JARC and New
Freedom funding. The projections assume the balance in the 5307 program is drawn
down by 2009.
• State funding remains constant at current levels.
• City funding increases as necessary to close the gap between operating costs and
revenue, and funding from other sources.
Evaluation of Baseline Projections
The figures in Table 3 represent conservative projections of costs and revenues associated with
JEFFTRAN operations. With expected increases in operating costs, and in consideration of
known funding sources, the required funding from the City is projected to increase to $636,000
per year by 2011. This is an average increase of about 4.4% annually, a reasonable rate of
growth considering the cost increase assumptions. However, it should be noted that the City's
funding for operations has actually decreased in recent years. In 2004 City funding was actually
about $683,000, more than the projection for 2011. This is a result of an increase in federal
operating assistance available, and the constant level of services provided.
Financial Projections for Service Increase Scenarios
An important part of the TOP is to project and evaluate the City's funding requirement to deploy
additional services during the next five years. Because of the uncertainty that surrounds the
future availability of funding for transit improvements in the Jefferson City area, three different
scenarios were developed to illustrate the funding requirement for transit service improvements.
These scenarios represent low, medium, and high investment in new transit services and
facilities, and represent a range of possibilities for the next five years. The purpose of this
analysis is to provide information for Jefferson City staff and elected officials as they determine
how to implement the recommendations from the TOP. The specific service modifications are
less important in this exercise than the amount of the assumed increase in service. The
following paragraphs provide information on the transit improvement scenarios.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
03-09-06
The high investment scenario assumes that the City will pursue service improvements identified
during the TOP process in each of the next five years representing a 100 percent increase in
service by 2011. It assumes that capital improvements will be made, including the development
of a new downtown transit center. It is also assumed that JEFFTRAN's services will be
extended into neighboring communities, making transit service more of a regional enterprise.
To help fund the service improvements two fare increases are assumed, a base fare increase to
75 cents in June of 2006 and another increase to $1.00 in July of 2009.
The medium transit investment scenario assumes service improvements representing a 50
percent increase by 2011 and assumes that JEFFTRAN services will be provided only within the
corporate limits of Jefferson City. A somewhat scaled down version of the downtown transit
center is assumed. To help fund the service improvements an increase in the base fare is
assumed to 75 cents in June of 2006.
The low transit investment scenario assumes only minimal changes to service levels, an
increase of 28 percent. Only capital improvements necessary to maintain the current level of
service are assumed. It is assumed that the McCarty Street bus station will continue to serve as
the transfer center. To help fund the service improvements an increase in the base fare is
assumed to 75 cents in June of 2006. Table 4 shows details on each of the three scenarios.
Table 4: Transit Modification Scenarios
Service Modification Date Annual Cost Annual Revenue Daily Ridership
Increase Increase Change
Scenario 3 High Investment
Add Downtown Circulator #1 June 2006 $103,000 $4,000 +50
Extend Service to 6:30PM June 2006 $141,000 $7,000 +80
Increase fares to 75 cents June 2006 $0 $36,000 -70
Add Saturday Service July 2007 $94,000 $6,000 +360 (Saturday)
Add West Area Flex Route July 2008 $133,000 $4,000 +50
Add Algoa Area Shuttle July 2008 $133,000 $3,000 +30
Increase fares to $1.00 July 2009 $0 $36,000 -110
Add Evening Service -9 PM July 2009 $128,000 $6,000 +70
Add Downtown Circulator #2 July 2010 $267,000 $0 480
Scenario 2 Medium Investment
Add Downtown Circulator #1 June 2006 $103,000 $4,000 +50
Extend Service to 6:30PM June 2006 $141,000 $7,000 +80
Increase fares to 75 cents June 2006 $0 $36,000 -70
Add Saturday DR Service July 2008 $73,000 $5,000 +280 (Saturday)
Add West Area Flex Route July 2008 $133,000 $4,000 +50
Scenario 1 Low Investment
Add Downtown Circulator #1 June 2006 $103,000 $4,000 +50
Extend Service to 6:30 PM June 2006 $141,000 $7,000 +80
Increase fares to 75 cents June 2006 $0 $36,000 -70
Again, the service modifications included in the table do not represent specific
recommendations. Rather, they are intended to illustrate the level of funding required for
various types of service modifications. Table 5 shows financial projections for the High
Investment Scenario, a doubling of service over the five year period.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
03-09-06
Table 5: Projections of JEFFTRAN Operating Costs and Revenues-High Investment
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operating Cost $1,863,000 $2,141,000 $2,402,000 $2,696,000 $3,005,000 $3,255,000
Operating Revenue ~138,000 ~163,000 ~171,000 ~191,000 ~204,000 ~209,000
Operating Deficit $1,725,000 $1,978,000 $2,231,000 $2,505,000 $2,801,000 $3,046,000
Funding
Federal Operating $614,000 $691,000 $741,000 $773,000 $823,000 $745,000
State Operating $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000
State Shuttle Contract $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000
Paratransit Funding $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000
City Funding ~550,000 ~726,000 ~929,000 $1,171,000 $1,417,000 ~1,740,000
Total Funding $1,725,000 $1,978,000 $2,231,000 $2,505,000 $2,801,000 $3,046,000
Because funding from other sources, particularly FTA, is essentially fixed, all of the additional
cost would have to be covered by additional local funding from the City. Thus, the City's share
of the funding would increase to $1,740,000 by 2011. This is an increase of over three times
the budgeted City funding for 2006.
Table 6 shows the projections for the Medium Investment Scenario, a service increase of 50
percent over five years. In this case the City's share of the funding would increase to just over
$1 million by 2011.
Table 6: Projections of JEFFTRAN Operating Costs and Revenues-Medium Investment
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operating Cost $1,863,000 $2,091,000 $2,194,000 $2,301,000 $2,447,000 $2,599,000
Operating Revenue ~138,000 ~160,000 ~164,000 ~168,000 ~172,000 ~176,000
Operating Deficit $1,725,000 $1,931,000 $2,030,000 $2,133,000 $2,275,000 $2,423,000
Funding
Federal Operating $614,000 $691,000 $741,000 $773,000 $823,000 $745,000
State Operating $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000
State Shuttle Contract $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000
Paratransit Funding $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000
City Funding ~550,000 ~679,000 ~728,000 ~799,000 $891,000 $1,117,000
Total Funding $1,725,000 $1,931,000 $2,030,000 $2,133,000 $2,275,000 $2,423,000
Table 7 shows the projections for the Low Investment Scenario which would increase service by
28 percent. This scenario would require City funding to increase to $880,000, an increase of
about 40 percent compared with the Baseline projections.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
03-09-06
Table 7: Projections of JEFFTRAN Operating Costs and Revenues-Low Investment
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operating Cost $1,925,000 $2,091,000 $2,154,000 $2,219,000 $2,285,000 $2,353,000
Operating Revenue ~138,000 ~160,000 ~161,000 ~163,000 ~165,000 ~167,000
Operating Deficit $1,787,000 $1,931,000 $1,993,000 $2,056,000 $2,120,000 $2,186,000
Funding
Federal Operating $614,000 $691,000 $741,000 $773,000 $823,000 $745,000
State Operating $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000
State Shuttle Contract $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000
Paratransit Funding $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000 $223,000
City Funding ~612,000 ~679,000 ~691,000 ~722,000 ~736,000 ~880,000
Total Funding $1,787,000 $1,931,000 $1,993,000 $2,056,000 $2,120,000 $2,186,000
The conclusion is that an increase in City funding of about 24% by 2011 is necessary to just
maintain the current level of service. The three service improvement scenarios require funding
increases of between $244,000 and $1.1 million in 2011 compared with the Baseline projection .
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Implementation Plan
March 9, 2006
Section ll:
Implementation Plan
This section presents a checklist of major steps in implementing the recommendations from the
Transit Development Plan. The TOP recommends several changes to go into effect in or about
June 2006. The recommendations include reconfiguring the existing transit routes to move the
transfer center to the intercity bus station at 620 West McCarty, extending the span of service
by starting service approximately 30 minutes earlier in the morning and ending service
approximately one hour later in the evening, and implementing a fare increase from fifty cents to
seventy-five cents. It is recommended that all three changes be made simultaneously, so that
users will be able to see an increase in service along with the higher cost for using the service.
Separate implementation checklists are provided below for the transfer center move, the service
modifications and the fare increase. A key factor in the timing is the completion of the McCarty
bus station improvements. In addition, FTA requires a public hearing for implementing a fare
increase. This needs to be completed beforehand in order to implement the recommendations
simultaneously.
The main components of the checklist involve informing passengers, drivers and others about
each of the recommended changes. It is best to start that process as soon as the routes,
schedules, etc. are verified and finalized. Using the mass media, public forums, stakeholders,
and drivers are good communication outlets that are recommended in the checklist. Table 1
shows the major steps and timing for moving the transfer center and implementing the service
modifications. Table 2 shows the required steps for implementing the fare increase.
The TranSystems Team
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Table 1: Checklist for Transfer Center Move and Transit Service Modifications
Weeks Category Activity
Before
St a rt
24 Operations Verify schedule times and time points.
22 Operations Bel1:in biddinJ!: process for bus station improvements.
Operations Test drive modified routes; make sure turns can be made and
21 schedule can be met. Make sure no vehicle clearance issues.
Obtain "turn-by-tum" directions.
17 Transit Staff Inform and educate staff.
16 Operations Initiate contract for bus station improvements.
16 Operations Determine how bus stop signs to be installed and by who and
when.
16 Transit Staff Meet with drivers on the routes chanJ!:es.
14 Operations Determine total number and location of bus stop signs needed.
11 Operations Order and install bus stop signs.
Public Information Hold Public Forum before service change and give chance for
riders to ask questions about transfer center move, route
10 changes and fare increase. FT A guidelines require a public
hearing in advance of a fare increase or a significant service
change.
9 Public Information Develop new public schedules/maps.
8 Public Information Hold press conference on changes including transfer center
move, route changes and fare increase.
8 Transit Staff Drive groups of drivers on routes with staff.
6 Public Information Reproduce new schedules/maps.
Buses New designation signage for new downtown shuttle
6 (Downtown Circulator # 1) route and new destinations on
existing routes.
Public Information Work with key social service agencies and other important
6 destinations to publicize transfer center move, route changes
and fare increase. Staff may visit with agencies and clients
and hold information session.
4 Operations Complete site and building improvements at McCarty Street
bus station.
4 Transit Staff Determine which drivers will drive which routes.
Public Information Distribute schedules and maps to Jefferson & High transit
3 center, City Hall, library, social service agencies, key
destinations (Wal-Mart, Target and Capital Mall) as well as
web site.
3 Transit Staff Provide driver schedule for assigned route(s).
2 Public l11formation Prepare on-board announcements-post on bus and distribute.
3 to 4 Public Information Ask drivers to let riders know about changes.
days
3 days Public Information Prepare press release one-day prior to new service (release on
Friday before service starts if service starts on a Monday).
2 days Transit Staff Test run modified system on weekend; one or two round trips.
0 Public Information First day (assume a Monday}-post staff at bus station to
provide and distribute information.
The TranSystems Team 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Jefferson
Transit Development Plan
Table 2 : Checklist of Fare Increase Implementation
Weeks Category Activity
Before
Start
17 Transit Staff Inform and educate staff.
Public lrifonnation Hold Public Hearing required by FT A for fare and/or major
route change. This can be in conjunction with Public Forum
10 before service change to give chance for riders to ask
questions about transfer center move, route changes and fare
increase.
8 Public Infonnation Hold press conference on changes including transfer center
move, route chan~es and fare increase.
Public Jnfonnation Work with key social service agencies and other important
6 destinations to publicize transfer center move, route changes
and fare increase. Staff may visit with agencies and clients
and hold information session .
2 Public Jnfonnatio n Prepare on-board announcements-post on bus and distribute.
3 to 4 Public lnfonnation Ask drivers to let riders know about changes.
day s
3 days Public lnfonnation Prepare press release one-day prior to new service (release on
Friday before service starts if service starts on a Monday ).
0 Public lrifonnation First day (assume a Monday}--post staff at bus station to
provide and distribute information .
The TranSystems Team 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan
Prepared For
CITY OF JEFFERSON
Prepared By
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Phone:(816)329-8600
Revised March 9, 2006
Section 12:
Marketing Plan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Introduction
The purpose of this plan is to provide JEFFTRAN strategies and tactics with which to
develop a dynamic, yet cost-efficient marketing program. The plan first examines the
goals for the marketing plan. It then reviews current marketing efforts. Finally, the plan
presents recommended strategies and tactics. This plan is developed in concert with
the overall Transit Development Plan (TOP). As further introduction, marketing in the
context of this plan is defined.
What is marketing?
For a successful marketing effort, four things need to be in place and working in concert
in attracting and retaining customers. Customers are both people who ride the system
as well as people who don't ride but support the system through funding. These four
things, sometimes called the "marketing mix," are:
• Pricing-the charge for the product or service. This is the fare charged by
JEFFTRAN. A well-developed fare policy can encourage ridership.
• Product-the features and attributes of the product or service. For JEFFTRAN this
means operating clean buses with courteous drivers, adequate service levels and
on-time service.
• Promotion-informing customers about products or services offered by a business.
Everything from providing public information to participating in special events serves
to promote JEFFTRAN.
• Place-where and how your product or service is delivered. This is the route
network of JEFFTRAN.
Other parts of the TOP address the product and place portions of the "marketing mix."
This section of the TOP addresses the "pricing" and "promotion" elements.
System Goals
In the development of the overall TOP, JEFFTRAN established goals and objectives.
The balded goals and objectives are specifically addressed by this marketing plan. The
other goals and objectives are addressed elsewhere in the TOP.
The goals and objectives established for the T DP are:
Goals
1. Provide convenient, reliable, comfortable, accessible, and safe transportation for the
public.
2. To promote the advantages of transit.
3. To support the City's objectives for increased ridership.
Objectives
1. Expand the transit route network where appropriate
2. Improve transit by expanding service hours and frequency.
1
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
3. Improve cost-efficiency.
4. Adopt measures to ensure the adequacy offuture revenues and funding.
5. Provide an efficient paratransit system.
6. Provide clear transit information to customers.
Current Marketing Efforts
Currently, JEFFTRAN has no formal marketing program. Information provided to the
public is fairly basic. A rider's guide is available at City offices, JEFFTRAN's offices,
major stores, hotels and State office buildings . This information is also available on the
City's web site including: bus schedules, paratransit information , hours of operation ,
fares, transfer point description and map, announcements and phone numbers and
times for asking questions. Beyond printed and web based information, little other
material is provided to riders. Further, there were no Mspecial event" marketing efforts
and no advertising . Implicitly, JEFFTRAN's marketing strategy was to provide basic
information on system use. Finally, JEFFTRAN 's fares have not changed since 198 2.
According to information gathered for the TOP from JEFFTRAN riders, the rider's guide
is difficult to understand. Maps and schedules in the guide are also used on the web
site. Figure 1 presents a typical map/schedule from the rider's guide.
Figure 1: Typical JEFFTRAN Route Map/Schedule
...... HOlM ,,. ,. 1~
"" ... ... ... ••• -... ... • •• ~ .. ... . ..
'"" ... -·till ...... 10 ,, .... .... 11 ,~
tt16 ""' tU!. tt-101!111
tl'lifiV ....
t;t_.q ... ... ... ... . .. ... . .. ... . ... ... . .. ... .. . . ,. . .. .. . .. ,,...
What may present some challenges to riders are :
• Routing on the map is difficult to read-the routing blends in too
much with the surrounding geog raphy .
2
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
• The background map, while geographically accurate, is too busy.
Too much information on the map distracts the reader.
• Hard to get a sense of order of time points. While the time points
are numbered and referenced on the map, the reading on the
Southwest schedule, for example, is right to left. A more typical
reading pattern is the opposite-left to right. See Figure 2,
presented later in this section.
• Major destinations such as shopping centers and hospitals are
difficult to pick out on the maps.
JEFFTRAN's web site is generally a good source of information though it does not
present route and schedule information effectively. Its shortcomings are related to the
clarity of printed material used in the web site as addressed above. One area of
improvement beyond clearer information would be the inclusion of a system map which
should help orienting people to the system. Finally, while web based information is
becoming more common among the general population, it is still mainly used by affluent,
higher educated portions of the population. Unfortunately, at this time, the typical
Internet population does not use JEFFTRAN to any great degree. It would not be
necessary to invest much more resources (beyond the below recommended programs)
on the web site until more Internet savvy people are using JEFFTRAN.
Recommended Strategies and Tactics
This section reviews strategies and tactics based on the marketing mix. The first
recommendation addresses how JEFFTRAN can market the proposed fare increase.
The second set of recommendations address promotional initiatives to address various
JEFFTRAN stakeholders.
Pricing -Fare Increase
One of the recommendations of the TOP is to increase fares. Among the challenges in
marketing any kind of a price increase is to minimize the loss of customers but it is also
important not to lose community goodwi II.
There are four audiences that typically need to be addressed regarding fare increases.
They are:
1. Employees, especially drivers.
2. Riders
3. Local Elected Officials
4. General Public
Employees/Drivers are among the first people to be informed about the fare changes.
They are JEFFTRAN's ambassadors to the public and need to have clear and accurate
information about the fare change and why it is necessary. It is very likely customers will
seek information and clarification from the employees and drivers more than any other
source. Further, as they will be expected to enforce the policy, the sooner the
employees are up to speed with the change, the better. Management can communicate
with employees through: special meetings; informal sessions in the break room; and
through office bulletin boards. Information placards can be placed in the break room
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
and/or near dispatch. Finally, each employee can be given a memo outlining the
changes. Using all of these means in concert can be effective in making sure no one
misses the message.
Riders are an obvious group to be informed since they are the ones being asked to pay
more for the service. Two things need to be communicated to riders. First, information
on the new fare structure and its effective date are vital. A lead time of one month
before the effective date would be adequate, though brief announcements can take
place earlier if desired. Second, are the reasons for the changes and how the changes
will benefit the riders. The fare changes can be linked to a series of service
improvements. They can also be linked to the reality of higher operating costs (most
notably fuel). Typically, riders would rather see a fare increase to cover costs rather
than a reduction in service. No matter, it is important to provide a reasonable rationale.
Since fares have not been raised since 1982 and the consumer price index since that
time has gone up 96.4 percent (consumer prices have almost doubled) the economic
reasons should be palatable. 1
The communication with riders can occur several ways. The first way would be through
public hearings held regarding the fare increase. Public hearings are mandatory per
federal regulations. Meetings held at times and places accessible to riders are an
excellent opportunity to make the case for the change. Second, interior bus signage is
effective. Since riders are on the bus, they will be able to take in the information on each
and every trip. Third, rider bulletins can be distributed on buses which would provide
another written message. Fourth, information can be broadcast on the local community
channel as well as the JEFFTRAN web site. It is recommended that interior bus
signage and local government channel broadcasts publicize the fare change at least one
month in advance of the effective date. The rider bulletins can be distributed twice-a
week before the change and a full-weekday before the change.
Local Elected Officials are mainly city councilmen and the mayor. While these people
would have already approved of the fare change, they will, nonetheless, potentially field
questions from their constituents, important social service groups and, perhaps, the
media. Just before the fare increase takes affect, JEFFTRAN, through normal channels,
should remind the elected officials of the fare change and the salient facts about the
change. The communication can be through a written memo and/or through a verbal
reminder at a City Council meeting. This can take place within two weeks before the
effective date of the change.
General Public is the population at large who, in the main, do not ride the bus with any
regularity. A general announcement the day before the increase is sufficient. A one or
two paragraph press release explaining the change will provide the public basic
information. While most of the General Public will not have a vested interest in the
change, it is important for JEFFTRAN to let the public know that it has sound business
reasons to make a change. This can contribute to a positive image of the bus system.
1 Source: August 2005 Consumer Price Index (CPI) -All Urban Consumers versus 1982-1984 CPI, US City Average.
From US Bureau of Labor Statistics web site at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-binlsurveymost.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Promotions
The goal of promotions is to encourage people to use the bus, but also to assure people
that the bus system is a worthy community investment. There are four basic audiences
to which promotional efforts can be targeted. Some efforts can address more than one
audience at the same time. These audiences are:
• Riders-these are efforts to reach the day-to-day rider and encourage them to
either increase their use of the system or to keep them using the system.
• Institutional-these are efforts directed at public or private organizations that
have people who either currently use the system or could use the system if given
the right incentives .
• Internal/Funding Sources-these are efforts intended to inform elected officials
and senior municipal managers about the work of JEFFTRAN. It is important
that these people understand the value that JEFFTRAN brings to the community.
Since it is likely that the people who control most funding sources do not use the
system, it is vital to create a connection between them and the system.
• General Public-the community at large who may never or very rarely consider
using JEFFTRAN. JEFFTRAN's goal is to assure the general public that their tax
dollars are being properly spent and spent for a good reason. As with the
funding sources, they are typically disconnected from the system and typically
have no reason to seek out information about JEFFTRAN. For that reason, it is
important to find ways to attract positive attention.
The balance of this section addresses each audience and presents promotional
strategies and tactics as they relate to the earlier stated goals and objectives. Table 1 at
the end of this section summarizes promotional strategies.
Riders
Riders are people who, obviously, use the system with some degree of regularity. This
can be the person that uses the bus once a month or five times a week. They are the
key group that JEFFTRAN is trying to attract and retain.
Goals Addressed: Increase Current and New Riders
Clearer Public Information
Strateav 1: Revise Public Information. Improve clarity of public information by
keeping information simple and easily accessible. This is important in increasing riders
because the better people understand how the system works, the more likely they will
use it or expand their current use of the system.
Improving the clarity of public information refers to the format of how schedule and route
information is presented. While the use of the Internet has grown in recent years, most
transit riders still like to have a printed document in their hands. Further, information
physically given to riders can be displayed on the web so the investment in clear printed
information will have double utility.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Tactics:
•
•
Use abstract representation of the routes. It is not vital that route maps be
represented in a geographical! y pure way. A system map which shows the entire
route network can provide some spatial indication about the transit system, but it
is not entirely necessary for it to be scaled as a road map. One reason is that
riders will need to consult schedules to determine the time distance between
locations. The system map can graphically represent the service area but it is
not necessary for it to be a scaled map. Figure 2 shows an example of abstract
route graphics and schedule information from Raleigh, North Carolina. Many
transit systems use this type of route representation.
Change how route and schedule information is communicated to the public using
one of these three formats:
• Revised schedule book-which is similar to the format now used
by JEFFTRAN. The difference would be that the revised book
would have more abstract route graphics and be professionally
designed. See Figure 3 for a sample from Davenport, Iowa. The
advantage of this format is that a rider will have all of the system
schedules in one place. However, many riders do not need all the
routes. This can cause the system to spend more money on
public information because it is supplying too much information to
the public. An improved schedule book would cost about $3,100
per 3,000 units, not including design and set-up. Design and set-
up could cost about $2,000 to $3,000.
Figure 2: Sample Abstract Route Map and Schedule (Raleigh, North Carolina)
WEEKDAYS ... 4 5Z' .,57 -----§;Ill 5.,5
5:50 :;~-
t: ~~ 6 30
(55 ;-oo
? ~ ~ ?ZO
7 31:1 ~-~5
........ _ .. ._ __ ... _____ ..... _____ .. _ --·---
et
C.."'',um c1 arod
~unrtv"ttt()Oio:
Sill
'12
"12
__6;4L
7:17 w
7#
-_.
-···
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Figure 3: Sample Rider's Guide from Davenport Iowa
-~-------,
rc~ >)U\o\'l"~ .,....~
SPII NG F-.-.tl 100-4
•
•
---
~~---........ .. . ~ . ---·--. . '--0"": __ ...__ lll"r
-:,.
System Map/Schedule-involves integrating a system map and
individual route schedules in one printed piece. The system map
is on one side of the piece and the individual route schedules are
on the opposite side. It has some of the advantages of a route
book in that all system information is in one place. It is simpler
than a book because it is one sheet of folded paper. It is still
providing more information than most people need most of the
time. System/map combination would cost about $2,600 per
1 ,000 units, not including design and set-up. Design and set-up
can cost about $5,000 to $7,000. Figure 4 shows a sample
schedule/map combination from Bettendorf, Iowa.
Individual Public Schedules and System Map--<;reates separate
printed items for each route and an overall system map. Each
route has its own folded document. The schedule will also have
an abstract representation of the route. In addition, as a separate
document can be the overall system map. The map can be
distributed to individuals or posted at key places such as shelters
and major destinations. Most people need only one or two
schedules and rarely need a system map. By utilizing this option,
JEFFTRAN can concentrate its printed information on the most
popular routes. The cost of 4,500 schedules (500 copies for 9
routes) would be about $665, not including design services .
Design services would cost about $1,500 to $2,000. While
JEFFTRAN has 8 routes, the gth route is allowed for expansion or
a special service that might be operated only seasonally. See
Figure 5 for a sample public schedule from Des Moines, Iowa.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Figure 4: Sample Schedule/Map Combination from Bettendorf, Iowa
Figure 5: Sample Individual Public Schedule from Des Moines, Iowa
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Recommendation
Produce individual schedules (black and white or one-color) and system map (four-
color).
Institutional Partnerships
Institutional audiences include businesses, universities, government agencies and other
organizations that have employees or clients that would likely use the bus system.
Organizations who have limited on-site parking or entry level wage employees can
sometimes find it advantageous to work with the bus system in providing employee
transit incentives. Employers sometimes are motivated to provide transit benefits as a
way to attract and retain employees by providing such incentives. Going through
institutions can be a very effective means of attracting riders. Employees are more apt
to listen to their employers. When employers communicate a transit incentive it will get
their attention more than most other forms of communication.
The typical organizational incentive is some kind of subsidized fare program. In the case
of JEFFTRAN, the 20-ride pass (adult and student) can be used. If an unlimited ride
monthly pass is added to the fare policy, then it would also be covered by an institutional
subsidized fare program.
There are two basic strategies that JEFFTRAN can use with institutional customers:
employer subsidy program and a ''fee based" program which is more typical at
universities/colleges.
Goals Addressed : Increase New Riders
Promote the advantages of transit
Strateav 1: Employer Subsidy Program (ESP) is where the employer discounts the
cost of transit fare media. For example, if JEFFTRAN were to sell an unlimited ride
monthly pass for $21, the employer might pay part of the cost of that pass, thus allowing
the employee to acquire the pass at a lower price. Thus, the employer may pay
JEFFTRAN $21 for the pass and in tum charge the employee $18, creating a $3
subsidy. Some transit systems match the employer discount. In this example,
JEFFTRAN would match the $3 employer discount and the employee would pay $15 for
the pass-about a 28% reduction in the retail price of the pass. The lower price could be
an incentive for the employee to use the system. Usually a discount of about 15 percent
or more is a good discount level. A lesser discount would not be attractive. This kind of
program can be applied to private businesses or public employers such as the State of
Missouri, Cole County, or City of Jefferson City .
In the case of the State of Missouri, there may be a possible conflict with the shuttle
service provided by JEFFTRAN . While the State employees who park and ride the
shuttle may be drawn to JEFFTRAN's main line service, the numbers that would be
diverted would likely not materially impact the demand for the shuttle. If it did at some
point, it would be anticipated that the increase In passenger revenue on the main service
could in some way offset some of the loss In shuttle revenue.
Many systems have similar programs including Kansas City and Des Moines.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Tactics:
• Establish monthly pass, per earlier TOP recommendation.
• Identify employers who have employees who would likely ride bus. If
possible, obtain zip code residential addresses to determine proximity of
employees to bus service. If it is not possible to obtain such information, use
anecdotal information from the employers as to where people live. This will
verify if there is sufficient number of potential riders.
• Identify someone at each employer to act as a "transit coordinator." Often
times it can be someone in the human resource a rea of the firm.
• Determine an appropriate discount level. Fifteen percent off the regular price
of the pre-paid fare instrument would be a minimum discount. The discount
can be a combination of employer and JE FFTRAN subsidy.
• Develop printed information pieces, include on web site.
• Schedule "transportation fairs" at the employers to allow face to face contact
with employees. This will allow trip planning with employees and allow them
to ask questions about the E SP.
• Set a start date for the sale of passes, work out some kind of consignment
arrangement with the employer, and begin sales.
Goals Addressed: Increase New Riders
Ensure adequate revenue and funding
Promote the advantages of transit
Strategy 2: University Pass works in a similar fashion to ESP except instead of
employees, students and/or faculty and staff use the pass. The pass would allow
unlimited rides during a specified period. There are three options in which JEFFTRAN
could work with local colleges, such as Lincoln University. They are, according to TCRP
Report 94 2:
1. Voluntary ("opt inj participation -students decide if they want to buy passes at the
university's rate; for example, University of California-Irvine buys passes from Orange
County (CA) Transportation Authority for $33.50/month and sells them to students for
$13/month.
2. Voluntary ("opt out'7 participation -students automatically receive passes unless
they elect not to participate; for example, University of Washington (Seattle) students
are charged $33 per quarter, and faculty/staff $46.50 per quarter.
3. Mandatory participation -students automatically receive passes and cannot opt out
of the program; for example, University of Colorado (Boulder) students are charged a
mandatory transit fee of $19.52 per semester.
JEFFTRAN, if possible, should pursue the "mandatory" option, but the targeted
institutions may be reluctant to levy such a fee. In that case, one of the voluntary
options could be pursued instead.
2 TCRP Report 94-Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update, 2003, (Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC), pages 53 to 54.
10
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Tactics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify the colleges/universities with good JEFFTRAN service .
Determine transportation issues facing the institution. Is there sufficient
parking? Is the institution trying to attract disadvantaged people, people
who would ride the bus?
Determine residential locations of students/faculty/staff .
Determine route capacity and service times of routes connecting
residential locations with university or college. JEFFTRAN should make
sure there is some room for ridership on the routes and that the timing of
service is convenient to potential riders.
Consider conducting survey of potential riders and gauge interest in
service and a university pass program.
Prepare proposal with institution and lay out plan .
Strateav 3: Summer Youth Pass-would involve working through Jefferson City
Public School District and/or the City's Park and Recreation Department. A youth pass
would allow the holder to ride the bus unlimited times during the summer months. The
youth would buy the pass at a deep discount. According to the on-board survey, 21
percent of the riders are 25 years of age or younger. The youth pass would be targeted
to the under 18 years of age group with the assumption that not many people in this age
group currently ride in the summer. Thus, the risk is low in losing revenue by getting this
group to ride. Summer Youth Passes are common in the US. The Indianapolis transit
system has marketed summer youth passes in the past.
Tactics:
• Develop summer youth pass mechanism and pricing. A nominal $20 fee for
the summer (school out to school in) for unlimited rides could be considered.
JEFFTRAN should initially limit the program to students entering first through
twelfth grade.
• Contact the Jefferson City School District. The School-Community Relations
Department would be a good starting place if there are no other contacts
known to JEFFTRAN.
• Outline the plan to the district.
• Develop printed material explaining the program.
• Arrange for sale at the schools. Schools should be accountable for
reconciling passes sold and money collected.
• Start sales about one month prior to end of school.
Internal/Funding Sources
Funding sources are mainly the City of Jefferson City's elected and senior management
officials. While they likely have varied levels of knowledge of JEFFTRAN, most probably
do not have first hand experience with riding the system on a regular basis. This
disconnection is a challenge since people are more likely to support something they
know and less likely something they don't know. People not knowing the transit system
well may not fully appreciate what the system has to offer, and thus may not be in a
position to understand what funding it truly needs.
11
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Two strategies are proposed to bridge the "experience gap" between funding sources
and JEFFTRAN.
Goals Addressed: Ensure adequate revenue and funding
Promote the advantages of transit
Strateav 1: Open House/Annual Report-involves JEFFTRAN proactively reporting to
the City Council and others about its activities. The annual report can be simple and
include key operating and ridership statistics. It can also include highlights of the prior
12-months (such as community events in which JEFFTRAN was a participant).
An open house format may also be added. This would contain the contents of the
annual report and allow a tour of JEFFTRAN's facility. It is also an opportunity to
educate people on what JEFFTRAN does. Open houses will be difficult to get people to
attend, but tying in an open house with some other event might work. For example, a
meeting on the TOP might entice people to come. The dedication of a new building or
bus might also be an important event. Events that might garner positive media coverage
(where the mayor or some senior elected official would attend) would be another way to
improve attendance at the open house. Another variation would be to have a display at
City Hall where JEFFTRAN staff can meet elected officials prior to a regularly scheduled
meeting and present the annual report.
Tactics:
• Prepare annual report; decide on items that JEFFTRAN can highlight that
indicate the good work being done.
• Print and distribute annual report; arrange for presentation at a City Council
meeting. Coordinate presentation with distribution of the report.
• Decide if collateral events can be created that warrant an open house for mat.
• If an open house is called for, select a date and time that is most convenient
for councilmen and mayor to attend. Might consider special shuttle from City
Hall to JEFFTRAN open house location.
Strategy 2: Rider Postcards involves creating profiles of riders as well as their
testimonials about the service. This information is condensed into a single sheet or a
postcard. The purpose of the postcard would be to acquaint officials with those who
actually ride the bus and what the bus means to them. The postcards might have the
individual's photo on one side and information on the other. This approach has been
successfully used by transit systems in Iowa to obtain additional funding from the State.
See Figure 6 for a sample postcard used in Iowa.
Tactics:
• Identify some people who represent your typical rider. See if they would
consent to have their photo taken and used on the postcard. About five to six
people would be a good number to start with. Try to find people who are
dependent on the bus; young and old, male and female. Try to find people
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
that dispel the stereotype of bus riders (e.g., "little old ladies", or low-income
people who don't work).
• Interview the people you have chosen. Find out how long they've used the
bus, how they use it, which route(s) they use, and their experience in using
the bus. These must be honest and truthful statements. You should at least
use their first name, but first and last is best.
• Postcards can be 4 inches by 6 inches or 5 inches by 7 inches in size, or they
can be larger if desired.
Figure 6: Sample Rider Postcard from Iowa
I ~!'!!.1!..._~~:-~~~-t Leuu .. : In flo•••· IA
lh<1rtoo-1Nf·OI!!IffiiOIO_k_,. __ OIIIbtOO.~
w,... _,-'''"' ..,.., ..., • --· Af404I h ~ _lc ___ .. _ ... od_l.....,.,.. ... ,_.,..,
ty lofiW"" tllf-Do\ -lilA ...... with_ ... ~'1' Af404i ~"'*It '"'"',..,--·.,lilt <iy. SM. -lilt bus •• -.... , \too ......
""""'""' aJ -~~ ..... ~ ....... ..., !llop< ,., """ ... il1d .. ...,
...-.... inlloltio ........... trilllllwlt--llltiSIIf""'-
"" k-dll ,., W.. rlcMq tiiP"" Ia 'll'<ill .....t\4lllt «thfto
ttrt IYO(It6Gn"' It«~ ottwn. wsth ... tllf!, _. tc 1M n • «t"' lf1 n.
Or\ l&ol"f5 (OIUI'IUf'llll Sfle WJ1 t,.,t If It ftftft I foe IC(PS110it pesbllt ,,_..,.,.., .. btl.,_, -·t _,,. -Ia IlM! 11>r1
lltft-iffiiOIOitti<lllttll!rft'>OO"'""'I"flhtll"""""al""'-
-•fullollinlj-...,.,.>lr'"'ll!-tlloi•!U*trolllillf'llrlllilltlllf
Do\.._. MIA-Iio<'q ... -d htlpoAQ .....,...,11\_.,.,lo ... -·..,._tv
I'Uillt TIAIISI'IIII'fATIOIIIIU!! l DlmlntCI.
fACT ; ::::'t!:.":'z:::!:::.,-:..,.
--~----
13
I
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
General Pub/ ic
The general public is the community at large. They may never or very rarely consider
using JEFFTRAN. The underlying goal in promoting JEFFTRAN to this group is to
inform the community about transit needs and how the system is attempting to meet
those needs.
Goals Addressed: Ensure adequate revenue and funding
Promote the advantages of transit
Strateav 1: Public Service Announcements (PSAs) are advertisements that run on
television and/or radio relaying messages for the public good. Radio and television
stations are not required to run PSAs and some TV stations rarely run pre-produced
spots. However, some do and it can be a good way for JEFFTRAN to get "mass
media" exposure. PSAs may run at odd times during the day and may not necessarily
run during peak times. Another outlet may be the local community channel on the local
cable system.
Tactics:
• Work with Lincoln University or other institution about producing JEFFTRAN
specific ads (for radio, TV, or print). One of these institutions may do so as a
class project.
• Contact local media outlets, including the local cable community channel,
about their PSA policies.
• Arrange to air/print productions.
Goals Addressed: Ensure adequate revenue and funding
Increase New Riders
Promote the advantages of transit
Strateav 2: Community Partnerships through in-kind contributions is another effective
promotional activity . The idea here is for JEFFTRAN to align itself with community
significant events. For example, "Salute to America" is an event that JEFFTRAN may
work with . It could provide a free shuttle service to take people from remote parking to
the venue. In exchange for this service, JEFFTRAN could be listed as a sponsor on
event advertising. This has two benefits. First, JEFFTRAN's image is boosted because
it is associated with a high profile event. People tend to transfer good feelings about an
event to its sponsors. Second, when JEFFTRAN operates a shuttle chances are it will
be serving people who normally don't ride the bus. It is a wonderful opportunity to
showcase the bus service with a new group pf people. They may never end up riding
the service on a regular basis, but JEFFTRAN has an opportunity to show how riding the
bus can be a satisfying experience. This translates into goodwill and a positive
community Image. The Indianapolis public transit system successfully used this
approach in the 1990s.
14
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
Tactics:
• Identify worthwhile community activities by working with
o Parks and Recreation Department
o Convention and Visitor's Bureau
o Chamber of Commerce
o United Way
o Local sporting event groups (like marathon or walk-a-thon
organizers)
o Local media
• Look for activities where JEFFTRAN can provide a transportation shuttle or
allow people to ride the regular bus service as part of the activity.
Table 1 summarizes the above promotional recommendations and compares them with
TDP marketing goals and objectives.
Table 1: Comparing Recommended Promotional Strategies with Goals/Objectives
Audience/Strategy Goal/Objective
Increase Clearer Promote Ensure
Riders Information Advantages Adequate
of Transit Funding
Riders
Revise Public Information ./ ./
Institutional
Employer Program ./ ./
University Pass Program ./ ./ ./
Summer Youth Pass ./ ./ ./
Funding Sources
Open House/Annual report ./ ./
Rider Postcards ./ ./
General Public
Public Service I ./
Announcements
Community Partnerships ./ ./ I
Implementing the Marketing Plan
Table 2 on the next page provides estimated costs for the above marketing program.
The costs of printed materials assume the cost of design as well as printing of the
indicated quantities. Items noted in the comments referring to "program materials" and
"give-a-ways" are brochures explaining the programs and promotional items (e.g., coffee
mugs or pencils with JEFFTRAN name and phone number on them) that may be
distributed at program meetings with prospective customers. The actual costs of the
15
I
I
I
JEFFTRAN Marketing Plan March 2006
items in the table are dependent on whether the City has in-house capabilities and the
ability of the City to leverage "quantity" discounts should similar materials be bought by
other departments. The costs are truly estimates and the City may well obtain these
products at a much lower rate depending on local circumstances.
Also included in the cost is the hiring for a part-time marketing coordinate r. This person
would have the duty to implement the above recommendations, mainly focusing on the
parts of the program requiring public contact. The person would also be responsible for
preparing the marketing program materials. A full time JEFFTRAN person may need to
accompany the marketing coordinate r when making visits to schools and employers.
The estimated cost to implement the program per year is just over $52,000. These costs
could be reduced if the City of Jefferson City has in house printing capabilities that are
less expensive than going out of house. The marketing position might be shared with
another department to create a full-time job. A person with a 40 hour work schedule
might better put in a more productive 20-hour week for JEFFTRAN as they can fill-in with
the other duties if the JEFFTRAN portion of the job experiences delays or downtime.
For example, while the marketing person is waiting for a return phone call from a
JEFFTRAN contact, the person could be working on something else for the shared
department.
If the City is not in a position to finance the full marketing program, the following are
recommended priorities:
1. Rider
2. Funding Sources
3. Institutional-university and summer youth pass
4. Institutional-employer
5. General Public
Table 2: Summary of Estimated Marketing Program Costs
Program
Revise Public lrtormation
Employer Program
University Pass Program
Summer Youth Pass
Open Housel Am report
Rider Postca-ds
Public Service Announcements
Community Partnerships
Staff Person
Annual
$ 12,790
3,000
3,000
4,000
1,500
2,500
Corrwnenta
Up to 9 differ&nt individual route schadutas and one syslflm map
(47,500 B&W schadutes/yr and 1,825 maps/year, /nels one
modification/year per unit)
program mal9riats; give+ways (assume using existing fwe media)
program materia/1; give+ways; use student IDs
fJfO(T8m materials; give+ways; 1,000 pa1119s
materials; refreshments give+ways
mal9risls; refreshments give+wsys (1000 postcBtds)
10,000 subsidizfiB production costs; sir time fr9e assumed
In-kind cootribution JEFFTRAN to opflt'llte service; actvMising by psrtnw
15,600 Part Time person (20 tnlwk, no benefits. S 1/lllr)
i 52,3ecl
16