Transit COA Technical Memo #2 Service EvaulationDubuque Keyline Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Technical Memorandum #2
Transit Service Evaluation
LSC
Transportational Consultants, Inc.
Dubuque Key~ine
Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Technical Memorandum #2
Transit Service Evaluation
Prepared for:
City of Dubuque
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
(563) 589-4393
Prepared by:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
516 North Tejon Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
(719) 633-2868
LSC #085560
March 20, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................. I-1
Planning Process Update ...................................... I-1
Report Contents .............................................I-2
II FIXED-ROUTE OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL REVIEW ............. II-1
Operational Review .......................................... II-4
Vehicle Inventory ......................................... II-4
Fixed-Route Services ...................................... II-4
System Performance ...................................... II-6
Route Effectiveness ....................................... II-6
Financial Review ............................................ II-8
Revenues ............................................... II-8
Expenses ............................................... II-8
Cost Allocation Model ..................................... II-9
Route Efficiency ......................................... II-10
Overall Route Performance Score ............................ II-11
Initial Route and Services Review ........................... II-13
Community Comparison .................................. II-13
Unmet Demand ......................................... II-19
III EVALUATION OF KEYLINE MINI-BUS SERVICE ....................III-1
Introduction .............................................. .III-1
Background ............................................ .III-1
Scheduling and Dispatch Procedures ........................... .III-4
Scheduling a Trip ....................................... .III-4
Dispatching ............................................ .III-6
Performance .............................................. .III-6
Operating Budget ....................................... .III-7
Expenses ........................................... .III-7
Service Efficiency ........................................ III-10
General Service Trends ................................. III-10
Ridership and Effectiveness Trends ..................... III-11
Cost Per Service-Hour ................................. III-13
Cost Per Passenger-Trip ................................ III-13
Effectiveness ........................................... III-15
Passengers Per Service-Hour ............................ III-15
Trips Per Capita ...................................... III-15
Origin-Destination ....................................... III-15
RTA Service Overview ....................................... III-18
Financial Overview ...................................... III-18
Origin-Destination ....................................... III-19
Temporal Analysis .......................................... III-22
Mini-Bus Survey Analysis and Findings ......................... III-26
Demographic Characteristics ............................... III-26
Residence ........................................... III-26
Age and Gender ...................................... III-27
Annual Household Income .............................. III-28
Vehicle Availability and Licensed Driver .................... III-29
-ii-
Occupation ..........................................III-30
Ethnicity ............................................III-31
Source of Information ..................................III-32
Trip Characteristics ......................................III-32
Trip Purpose .........................................III-32
Reason for Riding .....................................III-33
Coming From and Going To .............................III-34
Ridership Frequency and Familiarity .........................III-36
Perceptions about KeyLine Transit ...........................III-37
Additional Comments ....................................III-38
IV PERFORMANCE MONTrORING ................................ IV-1
Monitoring Program ......................................... IV-1
Ridership ...............................................IV-1
On-Time Performance ..................................... IV-3
Financial Data ........................................... IV-4
Database Formats ........................................ IV-4
Performance Measures ....................................... IV-5
V CONCEPTUAL SERVICE OPTIONS .............................. V-1
Introduction ............................................... V-1
Types of Transit Service ...................................... V-1
Fixed-Route Service ....................................... V-1
Service Routes ........................................... V-3
Demand-Response Service .................................. V-3
Flexible Routes .......................................... V-4
Route Deviation ....................................... V-4
Checkpoint Service ..................................... V-4
Commuter or Express Service ............................... V-5
Fixed-Route Issues .......................................... V-5
Typography/Geography .................................... V-5
Timed Transfers .......................................... V-6
Route Duplication ........................................ V-6
West End Demand ........................................ V-8
Route Segment Boardings .................................. V-8
Conceptual Service in Dubuque ................................ V-8
Funding Alternatives ...................................... V-8
Service Concepts ......................................... V-9
Maintain Core Transfer Points ............................ V-9
Move Main Transfer Point from Downtown ................... V-9
General Public Dial-a-Ride ............................... V-9
Additional Hours of Service ............................. V-10
Paratransit Services ................................... V-10
Service Design ....................................... V-10
Option 1 ......................................... V-10
Option 2 ......................................... V-11
Option 3 ......................................... V-11
Option 4 ......................................... V-11
Option 5 ......................................... V-11
Option 6 ......................................... V-11
Alternative Fuels ........................................... V-19
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) ............................. V-19
Methanol ............................................. V-21
-111-
Ethanol ............................................... V-21
Diesel Fuel ............................................. V-22
Biodiesel .............................................. V-22
Hydrogen Fuel Technology ................................. V-23
AC Transit .......................................... V-23
VTA Transit ......................................... V-24
SunLineTransit ...................................... V-25
Hybrid Buses ........................................... V-26
King County Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Buses .......... V-26
Tax Credits ............................................ V-27
Overall Conclusions ...................................... V-28
APPENDIX A: Mini-bus Survey Form
APPENDIX B: Onboard Survey Comments
LIST OF TABULATIONS
Table Title Page
II-1 KeyLine Transit Fleet Inventory ............................... II-5
II-2 System Performance Fixed-Route Services ...................... . II-6
II-3 Route Effectiveness ....................................... II-7
II-4 KeyLine 2008 Fixed-Route Revenue Sources .................... . II-8
II-5 KeyLine Fixed-Route Expenses ............................... . II-9
II-6 Cost Allocation Model -Fixed-Route Services .................... . II-9
II-7 Route Efficiency .......................................... II-11
II-8 Overall Route Performance .................................. II-12
II-9 Iowa Peer Community Analysis Performance Measures ............ II-15
II-10 National Peer Community Analysis for Fixed-Route Service
Performance Measures .................................. II-17
III-1 KeyLine Paratransit FY2008 Budget ........................... .III-9
III-2 Mini-bus Historical Budget ................................. III-10
III-3 Cost Allocation Model for Mini-bus Services ..................... III-10
III-4 Mini-Bus Services ........................................ III-11
III-5 National Peer Community Analysis for Paratransit Service
2007 Performance Measures .............................. III-14
III-6 RTA Cost Allocation Model ................................. III-19
III-7 Comparison of Keyline Mini-bus and RTA Services ............... III-19
III-8 Mini-bus Service ......................................... III-37
V-1 Timed Pulse .............................................. V-7
V-2 2008 Estimated Paratransit Demand -Dubuque .................. V-9
V-3 2008 Greatest Transit Need Scores by Census Block Group ......... V-15
V-4 Census Block Groups with Greatest Transit Need ................ V-19
-iv-
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title Page
II-1 Trips per Hour ............................................ II-7
II-2 Household Demand by Block Group ........................... II-20
III-1 Mini-bus Service Area ......................................III-3
III-2 KeyLine Mini-Bus Ridership Summary ........................ .III-12
III-3 Mini-bus Weekly Origins/Destinations ......................... III-16
III-4 Mini-bus Weekly Travel Desire Lines .......................... III-17
III-5 RTA Weekly Origins/Destinations ............................ III-20
III-6 RTA Travel Desire Lines .................................... III-21
III-7 KeyLine Average Daily Mini-Bus Service Requests by Time of Day .... III-23
III-8 RTA Average Daily Service Requests by Time of Day ............... III-24
III-9 RTA and KeyLine Mini-bus Average Weekly Trips by Time .......... III-25
III-10 Residence ............................................... III-27
III-11 Age Cohorts ............................................. III-28
III-12 Gender ................................................. III-28
III-13 Annual Household Income .................................. III-29
III-14 Was a vehicle available? .................................... III-30
III-15 Do you have alicense? ..................................... III-30
III-16 Occupation .............................................. III-31
III-17 Ethnicity ............................................... III-31
III-18 Source of Information ...................................... III-32
III-19 Trip Purpose ............................................. III-33
III-20 Reason for Riding ......................................... III-34
III-21 Origin .................................................. III-35
III-22 Destination .............................................. III-35
III-23 Ridership Frequency ...................................... III-36
III-24 Can you use fixed-route services? ............................ III-37
III-25 Does service operate late enough? ............................ III-38
IV-1 Manual Passenger Boarding Counters .......................... IV-2
V-1 Option 1 ................................................ V-13
V-2 Option 2 ................................................ V-14
V-3 Option 3 ............................................... V-15
V-4 Option 4 ................................................ V-16
V-5 Option 5 ................................................ V-17
V-6 Option 6 ................................................ V-18
-v-
CHAPTER i
Introduction
The City of Dubuque (KeyLine) contracted with LSC Transportation Consultants,
Inc. to complete an Operational Analysis with a focus on determining the needs
for future service expansion and to identify efficiencies in providing those services.
The overall approach to this project is to collect and evaluate boarding data,
review origin-destination information, provide an analysis of demand, and review
operational characteristics. This report represents the second in a series of four
reports and presents an operational and financial review as well as the develop-
ment of performance monitoring and standards, identification of system deficien-
cies, and presentation of preliminary concepts for further study.
PLANNING PROCESS UPDATE
LSC has had two meetings with key staff in the area who serve as an Advisory
Committee providing direction and input into the study. LSC was on-site in
December 2008, and January and February 2009. The team has conducted an
onboard survey and count program for the fixed-route service, completed an
onboard survey for the Mini-bus services, collected financial and operating data,
and looked at system deficiencies. LSC investigated current services provided in
the area and made field notations of possible changes. These observations will be
presented as part of the operational review and formalized as part of the recom-
mendations in Technical Memorandum #3 in June.
LSC held two open houses to engage members of the community. These meetings
were held at the Five Flags Civic Center in February 2009. Meetings were held
from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, and from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
on Wednesday, February 18. These meetings gave the LSC team a chance to
update the public on the process and to provide a forum for the public to discuss
improvements to the system.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page I-1
CHAPTER II
Fixed-Route Operational and financial Review
Chapter II presents an overview of route operations and financial information for
KeyLine Transit. This information will be used to develop future service recom-
mendations. Information is organized as follows:
• System Performance
• Route Performance
• Financial Performance
• Route and Service Review
• Unmet Demand
Prior to reviewing the various performances of KeyLine Transit, it is important to
point out some key terminology, including:
Cost per Passenger-Trip (One-Wayf -Total system costs (all operating expenses
plus administrative costs plus capital costs on a depreciation schedule) divided
by the number ofpassenger-trips. Costs and trips must be recorded over the same
period of time.
Cost per Vehicle-Hour-Total system costs divided by the sum of the number of
hours that each vehicle is operated in service. The typical usage is vehicle
revenue-hours.
Cost per Vehicle-Mile -Total system costs divided by the total distance traveled
by all vehicles in the system when they are in service. The typical usage is vehicle
revenue-miles.
Effectiveness - For a transportation system, the effect is that people are moved
from one place to another (i.e., trips). Measures of the effectiveness of a transpor-
tation system are, for example, the number of trips taken on it or the number of
individual persons that it serves. Or a transportation system can be evaluated in
terms of its effectivenes s toward a social goal; for example, the number of persons
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Page II-1
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Revie~.u
who can take advantage of a particular social service because ofthe transportation
system.
Efficiency -The efficiency of a transportation system will be some measure of the
relationship of system inputs to system outputs. Transit planning has generally
expressed this efficiency measure in terms of the ability to minimize an input (i.e.,
costs) to produce a unit of output. The most often used measures are cost per
passenger or cost per vehicle-mile.
Fixed Costs -Typically those costs that are less (or not at all) sensitive to changes
in service. Theyinclude such items as general supervision, overhead and adminis-
tration, rents, and debt service. Fixed costs are differentiated from variable costs
because they represent those costs that must be met whether the service operates
or not. If the project runs into operating problems (e.g., loss of passengers), fixed
costs will continue.
Level of Service - In transportation literature, level of service is generally defined
as a measure of the convenience, comfort, safety, and utility of a system or system
component (vehicle, facility, etc.) from the passenger's point of view. A variety of
measures can be used to determine a particular component's level of service. In
transit, level of service measures incorporate such factors as availability and fre-
quency. Level of service is typically designated in six ranges from A (best) to F
(worst) for a particular service measure based on the passenger's perception of a
particular aspect of the transit service.
One-Way Passenger-Trips -Refers to the total number of boarding passengers
carried on all routes.
Passenger-Miles -The sum of the trip distances traveled by all passengers.
Passenger-Trips -The number of one-way trips by persons using the system.
Each passenger counts as an individual trip even if there is group boarding and
alighting at common points.
LSC
Page II-2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
Passengers per Vehicle-Hour -The number of passenger-trips divided by the
sum of the number of hours that each vehicle is operated.
Passengers per Vehicle-Mile -The number of passenger-trips divided by the
number of vehicle-miles provided by all vehicles.
Productivity -The basic performance parameter that describes transit and para-
transit service, defined as the number of passenger-trips per vehicle-hour of
service. This is typically defined in terms of the number of revenue-hours.
Productivity =Passenger-TripsNehicle Service-Hours
Revenue-Hours and Miles -Those vehicle-hours and miles during which the
transit vehicle is actively providing service to passengers. For fixed-route service,
this includes all the time spent on routes when passengers may board the vehicle.
For demand-response service, this includes all time spent in actively providing
passenger service. It includes the time and miles between dropping off one pas-
sengerand picking up another even though there may be no passengers onboard
at the time.
Variable Costs -Those costs that are sensitive to changes in the actual level of
service. They are usually affected by the vehicle-miles, vehicle-hours, or some
other measure of level of service. Variable costs typically include such items as
fuel, oil, tires and tubes, drivers' wages, and other items of expense that are
sensitive to the level of operation. Vehicles and equipment items purchased have
life expectancies which require that a depreciation factor be included when
figuring costs. Most typically, depreciation is figured on a straight-line basis with
a 10 percent residual salvage value at the end of that time. The length of time
depends on the type of vehicle.
Vehicle-Hour -Either the time the engine is running or the time a driver is
assigned to a vehicle; the operating time for a vehicle. Revenue-hours are the
hours when the vehicle is operating and available for passenger service.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Page 77-3
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
Vehicle-Miles -The total number of miles driven on all vehicles used to provide
passenger service. Revenue-miles are the miles operated by vehicles available for
passenger service.
OPERATIONAL REVIEW
Vehicle Inventory
The current inventory of buses that KeyLine owns, for both fixed-route and
paratransit service is listed in Table II-1. This table provides details about the
buses including the model year and capacity. As seen in the table, there are
currently six fixed-route vehicles and four paratransit vehicles due for
replacement. In general, larger buses should be replaced at around 12 years, with
smaller buses needing replacement at around seven years, and vans at five years.
There are also three paratransit vehicles that should be replaced during the
current year, bringing the total number of vehicles due to be replaced to 13. Also
important to note is the number of fixed-route buses. As a general rule, a transit
system should have about 20 percent of the maximum vehicles operated in daily
service as spares. The system currently operates ten fixed-route buses in
maximum service when the trolley is in operation, and has a total of 14. The
higher spare ratio may reflect the age of the vehicle fleet. The trolley buses, which
are buses 2579 and 2580, are the newest in KeyLine's fixed-route fleet, with
expected replacement occurring in 2015. As vehicles are replaced, the fleet size
should be adjusted to incorporate an appropriate spare ratio.
Fixed-Route Services
KeyLine Transit operates four regular fixed routes-the Green, Orange, Red and
Grey routes, along with a seasonal trolley. The four fixed routes operate from
roughly 6:00 a.m to 6:15 p.m on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m to 5:30 p.m. on
Saturday. The trolley is directed at serving tourists to Dubuque and operates on
a shuttle loop to important downtown destinations. The trolley runs from
Memorial Day until Labor Day, operating seven days a week. From Labor Day until
October 31st, the trolley operates a limited service, running only on Friday
evenings and on weekends.
LSC
Page II-4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
d N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N N N
N N
N N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
3 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~
O ~
O N N ~
0 N N N _N N
LL ^ 0 ~ O ~ O 0 ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ D ^ ~ D 0 ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ 0
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z ~. Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ to cn cn cn cn cn to O cn ~ ~ cn ~ ~ to ~ ~
w w w w w W W W W W W w W W W W w w w w w W w w w
~.i''
'
-
~ V
C Q O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r O O
r O O
r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
~~+ f6
N U
~ ao ao ao 0o ao ao rn rn rn rn rn rn ao 0o v d~ ~. o co co 0o co co m cfl co
N Q M M M M M M N N N N N N N N r r r r r
N U
~s s
~~
to
to
~
to
~
to
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
CO
c}
V'
~1'
M
M
M
M
M
r N V' M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N
G -~
~ w
M O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
r d ~~ fH O
' O
' O
' O O
' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
' O O O O O O
'
Q) r+ ~ 00
R O )
t!
d' )
t!
V X1
1
~t to
V )
t1
V t()
V t!y
7 t(y
N 1.f)
N tf)
N In
N b
N «y
N 1.[)
N In
(O to
CO O
d' to
(O to
f0 l!
)
fD to
(O In
CO t.C)
CD In
(O In
CO t!
)
Cfl
~ LL ~ V O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
~
F- ~ w
d
O
~
F V fA EA fA Efl fA ER ffl fA EH V3 fA 69 fA EA 64 fR EA fR fA fA W3 ER ER fA V3 ER
d
= ""'
7 d
J a
~
Y
~ l6
~
O
N
N
W
r
00
r
CO
r
f4
r
N
N
Q
l~6 ~
1' O
w
C ~
d ~
m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ 0 0 0 0 0
v O W W W W W W
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z W W W W W W W
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
,~ `o
d ~ ~ ~ ~ r } } } } } } } y.
d
~ ~
y W
00 00
OO
6l
O M
O M
O V' '~ ~ ~ V' <}' t!) In N
O N
O
O M
O O
O O
O O
O N N N
r N
r N
r
C
~
y O M O
r O M O O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N
C
C
Y G L
~
v at6i
ca }
W d
f0
h t0
t~ O
I~ O
ti
W
W N
O N
O N
O N
O N
O N
O M
O M
O to
O tt)
O (fl
O t0
O N
O N
O N
O ~
O ~
O t!')
O t17
O t!7
O
L O
r O
r 61
r O
r O O O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O O O O O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N
~
d
~
~
N
'd'
O O e0
tL') O
tf) O
fD
CO M
(O V
CO to
CO (O
CD i~
(O W
(O O
f~ O
00 _y r
00 N
00 G
(0 N
~
O N
O M
f~ M
00 ~'
00 t!y
00 CO
00 1~
00
y ~ to t1') tf~ by t1') to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ln ~ ~ LD ~ M ~ ~ ~ to (D Lf)
r.
_ ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ N N N N N N N N N N
_
C a W W
Z X G
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Page II-5
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
System Performance
Operating effectiveness and financial efficiency of the transit system are two
important factors to the success of the system. The operating effectiveness is the
ability of the transit service to generate ridership. Financial efficiency is the ability
of the transit system to provide service and offer passenger-trips in acost-efficient
manner. Table II-2 presents the systemwide characteristics for KeyLine Transit's
2008 fiscal year.
Table II-2
System Performance
Fixed-Route Services
KeyLine FY 2008
Operating Cost $1,545,816
Fare Revenue $130,000
Ridership 270,762
Vehicle-Miles 291,885
Vehicle-Hours 25,122
Operating Effectiveness
Pass.-Trips per Mile 0.9
Pass.-Trips per Hour 10.8
Financial Efficiency
Cost per Trip $5.71
Cost per Vehicle-Hour $61.53
Source: KeyLine/LSC.
Route Effectiveness
The route performance section presents the current passengers, passengers per
hour, and passengers per mile. Table II-3 presents this information. As shown,
there are routes that are very effective at providing service and those that perform
relatively poorly. The Red route is the most effective route, averaging approxi-
mately 10 passenger-trips per revenue-hour, nearly three trips per hour higher
than the systemwide average. Additionally, nearly one trip per mile is provided.
LSC
Page II-6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
FINANCIAL REVIEW
One important aspect of operating and sustaining transit services is a review of
the financial capabilities of the system. KeyLine Transit has seen rising costs in
terms of labor and fuel prices. Many systems are experiencing these dramatic
increases and are trying to cope with budgetary issues. This section provides a
review of the financial characteristics of KeyLine Transit.
Revenues
The revenue required to operate the Dubuque Transit System comes from a variety
of sources including transit tax, federal grants, and passenger fares. The total
revenue in FY 2008 was X2,345,688. Please note that this amount does not
include Mini-bus passenger fares that totaled X62,351. Table II-4 provides existing
revenue sources. Over half of the revenue is from local sources.
Table II-4
Ke Line 2008 Fixed-Route Revenue Sources
Budgeted Percentage of
Source Revenues Budget
Federal Grant $723,308 31
State Grant $203,000 9%
Property Tax $1,253,638 53%
Farebox/Contract Revenue $154,742 7%
Advertising Revenue $11,000 0%
TOTAL REVENUES $2,345,688
Source: KeyLine, 2008
Expenses
The other half of the total equation is, of course, expenditures. Total expenditures
for the 2008 fiscal year were $1,545,815 not including Mini-bus service costs. The
primary expenses for KeyLine Transit (and all other transit agencies across the
United States) are salaries and benefits. Table II-5 provides existing expenditures
for the fixed-route service.
LSC
Page II-8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
Table II-5
Ke Line Fixed-Route Ex enses
Expenditure Amount % of Total
Administration
Operations
Maintenance $160,646
$846,768
$538,401 10.4%
54.8%
34.8%
Total $1,545,815
Source: SCTS and LSC, 2008.
Cost Allocation Model
Financial, ridership, and service information can be used to develop internal
evaluation tools for KeyLine Transit. A cost allocation model provides base infor-
mation against which current operations can be judged. In addition, the model is
useful for estimating the cost ramifications of any proposed service alternative.
The KeyLine Transit fixed-route cost allocation model is shown in Table II-6.
V V.7~ F111V l.Q GIV 11 IYIVVC/ ~ r1AClA~RV USG JCI V14G.7 ~)
Pro osed Account Budget
FY 08 Vehicle-
Hours Vehicle-
Miles Fixed
Cost
Administration $160,646 X160,646
Wages $443,796 $443,796]
Benefits
$118,033 ~_
$118,033
Other Employee Expenses $903 $903
Insurance
$30,544 ~u.-_ ~ v
~
__$30,544 °'
Utiliites and Property $27,894 1 _ j _
$27,894
Motor Vehicle Ex enses
p $224,678
$224 678
~
Contract Services
$920
~ ~.wG.~
$920 ~
,- - ,~.
~I
Maintenance $538,402
_~
_ $538 402
~
_ u~
Subtotal Operating $1,545,816 $562,733 $763,999 $219,084
Service Variable Quantities veh-hrs veh-mis Fixed-Cost
Used for PlanningPurp~es 25,122 ~ 291,885 Factor
$22.40 ~~ $2.62 ~ 1.17
Source: SCTS, 2008. ~~
Cost information from the 2008 fiscal year was used to develop atwo-factor cost
allocation model of the current KeyLine Transit operations. In order to develop
such a model, each cost line item is allocated to one of two service variables-
hours and miles-and fixed costs. Fixed costs are those costs that are identified/
defined as being constant. These costs do not increase or decrease based on the
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Page II-9
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
level of service. This is a valid assumption for the short term, although fixed costs
could change over the long term (more than one or two years). Examples of the
cost allocation methodology include allocating fuel costs to vehicle-miles and
allocating operator salaries to vehicle-hours. The total costs allocated to each
variable are then divided by the total quantity (i.e., total revenue-miles or hours)
to determine a cost rate for each variable.
The allocation of costs for KeyLine Transit 2008 fiscal year operations yields the
following cost equation for existing fixed-route bus operations:
Total Cost = $1,326,732 + ($2.62 xRevenue-Miles) + ($22.40 xRevenue-Hours)
OR
Total Cost = ($2.62 xRevenue-Miles + $2.62 xRevenue-Hours)
x Fixed-Cost Factor (1.17)
Incremental costs such as the extension of service hours or service routes/areas
are evaluated considering only the mileage and hourly costs:
Incremental Costs = ($2.62 xRevenue-Miles)+ ($22.40 xRevenue-Hours)
Route Efficiency
Using the cost allocation model, the current route efficiency can be evaluated.
Table II-7 provides a summary of route efficiency performance measures. As
shown, cost per mile and cost per hour of service combined provide the operating
cost per route minus administration of services. This information can be used to
gauge route efficiency. The measure for determining cost efficiency is the cost per
passenger-trip.
The route with the lowest cost per passenger trip is the Red route. This route costs
the agency about X4.74 per passenger trip. In contrast, the Orange route has a
cost of ~ 11.00 per passenger trip. This cost is much higher because of lower
ridership throughout the route.
LSC
Page II-10 KeyLine Operational Aruzlysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
Table II-7
Route Efficient
Route Average
Annual
Miles Annual
Passenger-
Trips
Hours Marginal
Operating
Cost
Total Cost
Cost/Trip
Red 73,810 84,182 6,656 $342,290 $398,812 $4.74
Orange 48,800 20,676 3,016 $195,291 $227,539 $11.00
Green 80,520 73,892 7,176 $371,501 $432,847 $5.86
Grey 80,520 83,344 7,176 $371,501 $432,847 $5.19
Trolley 8,235 8,668 1,098 $46,150 $53,771 $6.20
Total 291,885 270,762 25,122 $1,326,732 $1,545,816
Average 58,377 54,152 5,024 $265,346 $309,163 $5.71
Note: Total Cost includes Administratim
Source: SCTS and LSC 2008.
Overall Route Performance Score
To evaluate the routes total effectiveness and efficiency, LSC developed an overall
route index score based upon:
a. Annual number of one-way passenger-trips
b. Operating cost (fully allocated) per mile
c. Operating cost (fully allocated) per hour
d. Cost per trip
Table II-8 provides the index scores for all routes. Those above the average score
of 11 should be reviewed to determine where efficiencies and effectiveness can be
improved. The routes performing at the highest efficiency are Red and Grey
followed by Green. The Orange route and the trolley are the least efficient routes,
with a composite index score of 15.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page 77-11
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
Initial Route and Services Review
A review of existing fixed routes was completed in January 2009. The LSC Team
conducted a field observation of all routes and service areas. The following key
highlights were noted based on these observations.
• The route structure is somewhat confusing and difficult to follow. Many of
the routes seem to have been appended over time as new developments
arose, deviating from the original design or concept.
• Most of the areas with the greatest transit needs are served quite well.
• A large ridership cohort seems to be school-aged children. It will be
important to ensure that the major schools are still served during any route
reconstruction.
• The downtown transfer point is difficult for both passengers and buses.
There are not appropriate facilities forpassengers to wait during inclement
weather.
• It is difficult for many users to make connections at transfer points with the
current schedule, resulting in long travel times for some trips.
• Because of the hours during which the system operates, it is difficult for
users to commute to and from full-time jobs or jobs that end after 4:00 p.m.
Community Comparison
To better understand KeyLine Transit a comparison analysis was performed with
other systems in Iowa. Table II-9 provides a comparison with the following com-
munities:
• Ames
• Cedar Rapids
• Davenport
• Des Moines
• Sioux City
• Iowa City
While no two communities are exactly alike in terms of population and area,
certainly general comparisons can be made between KeyLine Transit operations
and these other Iowa communities. As shown, Dubuque is one of the smaller
areas, particularly considering that the area population shown for both Ames and
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page II-13
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
Iowa City do not include college students. Hence the trips per capita for these two
communities are much higher than others.
Dubuque has a lower than average number of passengers per hour compared to
the other systems; the average for the other systems is 27 passengers per hour,
while for Dubuque it is around 11.
KeyLine Transit is performing well when compared to other Iowa communities in
terms of cost per hour and cost per mile. When discussing cost per hour,
Dubuque has a lower cost than all other systems with the exception of Ames. The
system operates at nearly ~ 15.00 per hour less than the average of the other Iowa
systems. Dubuque also has the second lowest cost per mile, trailing only Des
Moines.
A more comparable analysis is provided in Table II-10, which shows a peer com-
parison with systems across the country that are more similar to Dubuque. The
cost per passenger-trip for Dubuque continues to remain above the average of the
other systems. This is largely due to the lower ridership being experienced by
KeyLine Transit.
LSC
Page II-14 KeyLine Operational Aruilysis, Technical Memorandum #2
m o n v o o m n
N N M N N O 0 uj ~D
d r
y G. tri
a~ O O l0 (O
N N 7
d A
'` U
F
N m W M V t
~ t
0 N 0 ~
a d ~ ~ ~ °Ey 6N9 ~ w
o~
U
~ ° rn ~ ~ ~ ro
d
a~ N
v> o
V
co N
n t0
n M
N
n O
ro t+1
t- t[j
N
N C to fA to N9 fA d3 W 69
O x
U
N N O O O V r
(
O ~
y N
~
~ V)
ffl V
fA M
H9 (M
to (V
69 l`!
{9 lfj
69
0 0-
v
O O N ~ ~ O M
d
ad
~! ~T
O
tV f
p
O p
j
p
N ~
a
O M M 0 M
r tq
d ai v ed v ri ~i o
D. V N N M N
y o
R x
a
M N ~ V 0
y
N
O
N
O ~ (
0 10
A
d
~
ui
O
V
N
M
M
~
` N 0 0 0 O ~ N
{j > 6
9 6
9 N ~ fA N ~ ~
d
O ~
OI
c m r
~ N
m N
m N
Sri N
vi ~ O
i
n "~
~ ~ ~ N N O W ~ N ~
~ 1
f1 O
D M
~ ~A
y
~` i
d
(O
(yO
c0
O
N
M
~
M
M
N
(NO
A ,G N V' t!j N O ~ CO r
Q~ G~
d M ~ O W
O N
O (O ~ On
N
p~ d
~?.` ~2 ~
Q .a
~ V M N
y C d
7 d
F~ E E N 0 r 0 O M o N
U o _
t6 y m i ri n n °~ O `~
A N C Q 01 r
n i
to N M N r N
c a ax
~ V O N N ~
M ~
A y
7 d W
N CO
M (O
O (O
O (V ~
0 N
c O o n ~ u> m
N °'
N
Q ~ n rS
y N N n W ~ N O O
~r d M
O u
C t
Z ~
~ (O
n 00 ~ 0 N O O
p N m ~ O M O
A N ~ 00i M O 0 M b
a
°
a
c
0
c N
0
. 0
~
u
J
O
L
d
N _
Q
~ r
N m
~
N p
K Q.
~..,
U m
F-
C U LL ;N ~ ~ ~
V C ~= T N
~ ~ O
Y
U
~ ~ t- o v
i
J
Q F
N J
.0
~ _
d
rG ..
y d
~
'~
a d ` Q
C
l0
l0
0 N
C
.. F W
(~ a U
t-
~
o
U ~
Q
O W
y
d N
" N ~ K U W O v
O > y O ?i « .`~
Q U ~ ~ O7 O Q U h
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
(This page intentionally left blank.)
LSC
Page II-16 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
~ N
y A V N ~ 1 ~ N ~ b
a .• of r t~ m 1n ro of v
m a
a 10
'~ U
F
ro n v M `v N °' ~
`w u
i c r
i ~
a v c'~s ~» ~» » M» ~ sMS w ~
o ~
v
m rn ~ a m r w
~ L
a N
~
M (0 10
r
0 O)
~ N
0
~ try
h
7
~ = fA t
0
Yf r
b9 fR 1
0
fA b9 1
0
fA fA ~
O
V
ms N ~ O M N r N {p
d e
- 6J W M N M O
a N ~ ~ ~ ~ bM4 MM bN4 ~ 6~9
N A
oa
U
~ O 0 ~ M M
C
d W
O r .'
V i
6
O
O '
V N p
j
p
R
a
o eo m rn m 1n r N co
d
a ~ (~
N (V fV
N d) '~! O M
N ~ p
~+ O
m =
a
co m r M m o m
~ N W N O N 0 ~
d f
0. ~
1p d ~ N M 'Oa' N ~ M M N
{y > ffl f9 fA V3 fA E9 f9 eA ~
d ~
u
m rn o0 o
1 m o0 o rn
~
!n
G M
in n
ffl
M °
In v
in v
~
t ~
d ~ M
O ~ O N r r ~
~ ~'O O W
~ m ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ H
a O b
4 fA
K
LL`
a N
O 10
M O
O N M O N
~
N
N .G O M
01 N
N W
P') O
t+1 t0
n
y d ~ f0
r r
N N
t0 t0 r to O V O
~
rC C
9 M d' O O H fN0 n ~ N
~ Q
d C V
m ~
~ Q
F
~ ~ ~ N o c0 r o N
~, R L^ ~ N ° m a v N o
c o M M VN' N ~ h M V N
a =
Q
O
~
r 10
W ~ ~ O V M ~ ~ ~
d H
~ N M :
M W M O
N
q C ~ ~
V' i
0
t0 r c0 O
N 10 N
Q ~ t0
O
Z
N M M ` O
N r
M p
V- d
O U
O L
Z ~
° ro °
o
10
M o
0
0
0
0
~
O
~
~ M Oi 1n 1
0 r
Q i+
O
p
N ~ N r r W h
d A
V ~
'Z a
o
~
a
~
F
N
p o Z
1C ~ U F
0 ~ J ~
.
.1
O O LL Q
d U 1L
~ ~ N ~_
~ ~ wN ~ ~
v~ a ~ m ~ o ~ ¢ '" o
H ~ ~ U ~ ~ N
G d ~ Q ~ ~ ~ U
~ N .. c ~ ~ (~ in N j
F c ~ .
In U (~ w !n j a
rn ~
r O C
~
'm ~'
'N
W m
N
m N ~ ~ ~ H N W ` U
F- ~ y O f- Vl
0 11 U lL >, ~ ?
• ~;
O o b G N o
~
y ~ U d a W '
d
C7
ti
~
~
rn
~
¢
O o
y
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
(This page intentionally left blank.)
LSC
Page II-18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
Unmet Demand
In order to determine the amount of demand that is being missed by the current
route structure, affixed-route transit demand model was used. The fixed-route
model was first calibrated to match the current ridership, meaning that the
calculated demand represents the current boardings. These data were then
extrapolated to the entire Dubuque area to gauge where potential demand is not
being met. Figure II-2 shows the current route structure with the density of transit
demand based on current patterns. As can be seen in this figure, the majority of
areas are served with only a few outlying areas showing potential demand that is
being missed. It must also be understood that the existing demand is based on the
current level and quality of service. As service is improved, the demand may be
expected to increase.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page ZI-19
CHAPTER III
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus operations. The evalu-
ation details scheduling and dispatch procedures, performance, and service
policies.
Background
KeyLine Transit is the public transportation provider for the City of Dubuque. All
public transit systems operating fixed-route service are required under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 to provide a complementary system
of transit for persons with a disability and who cannot use traditional fixed-route
service. This service is required to be in place within three-quarters of a mile of
any traditional fixed routes.
Additionally, the ADA requires that the service be provided during the times when
fixed-route bus service is operated. As such, trips can be scheduled for pick-up
from 6:20 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 7:50 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. on Saturdays. Since fixed-route service does not operate on Sundays or on
the listed holidays, paratransit service is not offered:
• New Year's Eve
• New Year's Day
• Memorial Day
• Fourth of July
• Labor Day
• Thanksgiving Day
• Christmas Eve
• Christmas Day
The ADA specifies that fares for paratransit service can be up to twice the fare for
a fixed-route trip. The KeyLine fare for paratransit is $1.00 for each one-way ride
for ADA customers and $2.00 per one-way ride for seniors or non-ADA certified.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page 117-1
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
Riders wishing to use the paratransit service are required to be certified as ADA
complementary paratransit-eligible or be 65 years or older to qualify to ride. Key-
Line administers the application process through an eligibility certification for all
ADA patrons. The applicant must provide the name of a social service pro-
fessional, rehabilitation counselor, physician, or other health care professional
who is familiar with the applicant's disabling condition and how that condition
prevents the applicant from using fined-route services.
There are no trip restrictions or ranking of trip purposes. Service is as comparable
to fixed-route as possible. Figure III-1 presents the service area as defined by
three-quarters of a mile from the fixed-route service.
LSC
Page III-2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
SCHEDULING AND DISPATCH PROCEDURES
There are two unique functions in regard to providing paratransit services to
individuals deemed unable to use fixed-route service. The first is scheduling a trip.
The second function is the dispatching of those trips. These two functions are
described in the following section.
Scheduling a Trip
Unlike the traditional KeyLine fixed-route service, Mini-bus users must schedule
trips in advance of the actual trip time. Mini-bus offers door-to-door trips. That is,
the patron can be aided from the door of the trip origin to the door of the desti-
nation. Typically, this is viewed as a very high level of service, as many agencies
only offer curb-to-curb service. Curb-to-curb service meets the minimum
requirements of the ADA.
As mentioned, Mini-bus provides services to those individuals who are certified
as eligible riders, which can include those age 65 or older. Eligibility determina-
tion is made and the applicant is notified after both the properly completed
application form and the Professional Verification form have been returned.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the basic standard for deter-
miningeligibility is not whether a disabling condition exists butwhether (orunder
what circumstances) the applicant's disabling condition prevents them from using
the regular fixed-route bus service. In some cases, eligibility is established for only
certain circumstances; however, the eligibility appears very flexible, as many who
are not disabled are allowed to use the service, which may adversely affect the
service.
Once eligibility is determined, patrons wishing to schedule a ride can call a local
telephone number to request rides. Rides are scheduled on a first-come, first-
served basis to ensure that eligible individuals have an equal chance to use the
service.
LSC
Page III-4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
The following example of a call to schedule a ride is typical.
"This is (name). I live at (address). On (date) I need a ride from my home (or
other location) to (destination). I want to be there by (time) and I'd like to return
from there at (time)."
The user is then instructed to tell the dispatcher the following applicable infor-
mation: whether help is needed from the door to the vehicle or from the vehicle to
the door at the destination; whether the person uses a wheelchair, scooter, or
walker; and whether the person has a Personal Care Attendant (PCA).
During the phone call, the dispatcher may let the patron know the pick-up and
return times or may call back later with that information.
A time for the return trip is scheduled in advance unless it is for a medical
appointment where it is not known when the person will be finished with the
appointment. In that case, the user should request a return ride to be listed as
To-Be-Scheduled (TBS). When the user is listed as TBS for a return ride, they are
required to call when they are ready to return. The next available vehicle will then
be dispatched to pick up the person as soon as possible.
Mini-bus makes every effort to arrive as close to the scheduled pick-up time as
possible. However, the vehicle may arrive up to 30 minutes before the scheduled
pick-up time. This 30-minute period of time is defined as the pick-up window, and
passengers are required to be ready for pick-up anytime within that period.
After arriving within that pick-up time period, drivers can wait for five minutes
after vehicle arrival. Any passenger who is not at their scheduled pick-up point
and ready to go at that time will be left behind in order for the driver to continue
with their other scheduled rides. The driver will not be able to return for a second
attempt.
Rides can be scheduled up to 14 days in advance or the day before the trip.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page III-5
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
Dispatching
The dispatch/scheduler is responsible for taking calls, negotiating trip times, pre-
paring trip manifests for the following day's drivers, handling complaints, and
answering questions. The dispatching software RouteMatch is used. Software is
used to schedule and optimize trips, prepare reports, and store information on the
trip.
PERFORMANCE
Two specific measures of a transit system's performance are effectiveness and
efficiency. For a transportation system, the effect is that people are moved from
one place to another (i.e., trips). Measures of the effectiveness of a transportation
system are, for example, the number of trips taken on it, or the number of individ-
ual persons that it serves. Or a transportation system can be evaluated in terms
of its effectiveness for a social goal-for example, the number of persons who can
take advantage of a particular social service because of the transportation system.
The efficiency of a transportation system will be some measure of the relationship
of system inputs to system outputs. Transit planning has generally expressed this
efficiency measure in terms of the ability to minimize an input (i.e., costs) to
produce a unit of output. The measures used most often are cost per passenger
or cost per vehicle-mile.
The following performance measures will be used to assess Mini-bus operations:
Cost per Passenger-Trip (One-Way) -Total system costs (all operating expenses
plus administrative costs plus capital costs on a depreciation schedule) divided
by the number ofpassenger-trips. Costs and trips must be recorded over the same
period of time.
Cost per Vehicle-Hour-Total system costs divided by the sum of the number of
hours that each vehicle is operated in service. The typical usage is vehicle
revenue-hours.
Cost per Vehicle-Mile -Total system costs divided by the total distance traveled
by all vehicles in the system when they are in service. The typical usage is vehicle
revenue-miles.
LSC
Page III-6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
Fixed Costs -Typically those costs that are less (or not at all) sensitive to changes
in service. They include such items as general supervision, overhead and admin-
istration,rents, and debt service. Fixed costs are differentiated from variable costs
because they represent those costs that must be met whether the service operates
or not. If the project runs into operating problems (e.g., loss of passengers), fixed
costs will continue.
One-Way Passenger-Trips- Refers to the total number of passengers transported.
Passengers per Vehicle-Mile -The number of passenger-trips divided by the
number of vehicle-miles provided by all vehicles.
Productivity -The basic performance parameter that describes transit and para-
transit service, defined as the number of passenger-trips per vehicle-hour of
service. This is typically defined in terms of the number of revenue-hours.
Productivity = Passenger-Trips/Vehicle Service-Hours
Revenue-Hours and Miles -The vehicle-hours and miles during which the transit
vehicle is actively providing service to passengers. For demand-response para-
transitservice, this includes all time spent in actively providing passenger service.
It includes the time and miles between dropping off one passenger and picking up
another even though there may be no passengers onboard at the time.
Variable Costs -The costs that are sensitive to changes in the actual level of
service. They are usually affected by the vehicle-miles, vehicle-hours, or some
other measure of level of service. Variable costs typically include such items as
fuel, oil, tires and tubes, drivers' wages, and other items of expense that are
sensitive to the level of operation. Vehicles and equipment items purchased have
life expectancies that require that a depreciation factor be included when figuring
costs. Most typically, depreciation is figured on a straight-line basis with a 10
percent residual salvage value at the end of that time. The length of time depends
on the type of vehicle.
Vehicle-flour- Either the time the engine is running or the time a driver is assigned
to a vehicle; the operating time for a vehicle. Revenue-hours are the hours when the
vehicle is operating and available for passenger service.
Operating Budget
Expenses
The Mini-bus had a FY2008 annual operating budget of approximately $624,140.
Salary and benefits make up the majority of the operating expenses, approxi-
mately 77 percent. Table III-1 provides the FY2008 Mini-bus budget. Table III-2
provides the three-year historical paratransit budgets and actual expenditures. It
should be pointed out that the 2008 budget was $105,000 less than what was
budgeted in 2007.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page III-7
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
A cost allocation model, similar to the one presented for fixed-route services, is
presented in Table III-3. As provided, based upon existing services and costs,
Mini-bus operates at a cost of $28.21 per hour of service and $1.05 per mile of
service. Using these factors based upon service factors yields a marginal cost for
services. The fixed-cost factor is then multiplied by the service factors and costs
to get a total cost for service. This will be compared to the RTA service to deter-
mine future coordination and cost savings.
LSC
Page III-8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
~ 'a O O N O O to O O O~ O
a~ a of cfl tri o o ~ tri ~r co tri co
"'a ~ ~ ~ OO O ~ MtnNM r
c- ~
m Q.
O d
C
o ~
'p ~N~O O~Mto~N O
d O)d-NM otnMOd~tn mil'
~++ d;aO~N Nv~~~O O
> ~ v M ~ `
' N
d
Q -
~ ~ O
~
~
K ~.r
C1 a
EA 64 ER Cfl Efj E9 EF? EA EA 64 EA
o o O O o O O O O O
O O O O ~ O O O ~~ O
O
y eoCOCOO Otr>~O)OM 00
~ a) O ~ O O ~ ~ d' O d' t0
~
d O O O O to NCO ~
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r
d W
.a ~
0
m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ i~ •- to O O O •- Cp N O)
O F~ ~~ 0 0 O H O 00 ~- O
O
N
~ ~ C ~
m
o°
~_
~
d
N
~ C ~- ~ CO d' t~ ~ to O O
O
N
M
~~~ ~ ~ NN r
L ~ C
C
O
O
+
I- +
t0 ~ d7 ~ O ~- O M ~
i ,
V N O ~ M N
~ Q ~ ~ ti
d EA ffl CA EA E!3 b4 EtT (f} EF? Efl EA
C
J t~ N O O O M O O M ~- O
~ t~ O) 00 M O O ~ W O d' 'd'
d +~' N N N N N O M N M f~ ~
Y ~ r o0 M O t~ t~ to et
~ O O r- r- N
~ M r- CO
m
E!? ffl EH Cfl ffl ER Efl Cfl d} E!? ER
N
~ ~
~ N LA ~ O
p
=
a
i W~ •N U a U +~ =
= c
Q,
~( U N ~ n. X a> c
~ (~ 7 O W U N ~
'
~ m
t=
W >,~ 4. d U~~ d v
Q
~ ~
fl
•
~~f
Q
.
~
U
A
' m
E N ~ t,, to a~ +J v Y
y~ W N O c U~ U W Y
(U L Q '++ ~ '~ L ~ ~ r..~ U
~mOti~ ~ ~~~UO cn ~
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page III-9
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
Table III-2
Mini-bus Historical Budget
% % % of Budget
Year Budget Actual Difference Ex ended Unex ended
FY 2006 $709,756 $692,852 0% 97.6% 2%
FY 2007 $732,488 $698,161 1% 95.3% 5%
FY 2008 $624,140 $729,180 4% 116.8% -17%
Source: KeyLine Transit, 2008.
__
Table 111-3
Cost Allocation Model for Mini-bus Services
Actual Vehicle- Vehicle- Fixed
Account FY 08 Hours Miles Cost
Administration $160,646 $160 646
Wages $429,771 $429,771
Benefits $94,134 $94,134
Other Employee Expenses $156 $156
Insurance $10,244 $10,244
Utilities and Property $237 $237
Motor Vehicle Expenses $181,694 $181,694
Contract Services $9,255 $9,255
Office Equipment $3,689 $3,689
TOTAL $889,826 ' $524,061 $190,949 $174,816 ~
Service Variable Quantities veh-hrs veh-mis Fixed-Cost
Used for Planning Purposes 18,577 182,679 Factor
$28.21 $1.05 1.24
Source: KeyLine, 2009.
Service Efficiency
General Service Trends
There are several general service trends from the last few years which have been
examined. These include cost for services, annual trips provided, and the variation
in ridership and trips. The following highlights those trends in the form of tables
and graphs. Additionally, an origin-destination analysis is provided in a separate
section of this chapter.
LSC
Page IIFIO KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
Ridership and Effectiveness Trends
Ridership was examined from the last five years of data. Figure III-2 provides the
weekday ridership forthe last five years. Ridership has declined nearly 25 percent
from fiscal year (FIB 2004. Table III-4 shows the Mini-bus ridership and perfor-
mance for the past five years. It must be stated that the Mini-bus service includes
JARC services and contracts. However, the service characteristics do not match
the budgets provided by KeyLine for the Mini-bus service for the last several years.
This is likely due to differences in record keeping and implementation of new
scheduling software.
Table III-4
Mini-Bus Services
Year Total Rides Elderly Trips % Elderly Disabled
Tri s Disabled
2004 100,855 12,717 17% 81,728 79%
2005 93,112 16,913 25% 65,696 69%
2006 50,182 12,016 24% 30,764 61%
2007 42,576 9,477 22% 26,460 62%
2008 46,713 6,424 14% 36,763 79%
Year Revenue-Miles Revenue- Total Operating Passenger Cost per
Hours Cost per Hour Mile
2004 274,820 21,660 $703,941 4.66 $2.56
2005 256,373 26,408 $618,126 3.53 $2.41
2006 174,366 18,322 $469,399 2.74 $2.69
2007 171,868 17,221 $416,224 2.47 $2.42
2008 182,679 18,577 $751,071 2.51 $4.11
Source: KeyLine Transit 2009.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page IIFI l
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
Cost Per Service-Hour
As mentioned, the cost per service-hour is a way to measure efficiency. Cost per
hour is a function of the annual operating cost divided by the total hours of ser-
vice provided. The lower the cost per hour, the more efficiently a service operates.
In general, demand-response paratransit services have a lower operating cost per
hour than fixed-route services. The Mini-bus has an operating cost per hour of
approximately X40. In comparison, fined-route service operates at approximately
$64. The $40 per hour cost does not include any capital costs required to provide
services, such as vehicle replacement.
Cost Per Passenger-Trig
In general, paratransit service has amuch higher operating cost per trip than does
fixed-route service. This is due to the lower number of passenger-trips made on
an hourly basis. The Mini-bus cost per paratransit trip is approximately ~ 16 per
one-way trip. In comparison, fixed-route services operate at a cost per trip of
approximately $6. This means that providing one trip on Mini-bus costs 2.7 times
as much as does one trip on a fixed route.
A peer comparison was performed to determine the Mini-bus performance against
several peer communities. The National Transit Database was used to compile
service information from several communities. In comparing the Mini-bus cost per
hour of service and cost per passenger-trip using the peer comparisons ofsimilar-
sized communities presented in Table III-5, KeyLine Mini-bus service costs
approximately ~2 per hour more than the average of the peer communities. Mini-
bus operates at approximately $2 per passenger-trip less than the peer averages.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page II~13
a O M e{ 0 n V 0 N
N I(! V M O (O N N
00
y
y• a 0 0 0.- 0 0 0 C O
¢U
F-
N N 0 M o o~ o m
O ~NM ~ O m
Of
dd NNf`7N N M V C
fA fA fA M M ~f1 EA rj
N ~
O to
U er, as
y M W M (O N O N
70010 (O .-GO N
N
d~
C
C f0 O)ON U1N 1~ ~
M N 7 N M M N M
fit fA EH fR b9 EA !fl flf
M
=
U w an
N O n 0 0 7
<DMN MnMO N
~
y
d y ~ ~ n M~ (V M t~
u
»i
~~ N
c a >
»
»v>
U w u+
d m~~neo ~
N N M ~, m
N
Q-d OOOOON O C O
N
a
OerMN W d: iA N
O>
7 N N(V N.-c-(V N
N N
N
O
N
N =
a
~ `n°va0i
vv~co°
~M oMo
°'= ,
e
.'
M~~N~o~ ~ ai
~ y
a
Z o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
y j .-^n7 Door
N n N N
A O
W y
v ~
d
~ d ~ (MD, (MO m o Ln ~ tti
y A d (00 ~ In W H O M M
O N
c LL> fA H3 N W fA ~- f9
b9 fA fA 6N9 ~
i ~
~ y
~
d
OI 7~ n t0 0 Ifi N
n
Nvrn
7
vmv O
o
c d c
o
m
O
0
w
d
~9
O M ~
~01M
^
c'
n
y `2 d ~ fA fA FA
fA ' ER {
q M
N •y y
C O m fA 69
T v
d R G
c A d o M r 0 N O
O
7
M
p M
~
F ?+' O 7 L cY ?
~ ~
a}}
a
N
T a 0 V N 1
~
a ~~ M~
a}
£ o Q ~
V N
01 ~ M ~0~f00 ~ ONp
N V
O N n
~ O n
1
N
m
7
n N
00
d O M
N
~ N 7
a
m =
Q
c
~ oooNnN ~
7 0
0
V m
n
. A y h
n
~
N t
D
~
Z _ ~
c
~~07iNt00N~ p
ONO
Q~ N N N N
y M 000 100 N t0 O
w d
r
7 !~
O U
C t
Z j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c
~~
~M OOO o
O
CO
Q ._ t
n
M Oi N 1n O Iii ~ pi
nn ~
o~n
m OD
N
~
v ~
~
~
'2 d
da°
I-
y ~
c o Z °o
~
O
- F U
~ ~
J p fn «. O) Q Y
m
~
y ULLI- ta
_(9Qy cu m
m
J
~~ ~
,y H ~ U
dp Q~ _>,~
~
c
O N .. C f0
O d~ V >
T
y
q
L
F ,
y ~
(n
(~ C U (~ ~ 1=
y
C~ O ~~ C G o
m N.. ~ ~ H A W ~ ~~
oLL~~ULL>. C 5 »
~ o
~ m rnV y c m W
~
u
n=. (7ti~~rn¢ Q Y h
LSC
Page IIF14 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
Effectiveness
Passenaers Per Service-Hour
Measuring a transit agency's effectiveness using performance measures is a vital
means of determining how well the population of an area is served. Based upon
2007 data from KeyLine and national peer communities, an analysis of the effec-
tiveness in terms of passenger-trips per service-hour is made .The Mini-bus cur-
rently has a productivity of approximately 2.5 passengers per hour. This means
that for every hour of service, the Mini-bus transports approximately three pas-
sengers. KeyLine fixed-route service operates at approximately 11 passengers per
hour, about four times higher than paratransit service. However, in comparison
to national peer communities, the Mini-bus operates just above the productivity
of these communities. National peer communities average approximately 2.2 pas-
sengers per hour.
Trips Per Capita
Trips per capita is one measure that is seldom used in the transit industry. This
relates the service provided as a function of the population of that area. KeyLine
paratransit service currently provides approximately 0.81 trips per person in the
Dubuque area. That is, for every person who resides in the service area, the Mini-
bus provides 0.80 trips annually. In comparison to the peer communities, the
average for other systems is approximately 0.55. The Mini-bus provides a higher
level of service than do these other communities, largely due to the fact that ser-
vice is provided for persons who are not disabled.
Origin-Destination
Figure III-3 shows the current service requests with the three-quarter-mile ADA-
required paratransit boundary. Figure III-4 provides an analysis of the origin-
destination patterns by neighborhood district.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page 1IF15
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
RTA SERVICE OVERVIEW
RTA operates from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with varying
hours by community. Service is not available on the following holidays: New Year's
Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, and
Christmas Day. Volunteer drivers are used when ridership is too low to keep the
service affordable. Buses are used whenever necessary to meet the demand
and/or to provide equal access to all consumers. The RTA has established routing
patterns which are designed to provide meaningful service to the general public
while accommodating the needs of a particular funding agency. All service is
coordinated and open to the general public as well as handicapped accessible.
Financial Overview
Table III-6 provides the RTA's 2008 cost allocation model. The RTA has a budget
of approximately $1.6 million annually. The RTA operates at $15.94 per revenue-
hour, $0.84 per mile, and has affixed-cost factor of 1.5. Table III-7 provides a
comparison of the cost allocation models for KeyLine's Mini-bus and for the RTA
services. As shown, the RTA is $12.271ess expensive per hour than the Mini-bus
and $0.21 per mile less expensive. The RTAhas a higher fixed-cost factor, with the
Mini-bus having a 0.26 lower fixed-cost factor. That is, for every hour of service,
estimating 12 miles per hour bus speed, the RTA is $14.73 less expensive to
operate than the Mini-bus using marginal costs. Factoring the fixed costs of each
service lowers that savings to $11.65 per hour of bus service operated.
LSC
Page IIF18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
Table 111-6
RTA Cost Allocation Model
Vehicle- Vehicle- Fixed
Account FY2008
Hours Miles Cost
Fixed-Costs $538,556 ' $538,556
Bellevue Chamber Reimbursement $5,000 ', $5,000
Drivers Salaries/PTO Accrual $467,102 ' $467,102
Drivers Health Insurance $47,497 ' $47,497
Life Insurance $696 ' $696
StaffPhysicals $1,500', $1,500
Social Security $36,598 $36,598
Workers Compensation $35,066 $35,066
State Unemployment $4,400 $4,400
Employee Pension $4,024 $4,024
Vehicle Maintenance $74,306 $74,306
Vehicle Parts $62,408 ' $62,408
Fuel Net Less State and Federal Tax $189,384', $189,384
Depreciation $100,000 $100,000
Volunteer Drivers $46,509 ' $46,509 !
TOTAL $1,613,048' $601,883 $472,607 $538,268 3
Service Variable Quantities veh-hrs veh-mis Fixed-Cost
Used for Planning Purposes 37,749 562,499 Factor
$15.94 $0.84 1.50
Source: RTA, 2009.
Table III-7
Comparison of KeyLine Mini-bus and RTA Services
Cost per Cost per Fixed-Cost
Provider Hour Mile Factor
RTA $15.94 $0.84 1.50
KeyLine Minibus $28.21 $1.05 1.24
Difference from RTA $12.27 $0.29 (0.26)
Source: LSC, 2009.
Origin-Destination
The RTA provided a full week of driver manifests. These data were mapped to show
locations of passenger pick-ups for the week as provided in Figure III-5. Travel
desire lines by neighborhood district are provided in Figure III-6.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page IIF19
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
TEMPORAL ANALYSIS
As part of the analysis of both the Mini-bus and RTA services, it is important to
investigate the time of day persons are requesting services. Information from a full
week of weekday service was compared between the two services to determine if
future coordination may be feasible. Figure III-7 provides the current service
requests by time of day. As shown, the time period of approximately 12:00 p.m.
has the highest number of service requests, approximately 320 for the week, or
an average of 64 requests per day. The next highest times are the 8:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. times.
Figure III-8 provides similar analysis for RTA services. As shown, the highest
number of service requests are the 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. time frame. From 9:30
a.m. to noon there are very few requests for service, as compared to KeyLine
service.
Figure III-9 presents the two services time requests by day. KeyLine's Mini-bus
service currently experiences times when they are nearing the capacity of the
system. There may be times when the RTA could be contracted to provide services
during the day. The RTA operates at a much lower cost per hour of service so
there could potentially be cost savings for combined operations.
LSC
Page IIF22 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini-bus Service
MINI-BUS SURVEY ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This section provides the analysis of data collected through the paratransit survey.
Information is provided about passenger demographics, trip characteristics, and
perceptions of the quality of service. This survey was conducted during February
2009.
Responses from the usable questionnaires were entered into a database and an
analysis was performed in a spreadsheet program. In addition to the individual
responses, route and time frame were included for each response to permit
detailed analysis by route or time of day. The responses are summarized in the
following sections.
Demographic Characteristics
There were a number of questions asked to determine demographic characteristics
of paratransit riders on KeyLine Transit. Respondents were asked to complete
information on every trip which they took regarding the characteristics of the trip.
The demographic information is summarized from unduplicated individuals
responding to the questions. For the survey, there were 108 unduplicated indi-
vidual responses.
Residence
Users were asked to report the district in which they live in order to determine
where the bulk of the demand for Mini-bus service is originating. The largest
portion of riders (52 percent) indicated that they live in the Westend District.
Figure III-10 shows the responses to this question.
LSC
Page IIF26 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Performance Monitoring
is critical to track performance. If the capital costs cannot be funded, the
information should still be tracked manually and entered into a database for
tracking and reporting. The lack of ridership information made it difficult for
the LSC Team to analyze any historical data.
Twice each year, a full boarding and alighting count should be completed. If
passenger hoardings are counted using the MDTs and integrated with Auto-
matic Vehicle Location (AVL), the data can be recorded automatically. If it
must be done manually, this is a more intense effort and will require the use
of additional personnel. Passenger counts are recorded for passengers board-
ingand alighting by stop for afull day. This information records the passenger
activity at individual stops and is useful to determine if stops are appro-
priately placed and what amenities should be provided. If a stop has little or
no activity, it would not warrant a bench or shelter and may not even be
appropriate as a designated stop. Data collection forms should be prepared
for each route showing the stops and providing space to record the passenger
counts.
An onboard passenger survey should be conducted periodically. We recom-
mend that a survey be conducted six months after service changes have been
implemented. Following that, passenger surveys should be conducted at least
every two years. Survey instruments with questions appropriate for KeyLine
Transit should collect information about passenger demographics, trip char-
acteristics, and perceptions of the transit service. The onboard survey com-
pleted in 2009 should be used as a sample questionnaire for future years.
On-Time Performance
With any transit system, it is important to monitor on-time performance. An on-
time performance goal should be established. For instance, an attainable on-time
goal of 95 percent for the service may be considered for system changes. Minor
adjustments to routes may be needed to ensure that schedules and headway
adherence can be maintained.
To record on-time performance, drivers should report actual arrival and departure
times at designated bus stops along the routes and at major stops. It should be
emphasized that drivers should not leave prior to a scheduled stop time in order
to make up time along a route. Leaving early could cause riders to miss a bus.
The dispatcher should then record this information so that the number of trips
running late can be determined. Again, this capability could be integrated with the
MDT and database system so that the data are entered directly by the driver. This
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page N-3
Performance Monitoring
effort should continue for the first three months of service. After that, on-time data
should be checked randomly to ensure that performance remains acceptable.
Financial Data
KeyLine should carefully track financial data. Accounts should be kept so that
separate costs can be tracked for each route. Financial data are required to evalu-
ate performance measures such as the operating cost per hour of service and the
cost per passenger-trip. A more detailed operating budget should be prepared
which separates administrative costs for both fixed-route and paratransit services.
Database Formats
Several options are available for storing the data. The recommended approach is
to set up databases in Microsoft Access or Excel to record passenger data.
Example databases and assistance can be provided. A separate database should
be set up for routine passenger data and a second for the boarding and alighting
counts.
If the buses are equipped with MDTs in the future, passenger count data can be
entered directly into the database by the driver. The touch screen capability will
allow the driver to record passenger hoardings at each stop. This, combined with
Automatic Vehicle Location systems, can record the data automatically by stop,
eliminating the need for separate boarding and alighting counts. Similarly, drivers
could report their arrival at the downtown transfer center via the MDT, and the
time could be recorded automatically into a database for on-time performance.
These capabilities should be programmed into the new software capabilities as
they are implemented.
Onboard survey data can be entered into a database such as Access or a spread-
sheet program such as Excel.
KeyLine staff should provide monthly performance reports, not just quarterly. The
report should include performance data for the current month, the same month
in the previous year, year-to-date performance, and the prior year-to-date per-
formance. Information which should be reported includes passenger hoardings by
LSC
Page N-4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Performance Monitoring
route, passengers per revenue-hour by route, total passengers by fare category,
total passengers, and system passengers per revenue-hour. Financial information
should be reported including the operating cost and the cost per passenger. The
average fare should be calculated and reported based on operating costs and
passenger counts.
Quarterly reports should be considered for providing recent trends and interim
performance data to elected officials, the public, and other stakeholders. Addi-
tionally, an annual report should be compiled and presented. The information for
these reports can be easily generated from the databases and the accounting
system.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Transit performance measures serve as a guide to find out how a transit system
performs. Performance measures define the types of data to be collected and give
the tools necessary to identify transit system deficiencies and opportunities.
It is worth noting that criteria used for the selection of performance measures
include the following:
• Be measurable.
• Have a clear and intuitive meaning so that it is understandable to those who
will use it and to non-transportation professionals.
• Be acceptable and useful to transportation professionals.
• Be comparable across time and between geographical areas.
• Have a strong functional relationship to actual system operations so that once
changes occur in system operations, changes to the system can readily be
determined.
• Provide the most cost-effective means of data collection.
• Where appropriate, be based on statistically sound measurement techniques.
• Be consistent with measures identified for other systems.
Performance measure categories that should be used include:
• On-time Performance
• Missed/Late Trips
• Passenger No-Shows
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Techracal Memorandum #2 Page N-5
Performance Monitoring
Service Denials
Fleet Maintenance
Many of these measures have been described above. Other performance measures
that should be used are:
Passengers/Hour: Number of total monthly and annual passengers divided by the
corresponding revenue-hours.
Passengers/Mile: Number of total annual passengers divided by the annual
revenue-miles.
Cost/Trip: Total expenses divided by total annual one-way trips.
Subsidy/Trip: Total expenses minus fare revenue divide d by total annual one-way
trips.
Passenger-Miles: Passenger-miles are one of the most difficult performance mea-
sures tocalculate. Multiplyingtotal system milesbyone-waypassenger-trips does
not give a good measure of passenger-miles. This involves very detailed data col-
lection to get average passenger-miles per route. One way is to take an average
trip length multiplied by systemwide miles or sample passenger activity.
Vehicle-Miles/ServiceArea: A good measure of the level of service being provided.
The service area must be realistically identified. As an example, a county system
may say they serve the entire county, but in fact, much of the county is very rural
and service is never provided.
Service/Road Calls: Vehicle breakdowns are inevitable. This measures the dis-
tance traveled between mechanical breakdowns. Although frequent occurrences
can create disruptions in a transit system, it is important to track the frequency
and type of mechanical failures of each vehicle in addition to monitoring a fleet's
age. Monitoring of vehicle breakdowns is one method of reducing system dis-
ruptions and may allow an agency to improve monitoring of vehicle replacement
schedules and preventative maintenance practices. Data collection efforts should
include date, time of day, type of failure, age of vehicle, vehicle number, vehicle
mileage, and how the situation was rectified. Monitoring of these items will allow
an agency to recognize repeated types of mechanical breakdowns; breakdowns
related to vehicle type, age or mileage; and assist with preventative maintenance
programs. Wheelchair lift failures should also be monitored. Data should be
included in the monthly report.
Accidents/1,000 miles: Measure of driver safety. Accidents must be defined as
a standard.
Average Age of Fleet: A good single indicator of vehicle replacement needs,
although individual vehicle inventories, ages, and mileage should be tracked.
LSC
Page N-6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Performance Monitoring
Cost/Revenue-Hour: An excellent indicator of efficiency is cost per revenue-hour
of service. Costs per hour should be analyzed by route and compared to overall
system averages.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page N-~
Conceptual Alternatives
In a grid route structure, all of the routes function along atwo-way direction
(either north/south or east/west). The routes are normally spaced equidistantly
if the roadway structure permits. This structure has no center transfer location.
Instead, the transfers are conducted at intersections of the routes. This type of
service is mainly used in urban areas where the population density is greater and
equally distributed across the area. In rural areas, fixed-route service may be
provided between major communities with connections to local services that
operate within the communities.
Fixed-route service is particularly convenient for passengers without disabilities.
Research has shown that fixed-route passengers are willing to walk up to one-
quartermile to reach a bus stop. Therefore, affixed-route service pattern may be
efficiently laid out with routes having one-half-mile spacing. However, individuals
with mobility impairments may have difficulty accessing the fixed-route system.
The advantages of fixed-route service are that it can be provided at a relatively low
cost on a per passenger-trip basis, schedule reliability is high since buses do not
deviate from their routes, service does not require advance reservations, and
service is easy to understand.
Fixed-route transit service is seldom attractive for people with automobiles in
smaller communities and rural areas. A private automobile offers flexibility com-
pared to the rigid schedule of a fixed-route system. The need to walk even a few
hundred feet to a bus stop, wait for the vehicle, and the comparatively slow travel
time make the option of a private automobile an easy choice. Where there are
significant congestion issues or limited parking availability, fixed-route transit
service becomes a more attractive alternative. The low cost of transit as compared
to owning and operating a private automobile can also be attractive, especially to
young working couples who may be able to use the bus rather than own two
vehicles.
The Americans With Disabilities Act requires that communities with fixed-route
transit service also provide complementary paratransit service that operates, at
a minimum, in athree-quarter-mile radius of each fixed route. Paratransit service
LSC
Page V-2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Conceptual Alternatives
service. Riders are picked up, typically at a reduced fare, at the checkpoints and
taken either to another checkpoint or to ademand-response specific destination.
Service between the checkpoints does not require advance reservations. However,
service from any other location on ademand-response basis requires an advance
reservation so that the vehicles can be scheduled for pick up and drop-off.
Checkpoint service offers an advantage over route deviation because there is no
specified route for the vehicles to use. Checkpoint service requires only that the
vehicle arrive at the next checkpoint within the designated time window.
Commuter or Express Service
With commuter and express service, the route is primarily designed to link differ-
ent parts of the community together for employment purposes instead of linking
all areas adjacent to the route. These destinations may be within the same geo-
graphic area. This type of service is commonly known as an express or limited
express service. This type of service can range from long-distance medical trips to
commutertrips between different geographical areas in the Dubuque area. There
may be potential for express or limited stop service between major destination
areas, such as from Downtown to Kennedy Mall.
FIXED-ROUTE ISSUES
Topography/Geography
One of the major hurdles to the design of the KeyLine routes is the natural
topography and geography of the city. The bluffs and hills of Dubuque create a
street and development pattern that deviates from traditional design. Because of
the topography, many streets are designed along the natural elevation curves.
Additionally, many neighborhoods are separated or have limited access points.
With regard to the geography of the area, downtown is located in anon-central
location.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page V-5
Conceptual Alternatives
Timed Transfers
The KeyLine system currently operates three separate transfer points. These
transfer locations are located downtown and in the Westend neighborhood. The
location of these centers means that there are limited opportunities for individuals
to transfer, depending on what route they are on. The Orange route only accesses
the downtown transfer point. On some occasions, individuals may have to wait
long periods of time to transfer to their needed route because of the route timing.
There is the potential to rework the transfer points and/or the timing of buses so
that connections and timings may run smoother. In addition, the transfer center
could use upgraded facilities, including bus pullouts, restrooms, and better
shelter to enhance the experience of riders.
The main issue is the pulsing of the routes. Pulsing refers to routes meeting at
designated locations at the same time. Table V-1 shows the location of the routes
at the transfer centers by time. Some problems can arise from routes that pulse
poorly, especially in a system that only allows riders to transfer buses at three
locations. For example, both Red routes pull into the Delhi station at 30 minutes
past the hour. These buses are usually the only ones at Delhi at this time,
meaning that a user wishing to transfer from red to green, has a 30-minute wait.
Improving these timings will help users complete their trips in a more timely
manner.
Route Duplication
Many of the routes in Dubuque have a lot of overlap and duplication of services.
There are areas of routes that either run on parallel streets or the same streets for
a large portion of the run. Limiting the duplication of service will allow for a
greater service area to be covered, creating a more efficient route structure. Many
of the routes loop throughout the service area and crisscross other routes. This
is an inefficient design of services.
LSC
Page V-6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Conceptual Alternatives
West End Demand
Demand on the west end of Dubuque is geographically dispersed. Many of the
important destinations, mostly shopping and medical facilities, are separated from
each other and from downtown. This creates challenges in route development and
timing. Many of the locations that need to be reached are 30 to 45 minutes of
travel time by bus from the downtown area.
Route Segment Boardings
Large stretches of some routes showed very limited or no boardings during the
three days of count data. It may be possible to realign segments of these routes
to serve more people or to alter the type of service in some areas of the
community.
CONCEPTUAL SERVICE IN DUBUQUE
At this point in the project the LSC Team is providing the City with conceptual
service options that maybe appropriate for use in the community. After reviewing
all information to-date, on-site field notes, an awareness of the political nature of
transit, public comment, and experience; the following section provides an
overview of the types of service design that may be investigated in subsequent
tasks. Limited detail is presented at this point in the project as this information
is provided as a basis for discussion and response.
Funding Alternatives
Scenarios for future development obviously depend upon funding and
sustainability of service and ridership. From a funding standpoint, the LSC Team
is looking at scenarios such as the following:
• Services under the existing budget
• Optimal services with no funding restrictions
• Preferred services that meet both service needs and budget constraints
These scenarios will each include several options for services. Again, detailed
evaluation of various options will be provided in Technical Memorandum #3.
LSC
Page V-8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Conceptual Alternatives
Service Concepts
There are several concepts that may provide a basis for future route design
alternatives. These concepts are presented in the following text and graphics as
a means of discussion. Each has advantages and disadvantages, however each
may prove advantageous over the existing service design.
Maintain Core Transfer Points
One option is to continue to maintain the existing three-transfer-point system.
This type of system has inherent problems associated with route transfers and
timings. As it is today, there are limited opportunities to transfer between buses
and hence there are routes that have large loops to cover a greater geographic area
of the City. Maintaining the three-transfer-point system is something that may
require change in the future.
Move Main Transfer Point from Downtown
As mentioned previously, the main transfer point in the downtown area is
geographically and topologically isolated from the majority of destinations to the
west. One concept would be to move the main transfer point to a more central
location, such as in the area of Mercy Hospital/Delhi Transfer Point. This would
allow routes to be operated on an effective timed pulse system and allow for
shorter routes. Interlining, the strategy of using buses on multiple routes (such
as operating both red and green), can create a system where users do not require
a transfer from bus to bus for some trips.
General Public Dial-a-Ride
There has been discussion regarding general public dial-a-ride service for
residents of the area. This is not a realistic or feasible alternative. Fixed-route
service is more efficient than dial-a-ride service. It is also capable of producing
more one-way trips than dial-a-ride service. There may be areas where adial-a-
ride service area may make sense, however as an answer to fixed-route service,
this is not a viable option.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Page V-9
Conceptual Alternatives
Additional Hours of Service
Certainly without increased funding, the level of service for KeyLine will remain
unchanged. Additional hours of service are warranted for both the morning and
afternoon. At this point, it is nearly impossible to reach downtown for a workday
start of 8:00 a.m. and it is difficult to catch the outbound bus from downtown.
Increasing the number of service hou rs per day would improve service immensely.
Additionally, there maybe times during the day when service could be reduced or
increased during the peak hours to increase frequency.
Paratransit Services
There are certainly ways to coordinate paratransit services between KeyLine and
the RTA. The RTA is considerably les s expensive to o perate than KeyLine. The RTA
buses sit idle much of the day and could be used to provide services for KeyLine.
Historically, paratransit services have gone back and forth between the City and
the RTA. Coordination between the two entities exists and could be further
fostered. This is something that should be pursued through the City and RTA.
Service Design
Certainly the existing fixed routes present a host of challenges with the
aforementioned issues. LSC has prepared a set of conceptual service options that
will be explored in more detail in Technical Memorandum #3. Figure V-1 through
V-6 present six concepts of operation which can aid in addressing some of the
deficiencies as mentioned. Please note that these maps represent broader
concepts and do not abide by existing street grid patterns. The routes on the
conceptual maps should be thought of more as corridors of service rather than
definitive routes.
Option 1
Figure V-1 shows one of the first conceptual options that has been developed. This
option maintains the three current transfer points and only slightly modifies
service. This option shows similar corridors as the existing service, with
streamlined routes.
LSC
Page V-10 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Conceptual Alternatives
Option 2
This option depicts a fairly standard hub and spoke system, as seen in Figure V-2.
All of the routes have one transfer point. With the exception of the Red route on
the map, they all start and end at this point. The advantage of this type of system
is that the routes all pulse at the same time, allowing users to easily transfer. The
transfer point was chosen near the current Delhi transfer center because of the
centralized location .
Option 3
This option uses two transfer points-downtown and at the mall. Figure V-3
depicts the route options. There are two routes that serve the northeast portion
of the city. Three routes are crosstown routes that connect the two transfer points
and serve various neighborhoods in between. The Blue route is a shopping
circulator that is aimed at serving the mall and various other shopping plazas in
the region.
Option 4
This option also features two transfer points-one near Delhi and one downtown.
The Red and Black routes connect the two transfer points. The other routes all
stem from one of these two transfer centers. Figure V-4 shows this option in more
detail.
Option 5
This option has a major and minor transferpoint. The major transfer point is near
Delhi, with the minor transfer point near the mall. This option combines ahub-
and-spoke design with two circulators. The two circulators are for the mall and
local university and school-age students. Figure V-5 shows this option in further
detail.
Option 6
This option, shown in Figure V-6, is the large st departure from the current service.
While it has a basic hub-and-spoke structure with the transfer center being near
Delhi, it also incorporates demand-response service. These larger demand-
response zones operate similarly to paratransit, with the exception being that they
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page V-11
Conceptual Alternatives
are open to everyone within the zone. They also do not generally act as door-to-
door services, but rather connect people to the existing route structure.
Scheduling would be real-time rather than with advance reservations. Demand-
responsezones help to serve areas that have limited ridership but still have a need
for transit.
LSC
Page V-12 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Conceptual Alternatives
LNG is natural gas that has been condensed to a liquid, typically by cryogenically
cooling the natural gas to -250 degrees Fahrenheit. CNG is natural gas that has
been compressed to a pressure of 2,400 to 3,600 pounds per square inch (psi).
LNG provides a greater driving range than CNG. It is also denser than CNG and
fewer tanks are needed to hold the same amount of fuel, which means less weight
added to the bus. A CNG bus weighs about 1,900 pounds more than a similar
diesel bus, but a LNG bus is only 600 pounds heavier. Having fewer fuel tanks
also decreases the cost of an LNG bus. On average, an LNG bus costs approxi-
mately X20,000 less than a similar CNG bus and approximately $50,000 more
than a similar diesel bus.
There have been various studies conducted on the environmental impacts of
natural gas-fueled buses that have found that the CNG-powered buses pollute
more than a diesel bus equipped with after-treatment devices (such as a catalytic
converter) and using ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD). The Sierra Research study
stated the following:
By using after-treatment devices to reach the 0.01 g/bhp-hr level for
Particulate Matter (PM) emissions, diesel PM emissions will be the equivalent
to PM emissions from natural gas engines, eliminating most if not all of the
health concerns related to operation of diesel fueled vehicles.
The study went on to say that modifications to diesel engines, including the use
of after-treatment devices, are much more cost-effective for reducing oxides of
nitrogen (Nox) and PM emissions than is the substitution of natural gas engines
for diesel engines.
The strength of compressed natural gas (CNG) as an alternative fuel for transit
buses is that it is generally less expensive per unit of energy than gasoline or
diesel fuels. CNG fuel also has the potential to reduce the oxides of nitrogen
emissions, reactive organic hydrocarbons, particulate matter concentrations, and
carbon monoxide concentrations. The advantages of a CNG bus include no visible
pollution and quieter operation. Over the last several years, CNG has become one
of the alternative fuels of choice for transit systems in the United States.
LSC
Page V-20 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Conceptual Alternatives
Historically, the weakness of CNG fuel is its difficult and large storage require-
ments. CNG is typically stored in high-pressure cylinders under maximum
pressure. The high weight, volume, and cost of the storage tanks have been a
barrier to its commercialization as an alternative fuel. The recent development of
lighter aluminum tanks, however, has reduced this disadvantage to some degree.
The main problem with CNG is primarily associated with the moisture in the com-
pressedfuel freezing during the fueling process, since the approximate time to fill
a bus maybe three hours. Other problems that have been encountered nationally
include the quality of local CNG supplies, limited testing of altitude effects on
CNG, low power for climbing steep grades, and limited CNG testing in extreme
temperatures.
According to TCRP Report #38, modifications from diesel to CNG are observed to
result in reductions in fuel economy of between 20 and 40 percent in transit
service when natural gas engines are used in place of similar diesel engines in
similar service. As a rule of thumb, manufacturers price heavy-duty natural gas
engines at nearly twice that of counterpart diesels.
Methanol
Most of the methanol used commerciallywithin the United States is manufactured
from natural gas, making it economical to use. The tailpipe emissions of methanol
are generally considered to be about half as reactive as an equal mass of emis-
sions from gasoline or diesel fuel, promoting its use to reduce ozone in urban
areas (such as Los Angeles). By volume, methanol has slightly more than half the
energy content of diesel fuel and slightly more than half the energy content of
gasoline. Due to the above characteristics, amethanol engine will consume
slightly more than twice the volume of fuel per mile of service as compared to a
diesel engine. Due to cost, methanol is unlikely to be an alternative of choice for
the transit industry.
Ethanol
While not as corrosive as methanol, the major use of ethanol is currently limited
as an octane additive and oxygenate for gasoline. The cost of ethanol is almost
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page V-21
Conceptual Alternatives
twice as much as that of methanol, making its use limited as a motor vehicle fuel.
Aside from the fuel's economic drawbacks, ethanol has many benefits. Ethanol
produces lower carbon monoxide emission rates than gasoline, has a higher
energy density than methanol, and has a lower toxicity than either methanol or
gasoline.
Diesel Fuel
Diesel-fueled engines have traditionally dominated the transit vehicle marketplace
due to diesel fuel's efficiency and durability, making up nearly 90 percent of the
existing fuel for existing transit agencies. From an air quality perspective, diesel
engines have very low tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and other organic
gases. The concern from an air quality perspective, however, has been the diesel
emission rates of the oxides of nitrogen (Nox) emissions and particulate matter.
Due to increasing environmental pressure to reduce the above emissions, the
Environmental Protection Agency and American Public Transit Association have
developed stringent regulations. The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) permit the
use of clean diesel in urban buses provided that the clean diesel engines meet the
particulate matter standards imposed by the CAAA. According to the Transit
Cooperative Research Report #38, in the past few years emission rates from new
automotive diesel engines have decreased significantly, mainly in response to
legislated emission standards. Additionally, TCRP Report #38 reports that fuel is
a major contributor to the cost ofoperating a bus and obtaining accurate fuel cost
comparisons against diesel engines is an important element of any evaluation of
alternative-fuel options. Fuel consumption can vary widely depending on several
factors, one being road grade. It is difficult at this time to determine fuel consump-
tion without first determining the service and vehicles to be used.
Biodiesel
Biodiesel is aclean-burning alternative fuel made from the domestic renewable
resources of vegetable oil and animal fat. Biofuel consists of the mono-alkyl esters
that are derived from vegetable oils or animal fats which conform to the ASTM-D-
6751 specifications for use in diesel engines. This fuel is then mixed with diesel
to reduce the amount of pollution that the vehicle normally produces.
LSC
Page V-22 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Conceptual Alternatives
Due to the high volatility of hydrogen gas, AC Transit had to renovate a vehicle
maintenance bay at a cost of $1.5 million. A firewall designed to withstand a fire
for two hours was constructed between the hydrogen bus bay and the other
mechanical bay. Also needed was:
• Hydrogen leak and fire detection thermal systems
• Ignition for free space heating system
• Antistatic ground floor covering
• High-speed roll-up doors
• Magnetic door releases
• Audiovisual strobe alarms
• A three-fan ventilation system capable of providing four to six air
exchanges per hour
• Class one division two electrical classifications
Even with all this safety equipment, mechanics had to depressurize each bus to
600 pounds of hydrogen per square inch before the bus could enter the bay. This
was done to save on modification costs; however, it forced the mechanics to push
the bus into the bay. The study did not state what amount of cost savings was
derived from this procedure.
\/TA Transit
For their demonstration project, VTA constructed a new maintenance facility and
fueling station for their hydrogen fuel cell buses. This cost the agency $4.4 million.
Three hydrogen-electric Gillig buses were purchased at a cost of $10.6 million
(approximately $3.5 million each).
Specific information gathered from this study includes:
LSC
• Fuel cell buses are 6,800 pounds heavier and two feet taller than a
standard diesel bus.
• The batteries on the fuel cell buses had frequent cell failures that
caused shorting problems that significantly decreased voltage.
• The air conditioning system was modified to be driven by electric motors
rather than mechanical belts. Initially there were many problems with
the electric motors failing.
• The fuel cell power system cell stack assembly was decaying at a much
higher rate than expected.
Page V-24 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
Conceptual Alternatives
• Diesel bus availability during the testing period was 85 percent.
Hydrogen bus availability was only 58 percent. This means that for a
transit service operating 365 days a year, these hydrogen fuel cell buses
would only be in service 212 days out of 365.
• The average maintenance cost per mile for the fuel cell buses was X3.55.
The average maintenance cost per mile for the diesel buses was $0.54.
• The fuel cell buses averaged 898 miles between road calls; the diesel
buses averaged 8,189 miles between road calls.
SunLine Transit
SunLine Transit has been using alternative fuel buses since 1994 when it pur-
chasedits first CNG-powered bus. All buses and support vehicles are powered by
CNG. SunLine tested a hydrogen fuel cell bus identical to the fuel cell buses in the
AC Transit and VTA Transit studies. The agency also tested a hydrogen hybrid
internal combustion engine (HHICE) bus, which is a one-of-a-kind vehicle. The
fuel cell bus cost $3.1 million. The HHICE bus cost $1.2 million. The engine was
customized to operate on a CNG and hydrogen fuel blend.
These buses were tested against five new CNG-powered buses built by Orion
Industries at a cost of X375,000 each. The test comparison lasted 11 months, from
January through November 2006. Below are the results of this test:
• The fuel economy of the fuel cell bus was 149 percent higher than the
CNG bus.
• The fuel economy of the hybrid bus was 46 percent higher than the
CNG buses.
• The maintenance cost per mile for the hybrid bus was $0.55, $0.44 for
the fuel cell bus, and $0.25 for the CNG bus.
The results of these three studies show that hydrogen fuel cell technology for
heavy equipment is still in its infant stage and could take years before it can used
in a commercial enterprise. The costs for the vehicles and supplemental equip-
ment are staggering. The $3.5 million cost of one hydrogen fuel cell bus could
purchase nine CNG buses at $375,000 each and 11 buses running on ultra-low-
sulphurdiesel fuel at $300,000 each. Also, the dangers of devastating explosions
and fires associated with hydrogen gas demands tremendous expenditures of
revenue to make transit facilities safe and able to maintain and fuel the hydrogen
buses. All but one of the transit systems (SunLine) incurred millions of dollars in
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page V-25
Conceptual Alternatives
• The hybrid articulated bus is priced at $645,000, while the diesel
articulated bus is priced at $445,000.
• The hybrid buses had, on average, 27 percent higher fuel economy than
the diesel buses.
• The hybrid bus is approximately 1,000 pounds heavier than the diesel
bus.
• The total maintenance cost per mile was practically identical, with the
diesel buses averaging $0.46 and the hybrid buses averaging $0.44.
• The total operating cost per mile showed the hybrid buses cost less to
operate than the diesel buses. Hybrid total operating cost per mile was
$1.06. The diesel buses cost $1.25 per mile to operate.
• The hybrid buses ran cleaner than the diesel buses. The diesel buses
used biodiesel at a ratio of five percent biodiesel and 95 percent ultra-
low-sulfur diesel (ULSD). The hybrid used a 100 percent mixture of
ULSD. The study showed that the hybrid bus produced 26.6 percent
less nitrogen oxide (NOX), 97.1 percent less particulate matter (PM),
59.5 percent less carbon monoxide (CO), and 56.3 percent less total
hydrocarbons than the bus using the five percent biodiesel with 95
percent ULSD fuel.
Diesel-electric hybrid bus technology is far more advanced than hydrogen fuel cell
technology and has been in use commercially forover 10 years. The diesel-electric
hybrid bus has been proven to operate almost as reliably as traditional diesel
buses, uses less fuel, and produces far fewer pollutants. The only drawback,
especially for small transit agencies, is the high cost of the vehicle when compared
to the cost of a traditional diesel transit bus. Small transit agencies would also
incur additional training costs associated with familiarizing its maintenance crew
with the electric propulsion system. One advantage of this alternative fuel tech-
nology is that there is no need to develop a fueling station specifically for this
alternative fuel since it runs on diesel fuel.
Tax Credits
On July 29, 2005, Congress passed the first comprehensive energy legislation, HR
6 (P.L. 109-58), which includes a number of provisions for alternative-fuel
vehicles. The credit for purchasing a fuel cell vehicle is determined by a base
credit amount that depends on the vehicle's weight. For fuel cell-powered vehicles
weighing less than 8,500 pounds, the base credit will be $8,000, while heavier
vehicles will get bigger credits.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2 Page V-2~
Conceptual Alternatives
Overall Conclusions
The overriding theme of this section of the document has been that technology
exists that can fuel buses with fuels other than diesel. The major issue, however,
is that this technology results in greater costs to a transit agency in terms of
vehicle procurement, facility construction or improvements, and training costs. In
terms of environmental improvements, only the diesel-electric hybrid shows
significant environmental improvements over a diesel engine equipped with
pollution control equipment and running on ULSD. However, with the continued
escalation of diesel fuel costs and the geopolitical issues associated with the
importation of oil, transit systems need to be aware of the possibility that
alternative fuels may soon be mandated by the federal government. If this
mandate extends to other types of transportation vehicles, the higher costs
associated with alternative fuels may become nonexistent.
LSC
Page V-28 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #2
c
0
w
0
a.
L
O
C
R
O
W
N
d
0
'o
Y X
L W
O N
3 d
7 ~
~ ~
O Y
L f//
d ~ ~
3 ~_
~ N d
m 3 s
~, m ca
O O ~ C ~,
~ ~ ~ T~
=" Z Q Q C
00 01
r r
m
~,
tp
~ i ~ ~
(0
•~ ~, >, `.
N O ~
yam., O F ~
c ^ ^ ^
~L
d
7
~~
L_
p~ O
~ N
O m N N
c c
01-00
x^^^
N
r
O
Z
w
a~
~~
c .-
o ~
~ o ~
~ ~ E
~•
m L
Q ~ ~
~ ~ T
f6 ~
~ ~ N
~ N ~
~' ~ C
~JOI-
O ~ ~ ~
L
d
x
w
d
N T
~ f6
O ~
O 1, N
~ ~ ~ ~
~ lL LL fn
3 ^ ^ ^
s
d
c
T
O m ~ ~
O ~ ~ N
.ca~o~
~ ~ F H
^ ^ ^
O
N
~•
w+
.N
C
F
d
J
~+
Y
~ ~ ~
t0 N
~ ~ ~
~' 'C n ~.
~~ > 'S ~
L_
~¢cn0
+~+^ ^ ^
~.
O
L
A
d
++ ~
C ~
W Q~
Q
~+ O ~ ~
'a N ~ C
'a ~ R .N
om cn tL
_^^^
r
U
0
Z
~"
t
O
c
m
R
d
i
d
a
O
V
.~
m
Vl
C
y
.~
d
r
N
d
O
O
r
N
U
~L
_~
~ C
~ ~O
c a
~ m
~ ~
(n W
^ ^
U
~_
~~ U_ N
~ ~ ~ V
~_ 'O 'i.
C
~+ 3 ~ a
'O C ~ .~..
N
d ~
~~U~
3^^^
h
r
CV
N
0
V~
i
Z
TQ
i
I..~
n i urv
n i
ONBOARD SURVEY COMMENTS
Question 22. What are your suggestions to improve KeyLine or Mini-bus Service?
• (17. North End of Town). I appreciate the availability of Mini-bus service in
Dubuque, but I hesitate to suggest changes because I've not been a rider for
long, only approximately three months. However, I think it is a wonderful
service and thank you for it.
• (17. on Central Ave.) (19. but limited use in winter due to weather. Weather
permitting in winter.) Taking city bus in winter is harder for me to use due to
cold weather. Ice/snow makes it harder for me to use city bus due I use a
cane to avoid slipping and falling. I can't carry too much stuff- affects my bad
back.
• (Live in North End) Fix that exhaust. Also, some buses' heaters blow cold air.
All mini-buses need new shocks. They are terrible.
• (Lives in Assisi Village). I'm grateful to have the bus so I can get around.
Thank you.
• A great service is being done. Thank you. God bless you.
• Add another bus on Saturdays. I usually wait 1-1 / 2 hours for a bus on
Saturdays.
• All I can say is very good things about the service.
• Better management attitude by boss.
• Better timing to get people to where they need to be at a certain time ex: I live
1 / 4 mile away from a 10:30 appointment. Don't pick me up at 9:40 am. I have
a return time scheduled at 11:30, I don't get picked up until 12:30 then I ride
around for 1/2 hour. Routes later at night. Need drivers on Saturday (only
have 2) way over scheduled routes. Mini-bus on Sundays. Mini-bus can't go
out of city limits ex: Dubuque Co. Fairgrounds.
• Bus is perfect for me. Everyone is polite and helpful. I can't see to write very
well, but I congratulate all who are with the bus. It's terrific for me and I
thank everyone for the service.
• City bus stop is 2-1/2 blocks from my house and I have arthritis in both my
back and both knees. I wish the bus ran at least an hour later (6), but I'm
grateful for its existence!
• Come on time for dialysis.
• Don't change pick-up times.
-1-
• Drivers are excellent!!! Very kind, caring and courteous. I feel ve ry comfortable
they will care for my husband who is total dependent.
• Fix lift control permanently on door.
• Get mini-buses repaired when needed and be on time.
• Go easier on your drivers. They're good people.
• I can't think of too many improvements except for Sunday service as well. I'm
very thankful for your service and I want to thank you for it.
• I don't like the change awhile back of telling you when they will pick you up
instead of you telling them when to pick you up. Awhile back I wanted to go
to Wal-Mart to shop for 2-1 /2 to 3 hours. Well, they said they would pick me
up at 10 a.m. and return me at 3 p.m. Now why would anyone need five hours
to shop. So I had a long,. long wait even though I called them before one
o'clock, I still had to wait till three. I will soon be 83 years young and in poor
health.
• I feel that the service shouldn't be making people wait an hour to be picked
up after a day's work. People are tired and want to get home . I also feel that
$9.00 for a no-show is a lot for riders that are on SSI and have a fixed income
to live on. Sometimes it is beyond their control to be at the pick-up spot
occasionally. This is of great help to me for the most part. Thank you.
• I have no suggestions. Everything and all drivers are very understanding and
courteous.
• I think it's fine.
• I think the bus service is great the way they are. Thanks.
• I use a walker and sometimes I have a problem when the bus can't get close
enough to put the lift down at the apartment.
• I wish they could send emails daily to let me know the exact times for pick-
ups the next day. I am blind and deaf and have hard time using the phone to
call relay service. It is easier to use email and would like it done automatically
instead of me trying to call or email every afternoon for next day's info. Also,
it would be nice to have Saturday service for shopping.
• It is VERY helpful to my wife and me.
• It's okay.
• Keep schedule closer to times needed -- especially for workers -- and when us
is always scheduled -- the same days, time and every week the same. When
one bus gets others from same spot/place, take others who go to the same
area not make them wait for up to an hour after they are off of work -for
another bus. This is very hard on the handicapped people.Otherwise is agood
and much-needed service for the handicapped -- who are unable to drive. So,
please keep up the service. Thank you. P.S. Please try to do personal
scheduling, not just go by computer. This is very unreasonable at times!
• Keep the "price" as is! Because of low income and need.
• Longer hours.
• More buses. Sometimes have to wait quite a while.
-2-
More service.
My son has diabetes. He finishes work at 12:00. Often the bus doesn't pick
him up until 1:00. This makes it difficult to manage his diabetes with such a
late lunch, and they tell him he cannot eat on the bus. Why is this? Respond
to Kathy Thielen 583-9276. Only a few, but some of the drivers are very
impatient with him if he is not ready. He has health problems so he cannot
stand outside in the cold (cannot wear hat, coat 8s mittens until bus comes or
he gets too warm). And he is mentally handicapped so he does not always get
ready at the same pace. I would like to see all the drivers be patient especially
when they arrive before the scheduled time. Thank you! Great service and we
really appreciate what you do.
• No complaints.
• None. Good all around. Iuse a w/c -hard to ride regular bus.
• Not schedule so many rides for same bus at same time. More drivers out on
Saturday, one of your busiest days. Schedule rides in different districts to
keep people on same buses, I've seen 2 different buses picking up passengers
living one block apart going to same place, same time? What's up. Nobody
should have to ride around on a bus once they get picked up for an HOUR!
• Nothing could be better than what it is today. Everyone is very polite and
courteous. We don't have KeyLine service now; did until 2008. It is back to
30-40 year service when we had to walk to another street. We are newly paved
street and service stops.
• Pick people up quicker. Sometimes I sit at dialysis 1 to 1-1/2 hours waiting
for bus to pick me up. I'll tell you one thing. You should have more drivers like
Wayne. He is great. He is so kind to his customers.
• Please go to the drivers and talk to them about better service and bus routes,
not to consultants in Colorado. They do not live here, how do they know
what's best for our location and our people here? They are not living here. The
drivers here are more helpful to us because they know our area and their
riders and they are the drivers that help us and it doesn't cost as much as
hiring consultants who are so far removed from here. It just doesn't make
sense. It just would make it more practical.
• Run every day until 10:00 p.m. Fix air conditioning and heat so they work.
Because I'm legally blind, it would be nice if driver called when they arrived
since they sometimes arrive 1 hour before scheduled time.
• Service is poor Saturday afternoon.
• Some of these questions have no relation as to why most people use this mode
of transportation.
• Sometimes return trip entails an hour or more wait or a try to the opposite
part of town to let off another passenger. My back knows it has had a very
bumpy ride. I do appreciate being able to ride the Mini-bus.
• The main KeyLine city buses need to be rerouted down residential areas
where they can pickup more passengers that don't have to walk so far to even
get a bus and I also feel that Dubuque needs more Mini-buses as they have
a lot of passengers and I do not think all you people that do drive would like
to wait for nearly 1 hour as I do for my pick-ups. During the meeting of
-3-
KeyLine services at the Dubuque Five Flags Center the transportation services
men said people should get on their computers to fill out this survey. But NOT
ALL people in the public have computers. The children and teenagers that go
to high school mainly all drive vehicles because if you drive around these
schools, there are cars and vehicles parked for quite a distance and those
children and teenagers want to go and do things when they are ready to go,
but will not want to wait. And yes, you also have to think about the weather.
Standing or waiting in very nasty ice cold weather and snow or walking in this
type of weather to get to a bus pick-up.
Time for return was 1-1 / 2 hours. I was late for me ds (insulin), lunch, 8s
physical therapy. The 1st call said it was coming. The 2nd call said I was on
the list.
You need more buses especially on Saturdays. Keep them cleaner, get better
shocks. The drivers are absolutely magnificent, but with only two buses
running on Saturday we can wait well over an hour before they arrive to take
you home from dialysis. They try their best.
-4-