Comprehensive Operational Analysis Final Report_LSC TransportationTHE CITY OF Dubuque
- ~-- mad
DUB E "°~'~~~~
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: KeyLine Comprehensive Operational Analysis
DATE: December 29, 2009
The City of Dubuque contracted with LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to complete
an Operational Analysis of KeyLine Transit system, with a focus on determining the
needs for future service expansion; identifying efficiencies on providing both current and
future services; and providing recommendations on system improvement.
Transit Manager Jon Rodocker is transmitting the final KeyLine Comprehensive
Operational Analysis.
f ~ I ~~ 1
Michael C. Van Milligen ~ ~ ~-.7.~/~
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Jon Rodocker, Transit Manager
David Heiar, Economic Development Director
THE CTTY OF C
DuB E
Masterpiece on the Mississippi M E M O R A N D U M
December 28, 2009
To: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
From: Jon Rodocker, Transit Manager
Subject: Keyline Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to present the Comprehensive Operational Analysis conducted by
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc..
Background
The City of Dubuque contracted with LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to complete an
Operational Analysis of Keyline Transit system, with a focus on determining the needs for future
service expansion; indentifying efficiencies on providing both current and future services; and
providing recommendations on system improvement. LSC collected and evaluated boarding
data, reviews origin-destination information, reviewed operational analysis and provided an
analysis of demands.
LSC has designed five and ten year implementation plans for a preferred service, facility and
capital plan that will service the residents of Dubuque efficiently and effectively. Since the
Council last reviewed the study, LSC has added an additional chapter (Ch.16) that breaks down
the implementation plan into more manageable steps.
Recommendation
I recommend the City Council accept the Comprehensive Operational Analysis and direct
Keyline management to create a subcommittee to review the Implementation Plan's submitted
by the LSC consultants and develop feasible accomplishments through the budget process.
Dubuque KeyLine
Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Final Report
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
December 9, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................... . ES-1
Introduction ............................................. . ES-1
Transit Goals and Objectives ................................ . ES-1
Socioeconomic Background ................................. . ES-2
Onboard Survey and Counts ................................. . ES-2
Evaluation ofKeyLine Fixed Routes ........................... . ES-4
Evaluation of Mini-bus Service ............................... . ES-5
Service Plan ............................................. . ES-6
Marketing ............................................... . ES-9
Capital and Facilities Plan .................................. . ES-9
Financial Plan ............................................ ES-10
I INTRODUCTION .......................................... ...I-1
Background ............................................. ...I-1
History of Service ....................................... ... I-2
Fixed-Route Overview ................................... ...I-2
Study Process ............................................ ...I-4
Public Involvement ..................................... ...I-4
Data Collection ........................................ ... I-5
Operational Review ..................................... ... I-5
Financial Review ....................................... ...I-5
Recommendations ...................................... ... I-6
Review of Previous Studies and Reports ........................ ... I-6
Design of a Community Transportation System (2000) .......... ... I-6
DMATS 2031 Long Range Transportation Plan (2000) ........... ... I-8
A Regional Response to Local Needs (2003) ................... ... I-9
Dubuque Comprehensive Plan ............................. .. I-11
Organization of this Report .................................. .. I-13
II TRANSIT VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES .................... .. II-1
Introduction ............................................. .. II-1
Sustainability Goals ....................................... .. II-1
Transit Vision ............................................ .. II-2
Mission Statement ...................................... .. II-2
Goals and Objectives .................................... .. II-3
Goal # 1: Maintain the existing ridership base while attracting
new riders ....................................... .. II-3
Goal #2: Continue to enhance the environmental sustainability
of the transit system ............................... .. II-4
Goal #3: Provide high quality, customer-oriented service ...... .. II-4
Goal #4: Provide efficient, effective, and safe services ......... .. II-5
Goal #5: Promote the transit service ...................... .. II-6
Land Use Planning and Development Patterns ................... .. II-6
Cluster Land Use Densities Close to Major Transit Stops ........ .. II-9
Street Network Should Be Developed to Allow Efficient Transit Servi ce II-9
Convenient Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit Stops .. . II-10
Site Design That Serves Both Auto and Transit Users ........... . II-10
_11_
III SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND .................... ..........III-1
Community Description ............................ ..........III-1
Study Area Location ............................. ..........III-1
Major Activity Centers ........................... ..........III-3
Major Employers ............................... ..........III-5
Study Area Demographics .......................... ..........III-6
1990-2008 Population ........................... ..........III-6
Population Density and Distribution ............. ..........III-8
Population Projections ........................ .........III-10
Transit-Dependent Population Characteristics ........ .........III-12
Elderly Population ........................... .........III-15
Mobility Impairments ......................... .........III-15
Low-Income Individuals ....................... .........III-15
Minority Population .......................... .........III-19
Zero-Vehicle Households ...................... ......... III-19
Households With One or More Vehicles ........... .........III-19
College Student Population .................... .........III-23
Household Density ........................... .........III-23
Economy ....................................... .........III-26
Travel Patterns ................................... .........III-27
Work Transportation Mode ....................... .........III-27
Places of Residence and Work ..................... .........III-30
IV FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE EVALUATION ................. .......... IV-1
Operational Review ................................ .......... IV-4
Vehicle Inventory ............................... ..........IV-4
Fixed-Route Services ............................ ..........IV-4
System Performance ............................ ..........IV-6
Route Effectiveness ............................. ..........IV-6
Financial Overview ................................ ..........IV-8
Revenues ..................................... ..........IV-8
Expenses ..................................... ..........IV-8
Cost Allocation Model ........................... .......... IV-9
Route Efficiency ................................ .........IV-10
Overall Route Performance Score ................... ......... IV-11
Initial Route and Services Review .................. ......... IV-13
Community Comparison ......................... ......... IV-13
Unmet Demand ................................ .........IV-19
Ridership Review ................................. .........IV-21
Historical Ridership Review ....................... ......... IV-21
Ridership Trends ............................... .........IV-21
Ridership by Month ............................. .........IV-26
Ridership by Day ............................... .........IV-26
Current Ridership Tracking .................... ......... IV-28
Bicycles and Wheelchairs ...................... ......... IV-28
Boardingsby Route ................................ .........IV-28
Temporal Analysis .............................. ......... IV-32
On-Time Performance ........................... .........IV-34
Transfer Analysis ............................... .........IV-34
Systemwide Performance ......................... ......... IV-35
Boarding and Alighting Route Maps ................... ......... IV-38
NTD Reporting ................................... .........IV-59
-iii-
V ONBOARD SURVEY RESULTS ...................... ........... V-1
Introduction .................................... ........... V-1
Survey Findings ................................. ........... V-1
Demographic Characteristics ..................... ........... V-2
Age and Gender ............................ ........... V-2
Annual Household Income .................... ........... V-3
Vehicle Ownership and Licensed Driver .......... ........... V-4
Employment ............................... ........... V-5
Occupation ................................ ........... V-5
Ethnicity .................................. ........... V-6
Source of Information ........................ ........... V-7
Fare Payment .............................. ........... V-8
Trip Characteristics ............................ ........... V-8
Trip Purpose ............................... ........... V-9
Reason for Riding ........................... ........... V-9
Transfers ................................. .......... V-10
Coming From and Going To ................... .......... V-11
Blocks Walked To/From the Bus ............... .......... V-14
Temporal Analysis ............................. .......... V-15
Ridership Frequency ........................... .......... V-16
Perceptions aboutKeyLine Transit ................. .......... V-17
Additional Comments .......................... .......... V-18
VI EVALUATION OF KEYLINE MINI-BUS SERVICE ......... ........... VI-1
Introduction .................................... ...........VI-1
Background .................................. ...........VI-1
Scheduling and Dispatch Procedures ................. ........... VI-4
Scheduling a Trip ............................. ...........VI-4
Dispatching .................................. ...........VI-6
Performance .................................... ...........VI-6
Operating Budget ............................. ...........VI-7
Expenses ................................. ...........VI-7
Service Efficiency .............................. .......... VI-10
General Service Trends ....................... .......... VI-10
Ridership and Effectiveness Trends ........... .......... VI-11
Cost Per Service-Hour ....................... .......... VI-13
Cost Per Passenger-Trip ...................... .......... VI-13
Effectiveness ................................. ..........VI-15
Passengers Per Service-Hour .................. .......... VI-15
Trips Per Capita ............................ ..........VI-15
Origin-Destination ............................. .......... VI-15
RTA Service Overview ............................. .......... VI-18
Financial Overview ............................ .......... VI-18
Origin-Destination ............................. .......... VI-19
Temporal Analysis ................................ .......... VI-22
Mini-bus Survey Analysis and Findings ............... .......... VI-26
Demographic Characteristics ..................... .......... VI-26
Residence ................................. ..........VI-26
Age and Gender ............................ ..........VI-27
Annual Household Income .................... .......... VI-28
Vehicle Availability and Licensed Driver .......... .......... VI-29
Occupation ................................ ..........VI-30
Ethnicity .................................. ..........VI-31
-iv-
Source of Information .................................. VI-32
Trip Characteristics ...................................... VI-32
Trip Purpose .........................................VI-32
Reason for Riding .....................................VI-33
Coming From and Going To ............................. VI-34
Ridership Frequency and Familiarity ......................... VI-36
Perceptions about KeyLine Transit ........................... VI-37
Additional Comments .................................... VI-38
VII DEMAND ANALYSIS .................. .................... .. VII-1
Introduction ........................ .................... .. VII-1
Fixed-Route Model ................... .................... .. VII-1
Approach ........................ .................... .. VII-2
ADA Eligibility Model ................. .................... .. VII-7
Greatest Transit Needs ................ .................... . VII-13
Methodology ..................... .................... . VII-13
Results ......................... .................... . VII-19
Demographic Maps and Service Area ..... .................... . VII-23
Low-Income Population ............. .................... . VII-23
Minority Population ................ .................... . VII-24
Limited-English-Proficient Population .. .................... . VII-24
VIII TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS ........... .................... ..VIII-1
Introduction ........................ .................... ..VIII-1
Types of Transit Service ............... .................... ..VIII-1
Fixed-Route Service ................ .................... ..VIII-1
Service Routes .................... .................... ..VIII-3
Demand-Response Service ........... .................... ..VIII-3
Flexible Routes ................... .................... ..VIII-4
Route Deviation ................ .................... ..VIII-4
Checkpoint Service .............. .................... ..VIII-4
Commuter or Express Service ........ .................... ..VIII-5
Transit Service Options ................ .................... ..VIII-5
Option 1 -Central Hub ............. .................... ..VIII-6
60-Minute Headway ............. .................... ..VIII-7
30-Minute Peak Headway, 60-Minute Off-Peak ............ ..VIII-7
30-Minute Headway ............. .................... ..VIII-7
Option 2 -East and West Hubs ....... .................... ..VIII-9
60-Minute Headway ............. .................... ..VIII-9
30-Minute Peak Headway, 60-Minute Off-Peak ............ ..VIII-9
30-Minute Headway ............. .................... .VIII-10
Option 3 -Central Hub Hybrid System . .................... .VIII-12
15-Minute Peak Headway, 30-Minute Off-Peak ............ .VIII-12
30-Minute Headway ............. .................... .VIII-12
30-Minute Peak Headway, 60-Minute Off-Peak ............ .VIII-13
30-Minute Peak Headway, Midday Demand-Response Service . .VIII-13
Option 4 -Taxi Voucher Program ...... .................... .VIII-15
Current Demand ............... .................... .VIII-15
Increased Demand .............. .................... .VIII-16
Late Nights and Sunday Service .... .................... .VIII-16
Taxi Voucher Examples .......... .................... . VIII-16
Iowa City, Iowa .............. .................... .VIII-16
Olathe, Kansas .............. .................... .VIII-17
-v-
Washington County, Maryland .................... ...VIII-17
Rhinelander, Wisconsin .......................... ...VIII-17
Organizational Options .................................. ... VIII-18
Central Dispatch for All Demand-Response Service .......... ... VIII-18
RTA Operation of All Demand-Response Services ........... ... VIII-18
ITS Technology Improvements .......................... ...VIII-19
Implementation ..................................... ... VIII-20
Passenger Information Signs ........................ ... VIII-20
Real-Time Internet Information ....................... ... VIII-21
Queue-Jump Lanes ............................... ...VIII-22
Signal Priority .................................... ... VIII-22
IX EQUIPMENT AND FACILITY NEEDS ........................ ..... IX-1
Introduction .......................................... .....IX-1
Vehicles ............................................ .....IX-1
Alternative Fuels ....................................... .....IX-4
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) ......................... ..... IX-4
Methanol .......................................... .....IX-6
Ethanol ........................................... .....IX-7
Diesel Fuel ......................................... .....IX-7
Biodiesel .......................................... .....IX-8
Hydrogen Fuel Technology ............................. .....IX-8
AC Transit ...................................... .....IX-8
VTA Transit ..................................... .....IX-9
SunLine Transit .................................. ....IX-10
Hybrid Buses ....................................... ....IX-11
King County Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Buses ...... .... IX-12
Tax Credits ........................................ ....IX-13
Overall Conclusions .................................. ....IX-13
Facility Requirements ................................... .... IX-13
General Bus Stop Guidelines ........................... .... IX-14
Bus Stop Areas, Bus Landing Pads, and Accessible Paths .. .... IX-15
Signs .......................................... ....IX-17
PassengerAmenities ............................... ....IX-19
Shelters ........................................ ....IX-19
Benches ........................................ ....IX-20
Trash Receptacles ................................. ....IX-20
Lighting ........................................ ....IX-20
Bicycle Parking ................................... ....IX-21
Park-and-Ride/Multimodal Facilities .................. .... IX-21
Industry Standards ................................ ....IX-21
X FINANCIAL NEEDS ..................................... ..... X-1
Introduction .......................................... ..... X-1
Funding Gaps ......................................... ..... X-1
Funding Sources ....................................... ..... X-2
Capital Funding ..................................... ..... X-2
Operations and Maintenance Funding .................... ..... X-3
Local and Regional Funding Sources ..................... ..... X-4
General Fund Appropriations ........................ ..... X-4
Local Transit Levy ................................. ..... X-4
Advertising ...................................... ..... X-4
Hotel/Motel Tax .................................. ..... X-5
-vi-
Local College Funding ................................ .. X-5
Federal Transit Funding ................................. .. X-5
FTA Section 5309 - Capital Improvement Grants ............ .. X-6
FTA Section 5307 -Public Transportation for Urbanized Areas . .. X-6
FTA Section 5316 -Job Access and Reverse Commute Program . .. X-7
FTA Section 5317 -New Freedom ........................ .. X-7
Transit Benefit Program ............................... .. X-7
Transportation and Community System Preservation Program .. .. X-8
Temporary Assistance for Needy Famffies .................. .. X-8
Head Start Program .................................. .. X-8
Other Federal Funds ................................. .. X-9
Funding Summary ........................................ .. X-9
XI SERVICE PLAN ........................................... ..XI-1
Introduction ............................................. ..XI-1
Routes ............................................... ..XI-1
Rhomberg Avenue Circulator .............................. .. XI-6
Mt. St. Francis Circulator ................................ .. XI-6
Central Avenue Circulator ................................ .. XI-6
Shopping Circulator ..................................... . XI-10
Medical Loop .......................................... .XI-10
Downtown Shuttle ...................................... .XI-10
Industrial Park Tripper .................................. . XI-14
Asbury Plaza Tripper .................................... .XI-14
RTA Express .......................................... .XI-14
Demand-Response Areas ................................. .XI-17
VanpoolArea .......................................... .XI-17
Phased Implementation .................................... . XI-17
60-Minute Service ...................................... .XI-18
30-Minute Peak Service, 60-Minute Off-Peak Service ........... . XI-18
30-Minute Service ...................................... .XI-18
Schedules ............................................... .XI-19
60-Minute Service ...................................... .XI-19
30-Minute Peak Service, 60-Minute Off-Peak Service ........... . XI-26
30-Minute Service ...................................... .XI-30
Paratransit .............................................. .XI-37
XII PERFORMANCE MONITORING ............................... . XII-1
Monitoring Program ....................................... . XII-1
Ridership ............................................. . XII-1
On-Time Performance ................................... . XII-3
Financial Data ......................................... . XII-4
Database Formats ...................................... . XII-4
Performance Measures ..................................... . XII-5
XIII MARKETING PROGRAM .................................... . XIII-1
Current Marketing Program ................................. . XIII-1
Ride Guide ............................................ .XIII-1
Bus Stops ............................................ .XIII-1
Transit Benefit Program .................................... . XIII-2
Pass Program ............................................ .XIII-2
Other Transit Incentive Programs ............................. . XIII-4
Outreach Program ......................................... . XIII-4
-vu-
Promote Service to Users ....................................XIII-5
Rebranding the System ......................................XIII-5
XIV CAPITAL AND FACILITIES PLAN ................... ............XIV-1
Introduction .................................. ............XIV-1
Vehicle Requirements ........................... ............XIV-1
60-Minute Service ........................... ............XIV-1
Replacement Vehicles ...................... ............XIV-1
Additional Vehicles ........................ ............XIV-2
30-Minute Service .......................... .............XIV-2
Facilities .................................... ............XIV-2
Vehicle Storage Facility ...................... .............XIV-2
Transfer Centers ........................... .............XIV-3
Bus Stop Improvements ...................... .............XIV-6
XV FINANCIAL PLAN ............................. ............. XV-1
Introduction .................................. ............ XV-1
Fares ....................................... ............ XV-1
Fare-Free System ........................... ............. XV-1
Fare Structure ............................. ............. XV-2
Five-Year Financial Plan Options ................. ............. XV-3
Phased Implementation Plan ..................... ............. XV-7
XVI SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION STEPS ............ ............XVI-1
Introduction .................................. ............XVI-1
Route and Schedule Changes .................... .............XVI-1
Orange Route ............................... ............XVI-1
Green Route ............................... ............XVI-3
Red Route ................................. ............XVI-5
Grey Route ................................. ............XVI-7
Downtown Shuttle .......................... .............XVI-7
Asbury Tripper ............................. .............XVI-7
Industrial Park Tripper ...................... .............XVI-7
West End Demand Response .................. .............XVI-7
South End Demand Response ................. .............XVI-9
University/College Shuttle .................... .............XVI-9
Extend Operating Hours ..................... .............XVI-9
Organizational Changes ........................ ............XVI-10
Consolidated Dispatching/Scheduling ........... ............XVI-10
Marketing and Customer Information .............. ............XVI-10
Automatic Vehicle Location ................... ............XVI-10
Mobile Data Terminals ....................... ............XVI-10
Real-Time Passenger Information ............... ............XVI-11
Facilities .................................... ............XVI-11
Implementation Schedule ....................... ............XVI-12
APPENDIX A: Onboard Survey
APPENDIX B: Onboard Survey Comments
APPENDIX C: Mini-bus Survey Form
APPENDIX D: Mini-bus Survey Comments
-vui-
LIST OF TABULATIONS
Table Title Page
III-1 Major Employers in the Dubuque Area ....................... ...III-5
III-2 Dubuque County Population Projections ..................... ..III-10
III-3 2008 Estimated General Population Characteristics ............ ..III-13
III-4 2006 Industry Breakout by Employment in Dubuque County ..... ..III-26
III-5 Mode of Transportation .................................. ..III-28
III-6 County-to-County Worker Flow Patterns out of Dubuque County .. ..III-29
III-7 County-to-County Worker Flow Patterns into Dubuque County .... ..III-30
IV-1 KeyLine Transit Fleet Inventory ............................ ... IV-5
IV-2 System Performance Fixed-Route Services .................... ... IV-6
IV-3 Route Effectiveness ..................................... ...IV-7
IV-4 KeyLine 2008 Revenue Sources ............................ ... IV-8
IV-5 KeyLine Fixed-Route Expenses ............................. ...IV-9
IV-6 Cost Allocation Model -Fixed-Route Services .................. ... IV-9
IV-7 Route Efficiency ........................................ ..IV-11
IV-8 Overall Route Performance ................................ .. IV-12
IV-9 Iowa Community Analysis Performance Measures .............. .. IV-15
IV-10 National Peer Community Analysis for Fixed-Route Service
Performance Measures ................................ ..IV-17
IV-11 KeyLine Ridership Summary .............................. .. IV-22
IV-12 Average Monthly and Daily Fixed-Route Ridership - 2008 ........ .. IV-26
IV-13 KeyLine Daffy Route Ridership Estimates ..................... .. IV-27
IV-14 KeyLine Route Ridership Estimates ......................... .. IV-29
IV-15 Ridership by Time (Weekday) .............................. .. IV-32
IV-16 Transfer Matrix ......................................... ..IV-35
IV-17 KeyLine Performance Measures ............................ ..IV-37
V-1 Survey Responses by Time and Day ......................... ... V-1
V-2 Information about KeyLine ................................ ... V-7
V-3 Blocks Walked to Bus .................................... .. V-15
V-4 Blocks Walked from Bus ................................. .. V-15
V-5 Bus Waiting Times ...................................... .. V-16
V-6 Perceptions aboutKeyLine ................................ .. V-18
VI-1 KeyLine Paratransit FY2008 Budget ......................... ... VI-9
VI-2 Mini-bus Historical Budget ............................... .. VI-10
VI-3 Cost Allocation Model for Mini-bus Services ................... .. VI-10
VI-4 Mini-bus Services ....................................... ..VI-11
VI-5 National Peer Community Analysis for Paratransit Service 2007
Performance Measures ................................ .. VI-14
VI-6 RTA Cost Allocation Model ................................ .. VI-19
VI-7 Comparison of KeyLine Mini-bus and RTA Services ............. .. VI-19
VI-8 Mini-bus Service ....................................... ..VI-37
VII-1 Fixed-Route Demand Model -Existing ....................... .. VII-3
VII-2 2008 Estimated Paratransit Demand -Dubuque ............... .. VII-9
-ix-
VII-3 2008 Greatest Transit Need Scores by Census Block Group ..... ... VII-15
VII-4 Census Block Groups with Greatest Transit Need ............ ... VII-19
VIII-1 Real-Time Information Board Locations .................... ...VIII-21
VIII-2 Service Operation Summary ............................. ...VIII-23
IX-1 Fixed-Route Vehicle Requirements ........................ ..... IX-1
IX-2 Fixed-Route Vehicle Purchases .......................... .....IX-3
X-1 Operating Cost Comparison ............................. ..... X-2
XI-1 Downtown Shuttle Schedule ............................ .... XI-21
XI-2 60-Minute Headway -Pennsylvania Avenue Connector and
Shopping Circulator ................................ ....XI-23
XI-3 60-Minute Headway -Medical Loop and Asbury Road ......... .... XI-24
XI-4 60-Minute Headway -Rhomberg Avenue ................... .... XI-24
XI-5 60-Minute Headway - Mt. St. Francis ...................... .... XI-25
XI-6 60-Minute Headway -Central Avenue ..................... .... XI-25
XI-7 30-Minute Peak Headway -Shopping Circulator ............. .... XI-26
XI-8 30-Minute Peak Headway -Pennsylvania Avenue ............ .... XI-27
XI-9 30-Minute Peak Headway -Asbury Road ................... .... XI-28
XI-10 30-Minute Peak Headway -Medical Loop ................... .... XI-28
XI-11 30-Minute Peak Headway -Rhomberg Avenue ............... .... XI-29
XI-12 30-Minute Peak Headway - Mt. St. Francis ................. .... XI-29
XI-13 30-Minute Peak Headway -Central Avenue ................. .... XI-30
XI-14 30-Minute Headway -Shopping Circulator .................. .... XI-31
XI-15 30-Minute Headway -Pennsylvania Avenue ................. .... XI-32
XI-16 30-Minute Headway -Asbury Road ....................... .... XI-33
XI-17 30-Minute Headway -Medical Loop ....................... .... XI-34
XI-18 20-Minute Headway -Rhomberg Avenue ................... .... XI-35
XI-19 30-Minute Headway -Mt. St. Francis ...................... .... XI-36
XI-20 30-Minute Headway -Central Avenue ..................... .... XI-37
XV-1 Proposed Fare Structure ............................... .... XV-2
XV-2 60-Minute Service Five-Year Budget ....................... .... XV-4
XV-3 30-Minute Peak/60-Minute Off-Peak Service Five-Year Budget .. .... XV-5
XV-4 30-Minute all-Day Service Five-Year Budget ................ .... XV-6
XV-5 Preferred Plan Ten-Year Budget .......................... .... XV-9
XV-6 Capital Phasing Plan .................................. ... XV-11
XVI-1 Green Line Interim Schedule ............................ ....XVI-4
XVI-2 Red Line Interim Schedule .............................. ....XVI-6
XVI-3 Grey Line Interim Schedule ............................. ....XVI-8
-x-
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title Page
ES-1 Preferred Service ....................................... .. ES-8
III-1 Study Area ............................................ ...III-2
III-2 Activity Centers ........................................ ...III-4
III-3 Census Block Groups .................................... ...III-7
III-4 Estimated 2008 Population Density ......................... ...III-9
III-5 Projected 2012 Population Density .......................... ..III-11
III-6 2008 Estimated Density of Elderly Persons ................... ..III-16
III-7 2008 Estimated Density of Mobility-Limited Persons ............ ..III-17
III-8 2008 Estimated Density of Low-Income Persons ............... ..III-18
III-9 2008 Estimated Density of Minority Persons .................. ..III-20
III-10 2008 Estimated Density of Zero-Vehicle Households ............ ..III-21
III-11 2008 Estimated Density of Households with One or More Vehicles . ..III-22
III-12 2008 Estimated Density of College Students .................. ..III-24
III-13 2008 Estimated Household Density ......................... ..III-25
III-14 Worker Flow to College Grandview District .................... ..III-31
III-15 Worker Flow to Downtown/Port of Dubuque .................. ..III-32
III-16 Worker Flow to Eagle Point District ......................... ..III-33
III-17 Worker Flow to South End District .......................... ..III-34
III-18 Worker Flow to West End District ........................... ..III-35
III-19 Intra-District Worker Flow ................................ ..III-36
IV-1 Trips per Hour ......................................... ...IV-7
IV-2 Household Demand by Block Group ......................... .. IV-20
IV-3 KeyLine Fixed-Route Ridership Summary .................... .. IV-23
IV-4 KeyLine Mini-bus Ridership Summary ....................... .. IV-24
IV-5 KeyLine Total Service Ridership Summary .................... .. IV-25
IV-6 Daily Ridership Comparison ............................... .. IV-27
IV-7 Weekday Proportional Segment Ridership by Route Segment ...... .. IV-30
IV-8 Weekday Proportional Systemwide Ridership by Route Segment ... .. IV-31
IV-9 Weekday Boardings by Time Period ......................... .. IV-33
IV-10 Percentage of Trips Early or Late ........................... .. IV-34
IV-11 Weekday Green Boardings ................................ ..IV-39
IV-12 Weekday Green Alightings ................................ ..IV-40
IV-13 Weekday Grey Boardings ................................. ..IV-41
IV-14 Weekday Grey Alightings ................................. ..IV-42
IV-15 Weekday Orange Boardings ............................... ..IV-43
IV-16 Weekday Orange Alightings ............................... ..IV-44
IV-17 Weekday Red Boardings .................................. ..IV-45
IV-18 Weekday Red Alightings .................................. .. IV-46
IV-19 Weekday Systemwide Boardings ........................... .. IV-47
IV-20 Weekday Systemwide Alightings ............................ .. IV-48
IV-21 Saturday Green Boardings ................................ ..IV-49
IV-22 Saturday Green Alightings ................................ ..IV-50
IV-23 Saturday Grey Boardings ................................. ..IV-51
IV-24 Saturday Grey Alightings ................................. ..IV-52
-xi-
IV-25 Saturday Orange Boardings ............................... ..IV-53
IV-26 Saturday Orange Alightings ............................... ..IV-54
IV-27 Saturday Red Hoardings .................................. ..IV-55
IV-28 Saturday Red Alightings .................................. ..IV-56
IV-29 Saturday Systemwide Boardings ........................... ..IV-57
IV-30 Saturday Systemwide Alightings ........................... .. IV-58
V-1 Age ................................................. ... V-2
V-2 Gender ............................................... ... V-3
V-3 Annual Household Income ................................ ... V-3
V-4 Vehicles Available ....................................... ... V-4
V-5 License and Ability to Drive ............................... ... V-5
V-6 Occupation ............................................ ... V-6
V-7 Race or Ethnicity ....................................... ... V-7
V-8 Fare Payment Method ................................... ... V-8
V-9 Trip Purpose ........................................... ... V-9
V-10 Reason for Riding ....................................... .. V-10
V-11 Transfer Need .......................................... .. V-10
V-12 Mode to Bus ........................................... .. V-11
V-13 Location Prior to Boarding ................................ .. V-12
V-14 Destination After Alighting ................................ .. V-13
V-15 Mode from Bus ......................................... .. V-14
V-16 Ridership Frequency .................................... .. V-17
VI-1 Mini-bus Service Area ................................... ... VI-3
VI-2 KeyLine Mini-bus Ridership Summary ....................... .. VI-12
VI-3 Mini-bus Weekly Origins/Destinations ....................... .. VI-16
VI-4 Mini-bus Weekly Travel Desire Lines ........................ .. VI-17
VI-5 RTA Weekly Origins/Destinations .......................... .. VI-20
VI-6 RTA Travel Desire Lines .................................. .. VI-21
VI-7 KeyLine Average Daily Mini-bus Service Requests by Time of Day .. .. VI-23
VI-8 RTA Average Daily Service Requests by Time of Day ............. .. VI-24
VI-9 RTA and KeyLine Mini-bus Average Weekly Trips by Time ........ .. VI-25
VI-10 Residence ............................................. ..VI-27
VI-11 Age Cohorts ........................................... ..VI-28
VI-12 Gender ............................................... ..VI-28
VI-13 Annual Household Income ................................ .. VI-29
VI-14 Was a vehicle available? .................................. .. VI-30
VI-15 Do you have a license? ................................... .. VI-30
VI-16 Occupation ............................................ ..VI-31
VI-17 Ethnicity ............................................. ..VI-31
VI-18 Source of Information .................................... .. VI-32
VI-19 Trip Purpose ........................................... ..VI-33
VI-20 Reason for Riding ....................................... ..VI-34
VI-21 Origin ................................................ ..VI-35
VI-22 Destination ............................................ ..VI-35
VI-23 Ridership Frequency .................................... ..VI-36
VI-24 Can you use fixed-route services? .......................... .. VI-37
VI-25 Does service operate late enough? .......................... .. VI-38
-xu-
VII-1 Greatest Transit Needs .................................... VII-20
VII-2 Greatest Transit Needs with Routes .......................... VII-22
VII-3 Low-Income Population Above the Threshold for 2008............ VII-25
VII-4 Minority Population Above the Threshold for 2008 ............... VII-26
VII-5 Limited English Proficiency Population Above the Threshold for 2008 VII-27
VIII-1 Option 1 ................................................VIII-8
VIII-2 Option 2 ...............................................VIII-11
VIII-3 Option 3 ...............................................VIII-14
IX-1 ADA Minimum Dimensions of a Passenger Loading Pad and Shelter .VIII-16
XI-1 Preferred Service ............................. .............XI-2
XI-2 Pennsylvania Ave. Connection ................... ............. XI-4
XI-3 Asbury Rd. Connector ......................... .............XI-5
XI-4 Rhomberg Ave. Circulator ...................... ............. XI-7
XI-5 Mt. St. Francis Circulator ....................... ............. XI-8
XI-6 Central Avenue Circulator ...................... ............. XI-9
XI-7 Shopping Circulator ........................... ............ XI-11
XI-8 Medical Loop ................................ ............XI-12
XI-9 Downtown Shuttle ............................ ............ XI-13
XI-10 Business Park Tripper ......................... ............XI-15
XI-11 Asbury Plaza Tripper .......................... ............XI-16
XII-1 Manual Passenger Boarding Counters ............. ............ XII-2
XIV-1 Possible Central Transfer Site Locations ............ ............XIV-5
XVI-1 Interim Service Plan .......................................XVI-2
XVI-2 Proposed Implementation Schedule ..........................XVI-13
-xiii-
Executive Summary
SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND
The Dubuque Metropolitan Area population is estimated at approximately92,285
individuals as of 2008. The region has been a steadily slow-growing area over the
past twenty years. The region has a fairly low elderly population, representing
about 19 percent of the regional population. Additionally, around two percent of
the population has amobility-limiting disability. The majority of the metropolitan
area's minority population lives close to downtown and is concentrated in the
Eagle Point district of the city. A small portion of the metro area is considered to
be impoverished, representing seven percent of the total population. The propor-
tion of individuals residing in homes without access to a vehicle also stands at
seven percent.
The main employment sector in Dubuque is "trade," which represents 19 percent
of all employment. Closely following sectors are "manufacturing" with 18 percent
and "education and health services" with 17 percent. The addition of several
hundred jobs by IBM in the downtown area will have an affect on the sector
distribution in the future.
ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNTS
An onboard survey and passenger counts were conducted in January 2009. The
survey and counts were conducted over the course of three days two weekdays
and a Saturday. Some results of the onboard survey and counts are presented
briefly in this section.
Out of 2,160 boardings, there were a total of 481 responses over the three days of
surveys, yielding a 22 percent response rate. The average age of respondents was
40 years old, with 50 being the most frequent response. The most common age
cohort was 45-54, with 20 percent of respondents. Approximately 14 percent of
respondents were age 18 or younger. A total of 60 percent of respondents listed
themselves as female, with the remaining 40 percent being male. Seventy percent
of riders identified themselves as being white. An additional 19 percent said that
Lsc
Page ES 2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Executive Summary
Executive Summary
This cost per hour difference is due primarily to staffing costs. The lower cost of
the RTA provides a prime opportunity to coordinate service to make it more
efficient.
Passenger pick-up times were examined to see if the services have similar peaks.
It was found that the RTA has more traditional morning and afternoon peaks with
a dip during the day, while the Mini-bus service has its main peak at midday. The
fact that the systems have opposite peaks is promising for future coordinated
services.
A survey of paratransit riders was also conducted shortly after the fixed-route
surveys were completed. A total of 108 respondents completed the survey. The
majority of riders come from the West End neighborhood (52 percent). The average
age of Mini-bus riders was 69 years old and 69 percent of riders were aged 65 or
older. A large proportion of riders, 71 percent, were female. Almost all of the riders
were white (97 percent). Ninety percent of respondents earned $25,000 annually
and 64 percent said that they were retired.
Eighty-two percent of respondents said that they have no access to a vehicle and
74 percent do not have a license or the ability to drive. The major trip purpose was
to use the service for medical appointments (56 percent). Respondents most fre-
quentlyreported using the service three days per week, with 26 percent. Sixty-five
percent of respondents said that they cannot use the fixed-route service to meet
their transportation needs. Mini-bus users had a favorable perception of the
service in general, with all attributes receiving scores above 3.3 out of 4.0.
SERVICE PLAN
After careful editing and review of many transit options, a preferred service plan
was agreed upon. This service plan takes advantage of many different types of
service and vehicles. The plan includes the following types of service and routes:
• Connectors -routes serving the Delhi and Kennedy Circle transfer centers
• Circulators -routes serving either Delhi or Kennedy Circle transfer centers
• Demand-Response Zones -call-ahead areas, utilizing smaller vehicles
Lsc
Page ES 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Executive Summary
Executive Summary
• Trippers -routes with scheduled deviations at various times
• Vanpools -van sharing, aimed at off-hours commuters
Figure ES-1 provides a graphic depiction of the proposed service. The plan
recommends a phased implementation approach, which is cost effective. The first
phase represents the first three years after initial implementation. In this phase,
the routes will operate on 60-minute schedules. Phase two represents years four
through six after implementation. The scheduling duringthis phase allows for 30-
minute headways during peak commutingtimes, with 60-minute headways during
the middle of the day. The final phase, which is applied to years seven through
ten, will have 30-minute headways all day. For all of the phases, it is
recommended that service operate from 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.
The service plan recommends that the Mini-bus service be limited to those eligible
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Seniors who are not eligible will
have enhanced opportunities to use the general public service and DuRide, anew
program set up specifically for seniors.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Executive Summary Page ES 7
Introduction
the greatest demand for services and provides recommendations for further
improving service to underserved areas. Furthermore, this study provides the
community with a detailed evaluation ofexisting routes to determine what modifi-
cations could be made under the current budget as well as those services that
should be provided if increased funding is obtained.
History of Service
Beginning in 1973, the Dubuque transit system was transferred from Interstate
Power to the City of Dubuque. Service hours and fleet size have had several
decreases over the decades, and ridership has steadily declined since as early as
the 1950s. Service requests are unable to be met due to budgetary constraints.
This study is in response to the issue of providing efficient and effective service.
The KeyLine Transit system is administered by a Transit Manager who reports to
the Economic Development Director and City Manager. Policy is provided by the
City Council acting on the advice of the Dubuque Transit Trustee Board. The
Transit Manager historically was a city employee, however in 2005 service man-
agement was contracted to First Transit.
KeyLine provides public transit from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Service does not operate on
Sundays.
Historically, paratransit service has moved between the City and the RTA until
now, where paratransit service is housed under the operations of KeyLine. The
RTA currently provides services within the KeyLine service area as well.
Fixed-Route Overview
The following presents a brief description of the fixed routes operated by KeyLine.
The present KeyLine Transit system consists of four scheduled routes (the Red,
Green, Orange, and Grey Lines), a paratransit system, and a seasonal trolley
system that serves the downtown area along with the Port of Dubuque. The four
routes serve three transfer centers in various parts of the city. The routes mainly
originate from the downtown transfer station located at 6"' and Iowa. The routes
Lsc
Page 72 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Introduction
could be viewed as eight actual routes. There are two portions to each route that
travel in differing directions. For instance, the Red Route has eastbound and
westbound portions that converge in the downtown area. One could view several
of the routes as two separate routes connecting the various parts of the city.
Red: The Red Route is the most productive of the four routes and is broken down
into eastern and western s ections. The eastern portion serves downtown and the
Eagle Point District along Jackson and Windsor. The route serves Mount St.
Francis at the northernmost point of the route. The east portion pulses at 30
minutes past the hour atthe Delhi TransferPoint and at 45 minutes past the hour
downtown.
The western portion serves Mercy Hospital, Kennedy Mall, and Wal-Mart, pulsing
downtown at 15 minutes past the hour.
Orange: The Orange Route operates two half-hour trips-a southern and a
northern. The route operates to Mt. Carmel via various neighborhoods in the
South End District. The route serves several schools, Mercy Hospital, and Hy-Vee.
The northern portion serves the Mystique Casino.
Grey: The Grey Route operates two loops originating from downtown. The eastern
portion pulses downtown at 15 minutes past the hour. The eastern portion serves
the Eagle Point District, Warren Plaza, and serves mainly along Rhomberg Avenue.
The western portion of the route serves Dubuque Senior High School, Finley
Hospital, Kennedy Mall, and Clarke College. Passengers can transfer at the Delhi
Transfer Point.
Green: Similarly, the Green Route is separated into eastern and western portions.
The western portion serves Asbury Plaza, Plaza 20, the Delhi Transfer Point, Finley
Hospital, and downtown. This portion of the route pulses at the top of the hour at
the Delhi Transfer Point and at 15 minutes past the hour downtown.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page 13
Introduction
The eastern portion provides service from downtown to the Central Avenue
corridor. This portion pulses at 45 minutes past the hour downtown.
STUDY PROCESS
An Advisory Committee was formed to provide feedback and guide the progress of
the operational analysis. An initial "kick-off' meeting was held in Dubuque with
the Advisory Committee. This meeting gave the project team a chance to discuss
several of the key issues and concerns regarding the current services. The
overarching goal of the study was to determine the most efficient and effective
system, under both a constrained budget and if additional funding is available for
the citizens of the Dubuque area. Several issues were discussed at the initial
meeting. These issues, as well as those which arose through the public
involvement process, helped to guide this planning effort.
Additional meetings were held with the Advisory Committee at key points during
the study process.
Public Involvement
Public open houses were held to provide an opportunity for community residents
to raise issues and to comment on the transit service improvements as the plan
was developed. Two initial open houses were held at the Five Flags Center on
February 17 and 18, 2009. One meeting was held from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and
the second was held from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. A second public open house was
held on June 23, 2009 to present the service options. A final public open house
was held November 16, 2009 to present the draft plan.
Passengers had the opportunity to participate in the onboard survey conducted
in January. Passengers were encouraged to provide comments and suggestions
for improvements to service. This input was used to develop the transit service
options.
A stakeholders group of community representatives was formed. This provided an
opportunity for representatives of various agencies and community programs to
identify needs of their clients and improvements to be considered for the transit
Lsc
Page 7 4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Introduction
service in Dubuque. Meetings of the stakeholder group were held in April and
June.
Separate meetings were held with drivers to obtain the input of those who are
involvedin day-to-day operations and who have the most contact with passengers.
These meetings took place in February and June.
Data Collection
An extensive data collection effort was undertaken to provide the information for
a thorough service evaluation. Datacollected by KeyLine were compiled. Passenger
boarding and alighting counts were completed and an onboard survey was
conducted for both the KeyLine fixed-route service and the Mini-bus service. This
updated information was critical in the consideration of route modifications and
schedule enhancements. Additionally, this information allows the City to gauge
passenger perceptions on service quality and provides information on passenger
demographics, desires, and needs.
Operational Review
One major focus of this project was the operational review of the services offered.
This included determining route and system performance measures. Operational
effectiveness indicates how well the community is served by transit. The opera-
tional review formed the basis for developing concepts for improved service.
Financial Review
A financial review is critical to determine various measures of effi-
ciency. The first aspect is determining the sources of revenue for
services and to determine ifall applicable sources of revenue are being
taken advantage of. The second aspect is the determination of the
actual efficiency of services at a route and system level. Those services that were
either ineffective or inefficient were looked at closely for service changes.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Page 15
Introduction
Recommendations
The final aspect of the plan details the specific recommendations for service
changes. These range from very little change to major route restructuring and
different types of services that are offered in various portions of the community.
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS
This section summarizes previous plans and studies that have been undertaken
for the City and County of Dubuque. The purpose of this section of Chapter I is to
present a review of previous planning efforts that discuss transportation or transit
issues in the study area. This review provides insight into how the community
plans to develop in the future. Planning documents relevant to present or future
transportation planning in the area include:
• Design of a Community Transportation System (2000)
• Dubuque Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (DMATS) 2031 Long
Range Transportation (2000)
• A Regional Response to Local Needs (2003)
• Dubuque Comprehensive Plan (2008)
These planning documents are reviewed briefly in the following sections to the
extent that they relate to transportation in the study area. Briefly, these
documents are presented as a discussion of past planning efforts. Only relevant
information is presented. Please refer to each document for more specific details.
Design of a Community Transportation System (2000)
This study presented a redesign plan for the City and County's public transporta-
tion system that would improve services for existing customers, attract choice
riders, and meet some of the unmet transportation needs of Dubuque residents.
The study's focus was to maximize avaffable resources and effectiveness in the
various passenger transportation services that operated in the City and County
of Dubuque. The study included interviews with staff from KeyLine Transitand the
RTA, selected agency representatives, transportation providers, and stakeholder
and focus groups to identify the perceptions of existing transportation services
provided, identify unmet transportation needs, and the extent of existing
coordination efforts among providers. Based on the data collection efforts, the
Lsc
Page 16 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Introduction
study identified existing transportation services in Dubuque County, estimated
the potentialdemand for transportation services and compared it with the actual
services provided by KeyLine Transit and the RTA, mapped geographic concen-
trations of the transportation disadvantaged market segments, identified
alternatives to address transportation deficiencies, created conceptual
organizational structures that would enhance coordination of transit services
operatingin the City and County of Dubuque, and finally, made recommendations
and suggested potential strategies for better coordination between various
transportation providers.
The plan reviewed the following high-demand areas that were not served by
KeyLine fixed routes-Carriage Hill Drive (south city), Palomino Circle to the
Grandview Avenue area, and West Dubuque in the Asbury Road area.
This plan identified possible service improvements and associated costs on
KeyLine Transit, made recommendations on increasing the ADA fare to $2.00 per
one-way trip, and made recommendations on implementing agrid-based fare. The
plan also made recommendations on implementing a new neighborhood shuttle
service for Mt. Carmel/Technology Park starting off as a demonstration project.
One of the recommendations was that the City of Dubuque assume responsibility
for providing contract services within the City of Dubuque, while the RTA would
focus its attention on providing more rural services in the State of Iowa Planning
Area VIII, which includes Dubuque County (excluding the City of Dubuque), as
well as Delaware and Jackson Counties. The two types of service concepts to cover
rural areas of Dubuque County were scheduled sector services (i.e., organize
trips that have similar pick-up times, origins, and destinations) and route-
deviation or flexible-route services between communities. Other recommenda-
tions were to make joint purchases between the City and RTA for reservation and
scheduling software, dispatch and communication center, mobile communica-
tions, maintenance, training for drivers, travel training for customers, common
policies and procedures, and creating a regional public transit image using
common vehicle color schemes, driver uniforms, and fare structures. Since the
completion of this study, many of the strategies recommended for better
coordination between the two agencies have been implemented.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Page 17
Introduction
DMATS 2031 Long Range Transportation Plan (2000)
This long-range transportation plan considered plans for the development of an
integrated intermodal transportation system to support economic movement of
people and goods.
The transitelement of this plan highlights the various public transit providers and
the type of services they provide in the DMATS area:
• KeyLine Transit in the City of Dubuque
• Regional Transit Authority (RTA) service in the Region VIII Regional Transit
Authority,which includes Dubuque County (excludes the CityofDubuque),
Delaware County, and Jackson County
• KeyLine Transit in the City of East Dubuque
• Jo Daviess County Workshop in Jo Daviess County
• The Center of Aging of Grant County in the Grant County area
Based on the identified issues of the Transit Integration Study, this plan identified
proposed projects and operational changes in the Dubuque metropolitan area.
1. Vehicle replacement on KeyLine Transit -This would cost $1.475 million
every 10 years (based on 2000 vehicle costs).
2. Route changes on KeyLine Transit -One change was operating KeyLine
Transit as aroute-deviation service that would deviate from the designated
route to pick up/drop off passengers who could not travel to a bus stop on
the designated route. Another proposed change was dropping the Orange
Route and replacing it with a new route called the Westside Circulator.
3. Development of a neighborhood shuttle service -This service was initially
proposed to be tested in the Mt. Carmel/Technology Park area that is
currently served by the Orange Line.
4. Integration of the operation of the KeyLine Transit ADA service and its con-
tract service.
5. Creation of a general public demand-response service - In order to avoid trips
being taken away from the fixed-route system, the fare recommended for the
general public demand-response service would be higher and would be based
on actual cost.
6. A joint dispatch and communication center for KeyLine Transit and RTA.
7. Joint purchase of reservation and scheduling software for both KeyLine
Transit and RTA to maximize the potential for coordinating rides and trips.
8. A common mobile communication system where both KeyLine Transit and
RTA would each have a private line and a shared line.
Lsc
Page 18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Introduction
9. Coordination of vehicle maintenance -The City of Dubuque would offer
maintenance services to RTA.
10. Coordinated driver training for KeyLine Transit and RTA.
11. Travel training for customers would be done through human resource
agencies to advise better how to travel through both KeyLine Transit and
RTA. This would also reduce customer resistance toward transfers between
the two transit systems.
12. Common policies and procedures would enhance the perception of an
integrated regional system from the riders' point of view.
13. Create a regional public transit image -While each of the transit agencies
would maintain an individual identity, a regional public image would
increase public perception of an integrated regional system.
A Regional Response to Local Needs (2003)
This was a planning grant awarded to the East Central Intergovernmental
Association (ECIA) by the Community Transportation Association of America
(CTAA). This grant was to improve rural and urban transit services for persons
living with disabilities in the fringe areas surrounding the City of Dubuque. The
unmet transportation need was identified through stakeholder surveys, KeyLine
Transit rider surveys, RTA rider surveys, Area Residential Care (ARC) resident
rider surveys, Vocational Service Center (VSC) resident ridersurveys, EIRA-owned
housing resident surveys, Dubuque County City Clerk's telephone surveys,
census data, stakeholder meetings, and public input. The study was to identify
feasible implementation strategies that could help KeyLine Transit and RTA
improve the transportation needs of persons with disabilities in the fringe area.
Comments from the surveys indicate that there was general consensus thatpeople
living in rural areas are not aware of RTA services. Based on this observation,
ECIA staff recommended possible changes to RTA marketing strategies.
• Rider guide for distribution to RTA service area (which includes athree-
county area)
• Posters to be displayed at destinations of current and potential riders
• Information through city/county newsletters
• Review of fare structure.
• Better marketing and coordination with health care providers
• Updating Project Concern/RTA website
• A quarterly newsletter with details on RTA services
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Page 19
Introduction
This project also included a pilot project that was developed by the ECIA transpor-
tation staff that involved cooperation between the two main transitproviders. This
pilot project was designed to determine how well the coordinated efforts of RTA
and KeyLine Transit worked together in connecting the rural transit services with
the city transit services, especially from the perspective of persons with disabili-
ties. This project involved taking the project participants for a special shopping
trip to Kennedy Mall and Wal-Mart. Passengers were picked up by the RTA bus
from the Park Villa Apartments and dropped off at the Kennedy Mall. There
passengers spent time eating lunch and shopping at the Kennedy Mall shops.
They then boarded the KeyLine Red Line bus on the fixed route to get to Wal-Mart.
After shopping at Wal-Mart, they then boarded the KeyLine Red Line bus to get
back to Kennedy Mall. The participants then again transferred to the RTA bus that
took them back to the Park Villa Apartments.
The issues that came up during this pilot project were:
1. Storage space on RTA buses for packages purchased.
2. No storage space on KeyLine Transit buses forced participants to carry
packages in their hands when boarding and exiting buses.
3. Need for heated bus shelters near entrances of the Mall and Wal-Mart where
vision would not be obstructed, but most importantly, passengers could see
their buses pulling in at the bus stop.
Some of the outcomes of this project were:
1. KeyLine Transit and RTA were investigating proposals forjointly purchasing
equipment.
2. RTA had expressed interest regarding sharing maintenance services at the
KeyLine Transit garage.
3. RTA was approved to implement a detailed Intelligent Transportation System
(ITS) that would include installing scheduling and dispatching software and
installing bus maintenance software and basic mobile data terminals on all
RTA-operated transit equipment.
4. KeyLine Transit and the A-OK Yellow Cab Company looked into potential
partnership arrangements and coordination of services especially targeting
public transit customers and persons with disabilities who required trans-
portation services outside the KeyLine Transit service area.
5. Possible funding sources with the various coordination initiatives were:
Increased State Transit Assistance funding; Job Access and Reverse Com-
mute (JARC); Intercity Bus funding through the State of Iowa for transpor-
Lsc
Page 110 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Introduction
tation between the City of Dubuque, Region VIII RTA, and local cab services;
and Intelligent Transportation Systems through the statewide earmark to
further integrate rural and urban transportation systems.
Dubuque Comprehensive Plan (2008)
The Dubuque Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2008 by the City. The Plan was
completed by Dubuque Planning Services. This Comprehensive Plan examines
past and present conditions of the community and acts as a guide for future
growth and development of the city and its surrounding region. This 2006-2007
update of the comprehensive plan encouraged public comment through focus
group meetings, open houses, displays, and public hearings.
The Dubuque Comprehensive Plan consists of 14 elements in three main cate-
goriest
• Physical Environment -Land Use and Urban Design, Transportation, Infra-
structure, and Environmental Quality
• Economic Environment -City Fiscal and Economic Development
• Social Environment -Health, Housing, Human Services, Education,
Cultural Arts, Recreation, Public Safety, and Diversity
This section specifically relates to transportation, which is one of the 14
elements in the Dubuque Comprehensive Plan.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, transportation goals must address a safe
and efficient transportation system that ties the community together and links the
community to the region. This is important for economic growth and to provide
access to work, schools, shopping, hospitals, churches, and residences.
Goal 1: To provide, mav~tain, and improve safe and efficientmovement onthe city's
street system
This goal would support ongoing street construction for providing maintenance,
repairs, and reconstruction of the city's street network.
Goal 2: To support long-range planning for both local and regional streets and
highways to ensure safe and efficient access into and through the city to support
planned urban growth..
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page 111
Introduction
This goal encourages coordination with regional transportation agencies involved
with long-range transportation planning, highway planning, and construction.
This goal also promotes signage to identify historic neighborhoods and districts.
Goal 3: To facilitate four lane access for road transportation from Dubuque to major
cities ~ the region.
This goal is to support a street and highway system that meets current and future
traffic needs.
Goal 4: To encourage an affordable, efficient, and accessible fransit system in the
city for the transit dependent population and as an alternative means of trans
portation.
This goal is to meet the needs of the transit-dependent population, especially to
and from work, and meet the needs of existing and new housing developments
with access to medical and care centers. This would involve exploring state and
federal capital and operating grants and using appropriately-sized vehicles that
would meet the demands of the community. The transit routes should have
shorter routes for cost-effectiveness and efficiency. The buses should provide bike
racks to encourage multimodal transportation.
Goal 5: To maintain safe and efficient utilization of the riverfront for both land and
water-based commercial, industrial, and recreafional traffic.
This goal is to promote compatibility between riverfrontdevelopments and existing
businesses located on the river.
Goal 6: To encourage safe and efficient airport service to the community and region
in accordance unth the Airport Master Plan.
This goal is to expand air cargo services, commercial air services, and develop
portions of the Dubuque airport for industrial uses-both aviation and non-
aviation related.
Goal 7: To support rail opportunities for both. commercial/industrial and passenger
service.
This goal is to explore multimodal transportation such as rail, passenger rail,
river, and trucking.
Lsc
Page 112 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Vision, Goals, and Objectives
able Mobility," defined as "Sustainable Dubuque is a community that values safe,
reasonable and equitable choices to access live, work and play opportunities."
Other principles which have a relationship to public transportation include Smart
Energy Use, Community Design, and Healthy Air. An example of implementing
these principles is providing free transit service on KeyLine for students.
Dubuque has recently partnered with IBM to implement an innovative Smarter
City intelligent transportation system that will improve regional mobility, reduce
vehicle miles travelled, reduce energy consumption and emissions, and enhance
transportation options. This effort will support enhancement of the public trans-
portation system in Dubuque and will help to meet the goals of sustainability.
To support the vision of Dubuque as a viable, liveable, and equitable community,
a proposed vision for transit service has been developed. The vision for transit will
move transit in Dubuque from being a minimal service to a community service
fully supportive of the community vision.
TRANSIT VISION
The following section details the goals and objectives developed through this plan-
ning process. The vision for the Dubuque KeyLine service consists of a mission
statement, five action goals, and objectives for each goal. The mission statement,
goals, and objectives typically form a hierarchical structure with the mission
statement being the most general. Goals support the achievement of the mission,
and objectives support the goals.
Mission Statement
The Mission Statement establishes the overall direction of an agency and enumer-
ates the most generalized set of actions to be achieved by that agency. The mission
statement for Dubuque KeyLine Transit is as follows:
Lsc
Page 772 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Objective l.f: Coordinate with the RTA so that services are provided in the most
efficient manner to reduce costs and ensure that greater transit access is achieved
with less duplication of services.
Objective l.g: Develop a strategy to get new riders to use the system through a
combination of marketing and providing more efficient services.
Objective l.h: Provide better amenities at bus stops to enhance the rider expe-
rience and provide an environme nt that is more user-friendly and attractive to new
users.
Goal #2: Continue to enhance the environmental sustainability of the transit system
Objective 2.a: Use smaller vehicles, more fuel efficient vehicles, and alternative
energy vehicles to reduce the carbon footprint of the entire transit system.
Objective 2.b: Pursue federal funding through all available programs to help
offset the cost of new alternative fuel vehicles.
Goal #3: Provide high quality, customer-oriented service
Objective 3.a: Distribute a rider survey once a year to obtain input from system
users on the adequacy of KeyLine services and any unmet needs.
Objective 3.b: Operate fixed routes in the urban areas on a 30-minute headway
at a minimum.
Objective 3.c: Operate fixed routes so they are no longer than 45 minutes in
travel time from the route's beginning location to the route's last outbound stop.
Objective 3.d: Operate fixed routes with a 95 percent on-time rate as defined by
never leaving a scheduled stop early and being no later than five minutes behind
the scheduled arrival time at each stop along the route.
Objective 3.e: Operate the paratransit service within 15 minutes (plus or minus)
of the scheduled arrival time.
Lsc
Page 77 4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Objective 3.f: Coordinate between RTA and KeyLine to consolidate scheduling,
dispatching, and sharing of rides.
Objective 3.g: Provide transit service until at least 7:00 p.m. for all routes to
ensure that commuters can use the service for work trips.
Objective 3.h: Establish operating policies and prepare a policy manual which
will include the recording and tracking of Title VI complaints.
Objective 3.i: Track passenger count data directly by KeyLine transit and report
quarterly.
Objective 3.j: Make schedules available in English, Spanish, and Braille formats.
Objective 3.k: Serve low-income and minority service areas as often as the
general population areas.
Objective 3.1: Implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications to
monitor system performance and provide real-time information to users.
Goal #4: Provide efficient, effective, and safe services
Objective 4.a: Operate the route service at an average productivity of 8 to 12
passengers per service-hour, with routes maintaining a productivity of at least
eight passengers per service-hour, and routes that do not meet the minimum
standards reviewed annually for service changes.
Objective 4.b: Operate the paratransit service to have an average productivity of
three passengers per hour.
Objective 4.c: Coordinate transportation services with the other transportation
providers in the area in order to meet regional needs.
Objective 4.d: Provide service to 85 percent of the population in the areas with
the greatest transit needs.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Page 77 5
Transit Vision, Goals, and Objectives
land use planning is often associated with government entities, land use planning
should more appropriately be viewed as the process of setting goals and pursuing
these goals in order to achieve certain ends from the use of parcels of land. Private
developers often use such words as "access" and "amenities" to describe the man-
ner in which they want their parcels of land to relate with the transportation
system.
The goal of land use planning as it relates to transportation is to make sure the
supply of transportation (the number and size of roads, the frequency of transit
service, etc.) is adequate to meet the demand (the number of people going from
one point to another). Without having a "plan" or knowledge of what to expect from
any given parcel of land, it is very difficult to achieve the balance where supply
meets demand.
When combining land use planning and transit, many people remember only the
transit advocate's point of view which is more buses, fewer cars. In some cases,
this point of view may be appropriate, but it is not the only point of view. The
cost-conscious taxpayer shouldconsider the argument that land use planning can
help minimize the cost of providing essential public transit service. The feasibility
of transit as an alternate mode oftransportation in a community is linked directly
to the land use patterns in that community.
Nationally, many communities agree that a "high density' of persons is defined as
greaterthan 12 persons peracre, while a housing density supportive offixed-route
transit is typically seen as greater than six households per acre. Nationally, many
communities have found that where the combined densities of both population
and employment exceed six dwelling units per acre and 12 employees per acre,
transit services are highly used and may operate efficiently.
Areas with a high density of persons per acre, combined with households per acre,
tend to be composed oflower-income persons who rely on transit as an effective
means of transportation. These areas are generally comprised of apartments and
areas of smaller, compact housing. Higher density generally reflects greater need
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Page 77 7
Transit Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Cluster Land Use Densities Close to Major Transit Stops
A vital rule of thumb in transit planning is that the potential for transit ridership
drops off dramatically with increased distance from the nearest transit stop.
Research consistently shows that the proportion of persons wflling to use transit
drops dramatically beyond aone-quarter mile walking distance to the bus stop
(7.5-minute walk at two miles per hour). It therefore follows that the more trip
origins and destinations that can be concentrated within approximately one-
quarter mile of a major transit stop, the greater the potential for transit usage.
Land use codes which support higher-density development in the core transit
service area and discourage low-density development will increase the feasibility
of public transit in Dubuque. City land use codes allow for this higher-density
development, but community or neighborhood opposition is often evident when
high-density projects are proposed.
The Calthorpe school of planners has dubbed this land use cluster a "pedestrian
pocket." The leading proponent defines this term to mean "a simple cluster of
housing, retail space, and offices within aquarter-mile walking radius of a transit
system" (The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban Design Strategy). Other
characteristics of a "pedestrian pocket" include a residential density of approxi-
mately 12 dwellingunits peracre anda commeroial development ata floor-to-area
ratio of at least 0.25. Other studies have found that the recommended minimum
densities ofdevelopment to support public transportation are seven dwelling units
per acre for residential developments and afloor-area-to-property-area ratio of 1.0
for commercial and office development (Guidelines for Transit-Sensitive Sub urban
Land Use Design, US DOT, p. 42: 1991).
Street Network Should Be Developed to Allow Efficient Transit Service
In order to reduce traffic volumes near residences and avoid the potential for
"cut-through" traffic, traffic and land use planners in the period since roughly
World War II have commonly designed residential areas with a curvilinear,
disconnected street system so common today in suburban areas. While abus can
be routed along the curvilinear collector or arterial street close to the residences
within a subdivision, the walking distance may be excessive because there is no
direct access. This development pattern is not prevalent in Dubuque. The
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Page 77 9
Transit Vision, Goals, and Objectives
topography of Dubuque can affect the street network as well. Connected streets
should be provided to permit bus routes into residential neighborhoods. This is
difficult to accomplish because many new areas being developed have only one
access/egress road as they begin development. Additional access/egress streets
may be several years in the future. Many streets wind through residential
neighborhoods and then end in a cul-de-sac.
Convenient Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit Stops
A key strategy in the TOD design is to ensure that transit passengers can quickly
access a bus stop from their trip origin or destination. This strategy recognizes the
fact that transit patrons are pedestrians as soon as they leave the bus. To this
end, special emphasis is placed upon providing direct and attractive pedestrian
and bicycle ways between residential and employment areas and the transit stops,
often including pedestrian paths linking cul-de-sacs with nearby transit stops on
collector and arterial streets.
Site Design That Serves Both Auto and Transit Users
A quick drive to the nearest big box retail center (i.e., a large-scale warehouse-
style retail chain such as Wal-Mart, Lowes, Home Depot, Super Target, or Best
Buy) shows the result ofcurrent commercial site design practices. Auto drivers are
provided with a relatively short walk to the front door after parking. The transit
passenger must either be dropped off at the street edge, enduring a long walk to
and across the parking lot, unprotected from the weather or the bus must travel
through the parking lot. KeyLine compensates by entering the parking areas of
many retail centers. This approach reduces the walking distance, but increases
bus running times and increases the potential for accidents. Current site design
of this type rewards auto use and penalizes transit use. Redesigned to cluster the
commercial uses near major intersections, however, both auto and transit users
could be provided with convenient walking access to the site. This practice of
"redesign" is pertinent for new development; it is more difficult for existing
commercial centers. In addition, the "clusters" formed by this site plan would
encourage increased walking between buildings for meals, business, or errands.
The City land use code requires transit accommodations for big-box retail uses.
Lsc
Page 7710 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Other site design issues relate to the geometry of streets, bus turnouts, shelters,
and park-and-ride facilities. Streets which will be designated as bus routes must
have adequate turning radii at the intersections. Bus turnouts should be designed
with a pavement composition that resists damage by buses. In addition, bus
turnouts should be sited in locations that minimize traffic flow interruptions
(especially at intersections) and maximize pedestrian access. Bus shelters should
be placed approximately four to five feet from the curb edge, and should be located
where there is efficient pedestrian access and/or neighborhood commercial nodes.
When possible, turnouts and shelters should not be sited on major arterials with
high travelspeeds. Instead, a nearby collector should be used. Park-and-ride facil-
ities should provide an adequate number of bus berths, easy pedestrian access
from the parking lots, and a separation of bus and automobile traffic flows.
Buildings, especially commercial and institutional ones, should be constructed to
provide access for transit vehicles. Common examples of such buildings are
hospitals and local hotels. The access that is needed consists of overhead
clearance and pull-through driveways. Without these, the transit vehicle must
either stop further from the front door of such buildings or be at risk of backing
out of dead-end driveways. Poor vehicle access also contributes to a loss of
efficiency.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page 7711
CHAPTER III
Socioeconomic Background
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
Study Area Location
Dubuque County, shown in Figure III-1, is located in eastern Iowa bounded by the
Mississippi River and having coincident boundaries with the Dubuque metro-
politan area. The county covers a total land area of approximately 620 square
miles. The county seat is the City of Dubuque which lies at the junction of three
states-Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Dubuque County has an approximate popu-
lation of 93,285 people (2008 estimate). The overall population density is approxi-
mately 151 persons per square mile. The City of Dubuque-with a population of
about 60,000-serves as the main educational, industrial, tourism, and cultural
center for the region. Other cities and communities in the Dubuque metropolitan
area include Dyersville, Asbury, and Cascade.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page III 1
Socioeconomic Background
Major Activity Centers
Major activity centers are important in terms of land use, trip generation rates,
and their ability to be served by public transit. The major activity centers in the
Dubuque area are shown in Figure III-2. Many of these points of interest are
clustered together into what can be referred to as "activity centers."
Activity centers are locations that are typically shown to generate transit trips
because they are prime origins or prime destinations. Activity centers generally
include a wide variety of land uses including shopping (malls, plazas), industrial
parks, employment hubs, hospitals, and education centers. These are the most
critical land uses for individuals who use transit.
Major activity centers in the City of Dubuque include hospitals such as Mercy
Medical Health Center and Finley Hospital; colleges such as University of
Dubuque, Clarke College, Loras College, Emmaus Bible College, and Wartburg
Theological Seminary; retail centers such as Wal-Mart, Kennedy Mall, Warren
Plaza, Wacker Plaza, Asbury Plaza, Riverview Plaza, and Plaza 20; government
buildings such as City Hall, the Dubuque County Courthouse, and the Dubuque
County Housing Department; entertainment and casinos such as the Mystique
Casino, Diamond Jo Casino, and Port of Dubuque; industrial parks such as the
Warehouse District; and various schools.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page III 3
Socioeconomic Background
Major Employers
Table III-1 shows the largest public and private employers in the Dubuque area.
The major employers in the Dubuque area are in the areas of healthcare, educa-
tion, and industrial. Other major employers include the City and County of
Dubuque and casinos. John Deere Dubuque Works is the largest employer in the
area, followed by Dubuque Community School District with 1,730 employees.
Table III-1
Major Em to ers in the Dubu ue area
Em to ers Number of Em to ees
John Deere Dubuque Works 1,800
Dubuque Community School District 1,730
Mercy Medical Center 1,324
IBM 1,300 (anticipated)
Medical Associates Clinic, P.C. 935
(686 full-time and 249 part-time)
Eagle Window & Door 950
Finley Hospital 920
Dubuque, City of 627
Woodward Communications, Inc. 600
Holy Family Catholic Schools 600
(500 full-time and 100 part-time)
Prudential Retirement 590
Dubuque, County of 450
Flexsteel Industries 450
McKesson 425
Thermo Fischer Scientific 400
Diamond Jo Casino 400
(300 full-time and 100 part-time)
Mystique Casino 390
Loras College 385
McGraw-Hill 375
Quebecor World 370
Dubuque Bank and Trust 365
Cottingham & Butler 360
Greater Dubuque Development, 2009
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page III 5
Socioeconomic Background
STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHICS
1990-2008 Population
The permanent population of the Dubuque metropolitan area was reported to be
86,403 people based on the 1990 US Census. According to the 2000 US Census,
the population of the Dubuque metropolitan area was 89,143 people (an increase
of approximately three percent from 1990). In comparison, the State of Iowa had
a population increase of approximately five percent between 1990 and 2000. The
estimated 2008 population of the Dubuque metropolitan area was 93,285 (a five
percent increase from the year 2000). Figure III-3 shows the US Census block
groups in the Dubuque Metropolitan area.
Lsc
Page III 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Socioeconomic Background
Population Density and Distribution
Figure III-4 reflects the population density for the Dubuque metropolitan area
residents based upon 2008 population estimates and US Census block group
boundaries. The population is most dense within downtown Dubuque along US
Highway 52 (Central Avenue) and the areajust south of Loras College. The second
highest density area is the northwest intersection of US Highways 52 and 20,
which extends to the western portion of the city and areas near Hempstead High
School.
Lsc
Page III 8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Socioeconomic Background
Population Projections
Table III-2 reflects population projections through the year 2012 for the Dubuque
metropolitan area obtained from the Greater Dubuque Development. It is antici-
pated that the population will increase by less than one percent (0.6 percent) every
year until 2012, at which time the population will be 95,199 people. Figure III-5
illustrates the projected population density for the year 2012, based on the popu-
lation projections and US Census block group boundaries.
Using the 0.6 percent annual growth and forecasting the population byUS Census
block group, LSC has developed a map (Figure III-5) showing that the highest
population densities in 2012 continue to be in downtown Dubuque and the north-
west intersection of US Highways 52 and 20.
Table III-2
Dubuque County Population Projections
Year Population Percent Growth
2000 89,143 -
2008 93,285 4 6%
2012 95,199 2.1
Source 2000 US Census Bureau, population projection by the
Greater Dubuque Development; LSC, 2008
LSC
Page IIFIO KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Socioeconomic Background
Transit-Dependent Population Characteristics
Various segments ofthe population are examined because of their dependence on
public transit. The elderly, impoverished, mobility-disabled, and those with zero
vehicles in their household are generally considered to be transit-dependent. The
following section outlines these key populations in the Dubuque region. Table III-3
presents the Dubuque metropolitan area's estimated 2008 population for zero-
vehicle households, youth population, elderlypopulation, mobility-limited popula-
tion, and below-poverty population. These types of data are important to the
various methods of transit demand estimation presented in Chapter VII of this
report.
Lsc
Page IIF72 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Socioeconomic Background
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Lsc
Page IIF74 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Socioeconomic Background
Elderly Population
The elderly represent a significant number of the transit-dependent population
comparedto any other transit-dependent market segments and represent approxi-
mately 18.9 percent of the total population of the Dubuque metropolitan area.
Figure III-6 illustrates the density of the elderly (age 60 or higher) population
across the Dubuque metropolitan area. As illustrated in Table III-3 and Figure
III-6, the highest density of elderly residents is in the area west of Emmaus Bible
College and the residential areas east of US Highway 52 (Central Avenue) near
Jefferson Middle and Marshall Elementary Schools.
Mobility Impairments
Individuals with mobility impairments generally rely on transit because they often
lack the ability to operate a motor vehicle. The study area has approximately two
percent of the residents living with a mobility impairment. Figure III-7 illustrates
the 2008 density of mobility-Limited population. The greatest density of mobiLity-
limited population is in the residential area just east of US Highway 52 (Central
Avenue) around the Fulton and Audubon Elementary Schools.
Low-Income Individuals
Individuals who are living below the poverty line often rely on transit because of
the high cost of owningand maintaining a vehicle. The studyarea averaged nearly
seven percent of the population living in poverty. The distribution of the below-
povertypopulation in the Dubuque metropolitan area is shown in Figure III-8. As
illustrated in Table III-3 and Figure III-8, the highest density of low-income resi-
dents is the area on both sides of US Highway 52, north of City Hall and Loras
College.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IIFI S
Socioeconomic Background
Minority Population
Neighborhoods with a higher density of minority population have shown to have
a higher inclination to use transit compared to non-minority population neighbor-
hoods. Minority population includes minority race population such as American
Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American populations,
Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and also includes
white persons of Hispanic/Latino origin. The density of minority population is
shown in Figure III-9. As shown in the figure, the highest density is in the area
just north of City Hall. Other areas with high minority population are in downtown
Dubuque scattered on both sides of US Highway 52.
Zero-Vehicle Households
Individuals living in a household without a vehicle are inherently transit-depen-
dent because of their limited automobile access. Over seven percent of households
in the study area do not have access to an automobile. The highest densities of
zero-vehicle households are located along US Highway 52 around City Hall and
Carnegie-Stout Public Library, and the area on the western portion of the city,
west of Emmaus Bible college. The density of zero-vehicle households is shown in
Figure III-10.
Households With One or More Vehicles
The density of households with one or more vehicles was also mapped for the
Dubuque area as illustrated in Figure III-11. As shown in the figure, the highest
density is also concentrated along US Highway 52 and extends to the western
portion of the city around Lincoln Elementary School, St Anthony's School, and
Hoover and Kennedy Elementary Schools.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IIF79
Socioeconomic Background
College Student Population
The college student population density is shown in Figure III-12. The Dubuque
metropolitan area has a college student population of 7,400 persons. About one-
third of these college students are enrolled at Northeast Iowa Community College.
The largest college student population pockets are in the areas scattered along US
Highways 52 and 20 around the University of Dubuque and the Wartburg
Theological Seminary, areas north of Finley Hospital and Mercy Medical Center,
and the area on the western portion of the city, west of Emmaus Bible College.
Household Density
It is necessary to identify those areas within the transit service area which have
the greatest potential for ridership. Criteria used in determining where transit
services should be provided include localities within the transit service area which
have a household density of greater than six households per acre (shown in Figure
III-13).
Nationally, many communities agree that a "high-density" of persons is defined as
greater than 12 persons per acre, while a housing density supportive of fixed-route
transit is typically seen as greater than six households per acre. The density of
housing provide a baseline picture of where transit services are likely to be most
efficient. Areas with a high density of households per acre tend to be composed
oflower-income persons who rely on transit as an effective means of transporta-
tion. These areas are generally comprised of apartments and areas of smaller,
compact housing.
As shown in Figure III-13, the areas that exceed more than six households per
acre are on either side of US Highway 52 around Audubon Elementary School,
City Hall, the Carnegie-Stout Public Library, the Dubuque County Courthouse,
and the Dubuque Housing Department.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IIF23
Socioeconomic Background
ECONOMY
Table III-4 shows the industry breakout by employment in Dubuque County for
2006. Based upon the number of employees, the largest sector was Trade. This
sector employs 10,162 people, which accounts for 19 percent of the total wages
and jobs in the region. This was closely followed by Manufacturing (18 percent)
and Education/Health Services (17 percent) which is evident from the large
number of manufacturing companies such as Deere and Company and Flexsteel
Industries, and the various higher education institutions that are located in
Dubuque. Leisure/Hospitality was the next sector that accounted for approxi-
mately 11 percent of the employees in the region. This could be attributed to the
various casinos in the area. Dubuque County's average weekly wage for all
industries was $635 for 2006, which is slightly lower than the State of Iowa which
is at $660. According to the Greater Dubuque Development Corporation, the
region currently has a civilian labor force of 52,000 with approximately 1,900
persons (four percent) unemployed.
Table III-4
2006 Industry Breakout by Em ployment in Dubuque County
Industry Number Percent
Trade 10,162 19%
Manufacturing 9,671 18%
Education and HeaRh Services 9,214 17%
Leis ure a nd Hospitality 5,868 11
Government 4367 8%
Professionaland Business Services 3,480 6%
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 3,210 6%
Construction 2,342 4%
Information 1,887 4%
Transportation and Utilities 1,674 3%
Other Services 1,605 3%
Natural Resources 188 0%
TOTAL (All industries) 53,668
Source Iowa Workforce Information Network; LSC, 2008.
LSC
Page IIF26 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Socioeconomic Background
TRAVEL PATTERNS
Work Transportation Mode
The 2000 Census yields information useful to this study regarding residents'
means of transportation to and from work. Table III-5 shows the number in the
Dubuque County workforce and their modes of travel to work. These data were
tabulated for employees 16 years of age and older who were at work when the
census questionnaire was completed.
As indicated in Table III-5, the great majority of Dubuque County's residents drive
alone to work (36,971 persons or approximately 82 percent). Carpooling (8.2 per-
cent), those who walked to work (4.8 percent), and working at home (4.1 percent)
were the next mode-to-work choices. Approximately one percent (0.6 percent) of
the employed Dubuque County population takes some form of public transpor-
tation to work. Table III-5 also shows the comparative percentages of transporta-
tion modes for the City of Dubuque and the State of Iowa. As expected, carpooling,
public transportation, and walking to work were comparatively higher in the City
of Dubuque than in Dubuque County. The mean travel time to work for workers
age 16 years and older in Dubuque County is 15.5 minutes, which is higher than
the City of Dubuque average of 13.9 minutes, and lower than Iowa which averages
18.5 minutes.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IIF27
b
P
lJ
OJ
Table III-5
Mode of Transportation
Dubuque County Dubuque County % City of Dubuque City ofDubuque % Iowa
Drove Alone 36,971 81.9% 23,247 81.5% 78.6%
Carpool 3696 8.2% 2,498 8.8% 10.8%
Public Transportation (incl. Taxicab) 264 0.6% 238 0.8% 1.0%
Motorcycle 21 0.0% 21 0.1% 0.1%
Bicycle 74 0.2% 69 0.2% 0.4%
Walk 2181 4.8% 1,738 6.1% 4.0%
Other 127 0.3% 69 0.2% 0.6%
Work at Home 1833 4.1% 647 2.3% 4.7%
Average Travel Time (mins) 15.5 minutes 13.9 minutes 18.5 minutes
Source: 2000 Census.
Socioeconomic Background
Table III-6 shows the commute patterns of Dubuque County residents. Ninety-four
(94) percent of employees live and work within Dubuque County, two percent of
Dubuque County residents work in Jo Daviess County (Illinois), and one percent
of Dubuque residents work in Grant County (Wisconsin). Other counties in which
Dubuque County residents work are the neighboring Iowa counties such as Jones
County (one percent) and Delaware County (one percent).
Table III-6
County-to-County W orker Flow Patterns out of Dubuque County
Dubu ue Count Residence
County of W ork
Dubuque County, IA 42,387 94%
Jo Daviess County, IL 908 2%
Grant County, WI 312 1%
Jones County, IA 288 1%
Delaware County, IA 241 1
Jackson County, IA 209 <1%
Clayton County, IA 130 <1%
Other counties within Iowa State 384 1
Illinois State 87 <1%
Wisconsin State 102 <1%
Other States 112 <1
Source: 2000 US Census of County-to-County worker flow files.
While Table III-6 indicates that a majority of Dubuque County residents (94 per-
cent) live and work within the county, Table III-7 indicates that there is a small
percentage of employees that come into Dubuque County for work-especially
from Grant County, Wisconsin (five percent); Jo Daviess County, Illinois (four per-
cent); and neighboringIowa counties such as Jackson County (three percent) and
Delaware County (two percent).
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IIF29
Socioeconomic Background
Table III-7
County-to-County Worker Flow Patterns into Dubuque County
Dubu ue Count
County of Residence
DubuqueCounty,lA 42,387 81%
GrantCounty, WI 2,739 5%
Jo Daviess County, IL 2,252 4%
Jackson Count , IA 1,805 3%
Delaware County, IA 1,102 2%
Jones County, IA 452 1%
Clayton County, IA 420 1%
Lafa ette Count , WI 387 1%
Other counties within Iowa State 416 1%
Illinois State 114 <1%
Wisconsin State 68 <1%
Other States 189 <1%
Source: 2000 US Census of County-to-County worker flow files.
Places of Residence and Work
The US Census Bureau LED On the Map provides detailed maps at the block level
showing where workers live and their place of work in the City of Dubuque.
Figures III-14 through III-19 show the flow of workers from their district of
residence to their district of employment. These maps will help in the identifica-
tion of conceptual service alternatives geared towards employment.
Lsc
Page IIF30 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
CHAPTER IV
Fixed-Route Service Evaluation
Chapter IV presents an overview of route operations and financial information for
KeyLine Transit. In addition, information on the current system ridership is also
presented. This information has been used to develop service recommendations
presented later in the document. 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-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.
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 effectiveness toward a social goal; for example, the number of persons
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IV 1
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
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. They include 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 IV 2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
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-Trips/Vehicle 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, Final Report Page IV 3
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
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 IV-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 replace-
ment. 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 maxi-
mum 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 s even days a week. From Labor Day untff
October 31, the trolley operates a limited service, running only on Friday evenings
and on weekends.
Lsc
Page IV 4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
R~
P
m
ti
C
Table IV-1
KeyLine Transit Fleet Inventory
Unit
Number
Year Estimated
Replacement
Year
Replacement
Due or Overdue
Years Overdue
for Replacement Estimated
Replacement
Cost (2008 $'s)
Length-
Feet
Seated
Capacity
Standee
Capacity
Lift
Ramp
Fuel
Fixed-Route Fleet
2504 1976 1988 YES 21 $ 345,000 35 38 10 YES NO Diesel
2510 1976 1988 YES 21 $ 345,000 35 38 10 YES NO Diesel
2558 1979 1991 YES 18 $ 345,000 35 38 10 YES NO Diesel
2559 1979 1991 YES 18 $ 345,000 35 38 10 YES NO Diesel
2560 1981 1993 YES 16 $ 345,000 35 38 10 YES NO Diesel
2561 1981 1993 YES 16 $ 345,000 35 38 10 YES NO Diesel
2563 2002 2014 NO $ 345,000 30 29 10 YES NO Diesel
2564 2002 2014 NO $ 325,000 30 29 10 YES NO Diesel
2565 2002 2014 NO $ 325,000 30 29 10 YES NO Diesel
2566 2002 2014 NO $ 325,000 30 29 10 YES NO Diesel
2567 2002 2014 NO $ 325,000 30 29 10 YES NO Diesel
2568 2002 2014 NO $ 325,000 30 29 10 YES NO Diesel
2579 2003 2015 NO $ 325,000 29 28 10 YES NO Diesel
2580 2003 2015 NO $ 325,000 29 28 10 YES NO Diesel
Mini-bus Fleet
2581 1995 2002 YES 2 $ 65,000 22 14 0 YES NO Diesel
2582 1995 2002 YES 2 $ 65,000 22 14 0 YES NO Diesel
ED Van 1996 2001 YES 1 $ 40,000 16 4 0 NO YES Gas
ED Bus 1996 2003 YES 1 $ 65,000 21 10 0 YES NO Gas
2501 2002 2009 YES $ 65,000 24 16 0 YES NO Diesel
2502 2002 2009 YES $ 65,000 24 16 0 YES NO Diesel
2578 2002 2009 YES $ 65,000 24 18 0 YES NO Gas
2583 2005 2012 NO $ 65,000 23 16 0 YES NO Diesel
2584 2005 2012 NO $ 65,000 23 16 0 YES NO Diesel
2585 2005 2012 NO $ 65,000 23 16 0 YES NO Diesel
2686 2005 2012 NO $ 65,000 23 16 0 YES NO Diesel
2587 2005 2012 NO $ 65,000 23 16 0 YES NO Diesel
Souce: KeyLine Trens~l, 2008.
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
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 IV-2 presents the systemwide characteristics for KeyLine Transit's
2008 fiscal year.
TableIV-2
System Performance
Fixed-Route Services
KeyLine FV 2008
Operating Cost $1,545,816
Fare Revenue $130,000
Ridership 270,762
Vehicle-Miles 291,885
Vehicle-Hours 25,122
Operating ESectiveness
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 IV-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 IV 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Ftixed-AOUffi Femirc Evdwation
Table IV3
Route Effectiveness
o uie
Fv eta ge
Oaily Miles
Fv ea 9e Per
Rountl inp
Ro uie Miles Fvers ge
Fnn ual
Rae en ue
Miles
Fnn ual
Pas sen 9e~
in ps
np SlMile
ours
np SlHOm
RuJ I4] -'~,'~'~lu '.'.4, 1'.'.] I I4
„ L'.
Imi In d'.'.,'. i,e]e a 4] '~l its ]
]n4 ].'~,'~
4 ],I]n lu
]n4
~~~ '.,.'.44 Ii
i4 ],I]e V
Volley 53 25 9, 235 8,998 1.95 1.998 8
i Dial 983 291,885 2]9, ]fit 25,122
Fv e~a9e ifi,99 58,3]] 9.91 fi,99fi 19
Tlie moat iue5ective mute ie the Gauge mute. Tlde mute npe~aRe at seven
paeeeuge~e yep Imu~~ fr~ below the systemwide average of 30. Atltlitim~allg tide
route hm less than 0.5 pmseneer trips per mile. The Green and Grey mutes are
fas1Y "+milar umne these measures and represent numbers that are close to the
system average F3gu~e IV-1 elmwe the uumbe~ of trips yep Imw fm die KeyGUe
system.
Figure lV-1
Trips per Haur
a
na a.
n .~~..-.a=.
- ,ar_,
z
n
Red Qa~-&e .,. een r.,,-g. T.. c~el.
ftrylrv_CynatlawlMNW7x .RnaL.PeYM Page l4']
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
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 $2,345,688. Please note that this amount does not
include Mini-bus passenger fares that totaled $62,351. Table IV-4 provides
existing revenue sources. Over half of the revenue is from local sources.
Table IV-4
KeyLine 2008 Revenue Sources
Budgeted Percentage of
Source Revenues Budget
Federal Grant $723,308 31%
State Grant $203,000 9%
PropertyTax $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 IV-5 provides existing expenditures
for the fixed-route service.
Lsc
Page IV 8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
defined as being constant. These costs do not increase or decrease based on the
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 IV-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 effciency 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 $4.74 per passenger-trip. In contrast, the Orange route
has a cost of $11.00 per passenger-trip. This cost is much higher because oflower
ridership throughout the route.
Lsc
Page IV 10 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
Table IV-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 $519
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 Administration
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 IV-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, Final Report Page IV 11
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
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
importantto 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 for passengers 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 IV-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, cer-
tainly 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 Iowa
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IV 13
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
City do not include college students. Hence the trips per capita far 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 mffe. 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 IV-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 IV 14 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Table IV-9
Iowa Community Analysis
Pertormance Measures
TransitSystem-Location Area
Population No. of
Vehicles Annual
Miles Annual
Hours Annual
Ridership Operating
Budget Fare
Revenues Pass per
Hour Pass per
Mile Cost per
Pass Cost per
Hour Cost per
Mile Trips per
Capita
Ames Transit Agency(CyRide) 50,276 59 1,059,184 99,823 4,302,611 $5,547,757 $255,530 43.1 4.06 $1.29 $55.58 $5.24 85.58
Cedar Rapids Transit (FSTP) 97,716 28 1,038,454 73,918 1,104,346 $6,209,261 $651,027 14.9 1 06 $5.62 $84.00 $5.98 11 30
Davenport Public Transit (CITIBUS) 98,900 17 706,057 55,673 1,045,550 $4,228,223 $349,880 18.8 1 48 $4.04 $75.95 $5.99 10.57
Des Moines Metropolitan Transit Authority (Des Moines MTA) 369,143 89 17,706,262 156,778 3,891,235 $12,015,587 $3,694,044 24.8 0.22 $3.09 $76.64 $0.68 10.54
Sioux City 102,798 14 512,501 38,779 915,051 $2,805,551 $655,121 23.6 1 79 $3.07 $72.35 $5.47 8.90
Iowa City Transit 63,027 21 669,935 51,932 1,676,353 $4,161,409 $898,169 32.3 2.50 $2.48 $80.13 $6.21 26.60
AVERAGE 130,310 38 3,615,399 79,484 2,155,858 $5,827,965 $1,083,962 27.1 0.60 $2.70 $73.32 $1.61 25.6
City of Dubuque (KeyLine) 58,000 10 291,885 25,122 270,762 $1,396,378 $128,541 10 8 0.93 $5.16 $55.58 $4 78 4 67
Sources: SCTS and LSC, 2008.
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Lsc
Page IV 16 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Lsc
Page IV 18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
Unmet Demand
In order to determine the amount of demand that is being missed by the current
route structure, afixed-route transit demand model was used. The fixed-route
model was first calibrated to match the current ridership, meaning that the cal-
culateddemand represents the current boardings. These data were then extrapo-
lated to the entire Dubuque area to gauge where potential demand is not being
met. Figure IV-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 thatthe 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, Final Report Page IV 19
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
RIDERSHIP REVIEW
As part ofthe onboard survey, systemwide boarding and alightings were collected
for every trip and route for two full weekdays and a Saturday. This section pre-
sents areview of systemwide ridership. Data are presented in a series of tables
and graphs. Additionally, maps of boardings andalightings by route were prepared
using a Geographic Informational System (GIS). Information was geocoded by
actual intersection and stop for all boardings and alightings throughout athree-
day period in January 2009.
Historical Ridership Review
It is important to look at historical trends as this can help identify ridership
changes based upon a variety of events such as route changes, economic influ-
ences such as gas price increases or increases in things such as unemployment
or overall economic downturn, or community changes in development. Annual
ridership by year was provided from 2004 through 2008.
Ridership Trends
Table IV-11 provides a look at total systemwide ridership from 2004 through 2008.
As shown in Table IV-11, total system ridership has declined from 2004 to 2008
by approximately 16 percent. Total ridership in FY07-08 was nearly 290,000
passenger-trips. Fixed-route ridership had a peak of approximately 306,000
annual passenger-trips in 2006. Since 2006, ridership has steadily declined to a
current ridership in 2008 of 247,000 annual passenger-trips, a decrease of
approximately 19 percent from 2006. In recent years, the proportion of elderly
trips has decreased by nearly 40 percent, while disabled trips have remained
relatively constant. Free ridership for elementary, middle, and high school
students began in the fall of 2007. Data represent the 2007-2008 school year.
Figures IV-3 through IV-5 provide the historical ridership for fixed-route services,
the Mini-bus, and total services. No historical information on ridership was
provided by route.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IV 21
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
Table IV-11
KeyLine Ridership Summary
Fixed-Route Services
Year Total Rides Student Tri s % Student Elderl Tri s %Elderl Disabled Tri s % Disabled
2004 250,812 0%
2005 244,819 0%
2006 256,094 137,825 54% 45,941 18%
2007 260,876 42,250 16% 112,476 43% 42,015 16%
2008 247,821 47,671 19% 65,193 26% 51,736 21%
Mini-bus Services
Year Total Rides Student Tri s % Student Elderl Tri s %Elderl Disabled Tri s % Disabled
2004 61,931 10,510 17% 48,818 79%
2005 56,990 14,516 25% 39,145 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%
Mini-bus Contract Services
Year Total Rides Student Trips % Student Elderly Trips % Elderly Disabled Trips % Disabled
2004 38,924 2,207 6% 32,910 85%
2005 36,122 2,397 7% 26,551 74%
2006
2007
2008
JARC Services
Year Total Rides Student Tri s % Student Elderl Tri s %Elderl Disabled Tri s % Disabled
2004 3,497 3,497 100%
2005 6,524 6,524 100%
2006 10,563 10,563 100%
2007 9,152 9,152 100%
2008 3,316
TOTAL SERVICES
Year Total Rides Student Trips % Student Elderly Trips % Elderly Disabled Trips % Disabled
2004 355,164 12,717 4% 85,225 24%
2005 344,455 16,913 5% 72,220 21%
2006 316,839 149,841 47% 87,268 28%
2007 312,604 42,250 14% 121,953 39% 77,627 25%
2008 297,850 47,671 16% 71,617 24% 88,499 30%
Note: Data prior to 2007 may not be accurate.
Source. KeyLine Transd, 2009
LSC
Page IV 22 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
Ridership by Month
Very little information on ridership was provided by month. Table IV-12 provides
a four-month snapshot from 2008 on monthly ridership. Daily ridership averages
were estimated based upon the operating days of the month. The ridership
provided by KeyLine indicates an average of approximately 15,500 passenger-trips
per month on the fixed-route system. This equates to an approximate estimate of
nearly 187,000 annual passenger-trips annually and 630 trips daily.
Table IV-12
Average Monthly and Daily Fixed-Route Ridership - 2008
Monthly Average Daily
Month
Riders hi Ridershi
June 15,945 638
July 15,234 564
August 15,790 632
September 15,181 690
Average 15,538 631
Estimated Annual 186,450
Source: KeyLine Transit, 2008.
Ridership by Day
Limited historical information on ridership was provided by day. However, the
counts performed in January 2009 provide a glimpse of ridership on an average
day. An estimate of the daily averages by route were provided by KeyLine staff.
Table IV-13 and Figure IV-6 provide the estimate provided by KeyLine staff in com-
parison to the recent counts performed by LSC. As shown, the Red Route is
estimated to provide approximately 34 percent of the ridership on a daily average.
In comparison, LSC counts show that the Red Route produces approximately 32
percent of the total ridership on an average day.
The next highest estimated routes are the Grey and Green Routes at 29 and 28
percent. LSC counts show that the Grey and Green Routes represent 28 and 32
percent.
Lsc
Page IV 26 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
Current Ridership Tracking
After examination of the record keeping by KeyLine, it is apparent that changes
need to be made in order to track ridership effectively. A review of driver count
sheets proved to be nearly impossible to interpret. Ridership is recorded in a
ledger book rather than electronically, hence the difficulty in getting ridership by
day or month.
Bicycles and Wheelchairs
A total of five bicycles were loaded during the two-day count; however, given the
weather conditions, this is not surprising. A total of 10 passengers using wheel-
chairs were counted during the two-day count period.
BOARDINGS BY ROUTE
Ridership by route was unavailable, other than estimates, from KeyLine. Based
upon the counts conducted in January, daily, monthly, and annual ridership by
route can be estimated. Table IV-14 presents the estimated daily, monthly, and
annual ridership by route total, percentage of the route segment (east or west),
and percentage of the total systemwide ridership. The Green, Grey, and Red
Routes comprise two route segments, an eastbound and westbound. While the
Orange Route has a small segment which travels northbound from downtown, it
is basically a large loop route. Table IV-14 indicates that total westbound
segments for the Green, Grey, and Red Routes far exceed the eastbound portions,
a ratio of nearly 70/30. That is, 70 percent of the total route ridership is
experienced on the westbound portions of the routes, while 30 percent is
experienced on the eastbound portions. Figures IV-7 and IV-8 provide this
analysis graphically showing the proportions of the route segments in comparison
to the total route and to the total systemwide ridership.
Proportionally, the Green Route is the closest in terms of eastbound and west-
bound ridership, with approximately a 40/60 split in ridership. The Grey Route
is disproportionallythe most distinct in terms of eastbound and westbound rider-
ship, with approximately a 27/73 split in ridership. This is important as route
segments may perform more effectively than the entire route.
Lsc
Page IV 28 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Table IV-14
KeyLine Route Ridership Estimates
Average Average Estimated Estimated
°
/0 of Total °
/° of °
/0 of Total °
/° of °
/0 of Total °
/° of °
/0 of Total °
/° of
Route Weekday Weekend Monthly Annual
Route System Route System Route System Route System
Ridership Ridership Ridership Ridership
Grey East 83 27% 9% 30 28% 7% 1,858 27% 9% 22,290 27% 9%
Grey West 227 73% 24% 77 72% 19% 5,088 73% 23% 61,054 73% 23%
Green East 119 44% 12% 37 33% 9% 2,643 43% 12% 31,712 43% 12%
Green West 153 56% 16% 75 67% 18% 3,515 57% 16% 42,180 57% 16%
Red East 85 28% 9% 38 25% 9% 1,943 28% 9% 23,320 28% 9%
Red West 219 72% 23% 116 75% 29% 5,072 72% 23% 60,862 72% 23%
Orange 76 100% 8% 33 100% 8% 1,723 100% 8% 20,676 100% 8%
Total East Ridership 286 33% 105 29% 6,444 32% 77,322 32%
Total West Ridership 598 67% 268 71% 13,675 68% 164,096 68%
Total 960 406 21,841 262,094
Souroe: LSC, 2009.
R]
m
ti
C
lJ
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
Temporal Analysis
The total number of boardings for the system by specific time period is presented
in Table IV-15 and Figure IV-9. The highest number of boardings were from noon
to 3:00 p.m., accounting for 31 percent of the total for the day. The next highest
times were from 6:00 to 9:00 a. m. accounting for approximately 30 percent of the
daily boardings. Ridership during the off-peak times from 9:00 am. to noon makes
up approximately 23 percent of the daily ridership. Between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m.,
ridership is at its lowest for the day accounting for approximately 17 percent of the
daily ridership.
Table IV-15
Ridership by Time (Weekday)
Route Green Grey Orange Red Total Ridership
Time Period # % # % # % # % #
Gam to gam 75 27% 101 33% 27 36% 82 27% 284 30%
9amto Noon 60 22% 67 22% 17 22% 77 25% 220 23%
Noon to 3pm 91 34% 94 30% 18 24% 94 31% 297 31%
3pm to 6pm 46 17% 48 15% 14 19% 52 17% 159 17%
Total Daily Boardings 959
LSC
Page IV 32 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
system are, for example, the number of trips taken on it or the number of indi-
vidual persons that it serves. Or a transportation system can be evaluated in
terms of its effectiveness toward a social goal; for example, the number of persons
who can take advantage ofa particularsocial 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 most often used measures are cost per passenger
or cost per vehicle-hour.
Productivity -The basic performance parameter that describes fixed-route and
paratransit service, defined as the number ofpassenger-trips per vehicle-hour of
operation. It is possible to also define productivity in terms of revenue-hours once
the utilization ratio is known.
Productivity =Passenger-Trips/Vehicle Service-Hours
Table IV-17 provides the productivity broken down by the various services
operated by KeyLine. As shown, during the last five years the fixed-route system
had an average productivity of approximately 11.4 passengers per hour. Typically,
fixed-route services are operated when productivity exceeds 10 passengers per
hour; however, some rural systems operate below this productivity standard. The
paratransit services provide, on average, approximately 2.9 passengers per hour
of service, a reasonable level of productivity.
Lsc
Page IV 36 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
Table IV-17
KeyLine Performance Measures
Fixed-Route Services
Year Revenue-Miles Revenue-Hours Total Operating Cost Passenger per Hour Cost per Mile Cost per Hour
2004 278,568 22,482 $ 1,463,327 11.2 $ 5.25 $ 65.09
2005 294,018 23,157 $ 1,314,362 10.6 $ 4.47 $ 56.76
2006 294,788 23,049 $ 1,405,448 13.3 $ 4.77 $ 60.98
2007 284,787 23,190 $ 1,536,633 11.2 $ 5.40 $ 66.26
2008 300,844 23,448 $ 1,571,314 10.6 $ 5.22 $ 67.01
Mini-Bus Services
Year Revenue-Miles Revenue-Hours Total O eratin Cost Passen er er Hour Cost er Mile Cost er Hour
2004 211,343 16,168 $ 596,839 3.8 $ 2.82 $ 36.91
2005 195,292 20,251 $ 488,426 2.8 $ 2.50 $ 24.12
2006 174,366 18,322 $ 469,399 2.7 $ 2.69 $ 25.62
2007 171,868 17,221 $ 416,224 2.5 $ 2.42 $ 24.17
2008 182,679 18,577 $ 751,071 2.5 $ 4.11 $ 40.43
Mini-Bus Contract Services
Year Revenue-Miles Revenue-Hours Total O eratin Cost Passen er er Hour Cost er Mile Cost er Hour
2004 63,477 5,492 $ 107,102 7.1 $ 1.69 $ 19.50
2005 61,081 6,157 $ 129,700 5.9 $ 2.12 $ 21.07
2006 - - $ - - $ - $ -
2007 - - $ - - $ - $ -
2008 - - $ - - $ - $ -
JARC Services
Year Revenue-Miles Revenue-Hours Total Operating Cost Passenger per Hour Cost per Mile Cost per Hour
2004 7,350 294 $ 15,737 11.9 $ 2.14 $ 53.53
2005 - - $ 29,350 - $ - $ -
2006 31,803 - $ 47,526 - $ 149 $ -
2007 18,988 2,219 $ 83,415 4.1 $ 4.39 $ 37.59
2008 12,920 1,144 $ 30,458 2.9 $ 2.36 $ 26.62
TOTAL SERVICES
Year Revenue-Miles Revenue-Hours Total O eratin Cost Passen er er Hour Cost er Mile Cost er Hour
2004 560,738 44,436 $ 2,183,005 8.0 $ 3.89 $ 49.13
2005 550,391 49,565 $ 1,961,838 6.9 $ 3.56 $ 39.58
2006 500,957 41,371 $ 1,922,373 8.9 $ 3.84 $ 46.47
2007 475,643 42,630 $ 2,036,272 7.3 $ 4.28 $ 4777
2008 496,443 43,169 $ 2,352,843 6.9 $ 4.74 $ 54.50
Souroe: KeyLine Trensd, 2009.
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IV 37
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
BOARDING AND ALIGHTING ROUTE MAPS
Figures IV-11 through IV-30 present maps for each route in the KeyLine system.
Each map shows a scaled dot representing the number of passengers boarding
and alighting at locations along the bus routes. The final two maps present a
systemwide boarding and alighting map.
Lsc
Page IV 38 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Fixed Route Service Evaluation
NTD REPORTING
LSC reviewed the last three years of the National Transit Database information.
KeyLine is required to report numerous operating characteristics and performance
of the services provided. In reviewing these reports, it is obvious that passenger-
trips have been grossly over-reported. The 2007 NTD report indicated total fixed-
route passenger-trips of 591,870. The previous year indicated nearly 600,000
passenger-trips. Based upon estimates from KeyLine and the counts performed,
it appears that a closer estimate of annual ridership is between 250,000 and
270,000, including the Trolley. It should be noted that future NTD reports may be
questioned due to the over-reporting of trips. It is LSC's assumption that the
passenger counts were reported as "a passenger/person" and multiplied by two,
assuming each person made two trips .That is only an assumption as to the error
in reporting.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IV 59
owa,.~a ~o.,vey r,.m
Demographic Characteristics
There were armmber of queehone mkedto determine demoerapluc charaztermhce
of har.eit Hde.~e m. KeyGUe Tar.aitP pmrde.~Rewe.~eaeYdtnrnmpleteiufm-
matim. m. every trig wldtl.8.ey took ~ egar dv.g Hie dta~ actedetice of 8.e trig. Toe
demoeraplucmforma4ome eummarrzedfrom un.{upGmtr.{rndrmduale reepondrne
to the queehone. For the ewveY. there were 823 unduplicated mdrmdual
espmieee. Tlde sample y~netldee arr sum gauge of +/- 2A pemeut at Hre 95
yeme.~R m~Sdeucelevel.
Hp5 afl~j b9Nj9r
The average age ofthe reepondente wm JO Yearq wrth ages ran~ng from 18 to 33
Yearn Age 50 wm the most frequent age of the reepondente. The pawenger age
e oup cohorts are shown m FSgure V 1. Ae can be Been m Lae 5gur , approx
smately 19 yeme.~R nfHrepaeeeuge~e aye ee~dm e (F.O+) arrdaundre~ 19 yeme.~¢a~e
ynuHr ~1B years and ynwrgeQ. The ]a~geet age gmuy ie Hre 95-59 gauge X30
yep ceut). Tlde survey elmwe Htat F.p pe.~ teat of Hie ~eeymrde.~Re we.~ a female and
JO percent were male. The gender eplrt of reepondente m shown m FSgure V 2.
Figure V-1
.__
Age _.~
<~
~ ~~~
\
~6
5
,
za
~ i«
. ~
s s^-
\
owo,.~a ~o.mey R°m m
Figure V-2
Gender
~..~~
-.R,~,
N~~~ai H.~~s...n.~i~i i~..~m.
Wcnme playa aufmymtmR~Nev~deR~nti~dughm~ert ~lde~eldy m~dhm~ert ueede
m Dubuque. The household income of respondents m shown m FSe re V 8.
Figure V3
Annual Hausehald Income
asoaia~
/
~ 3
~
4.
~ ~~.me~.
s c
o
~l 4
Szs n
q=, .=s
:..:e _
z
.
w
3
~
ftrylrv_ CynatlawLMNWb, .RnaL.PeYM P¢9e es
owa,.~a ~o.,vey r,.m
The moet frequent reeponeee by KeYKne Tmnmt rrdere wm that thesmcome was
Kdre~lesetltau $10,000 m between $10,000 and $39~999awmallg ~ey~eeeutiug
2B pemeut of ~ esym~tleute ~eeyecdvely. Thue~ 9F. pe.~ teat of KeyGUe Tauai4ide~e
make below $25,000 annuallY~ ONY a emall percentage of reepondente three
percent reported earmne more than $55,000 annuallY~
Vellee VWllel'~III~~fll[ ^[elWe[~ GIIVeI
Veldrle nwue.~ eldy fm Imueel W de and the abiliTy to drive play Yy Wee iu the
demand fm public barreymtatimr. Lack nfaydvaR veldr]e m tlrei~tabilitytn drive
iu9ue.~meyenpletnueeyublichaueynrtatimr.Tldecnmyariemrp~rn+ideeauiutlie-
timr nfHie uumbe~ of dwiec ndermnmpa~ edtn Hmeewlm ar e barren-deyeudent.
FSgu~e V-0 elmwe 8re y~ npmtimr nfpaeeeuge~e wiHr n}e~aIDrg veldr]es avalahle
iutlrK~ Imueel Wd. Ae IDuehaRd~ Hre%~ test pmtimr of paeeeu%e~ e IF.q peg cent)
hve m houeeholde wrth m vehrclea Another 25 perrEnt hve m mn~e vehrde
houeeholde. AppronmatelY four percent of reepondente ]rve rn houeeholde wrth
three or more vehsslee.
figure V-4
Vehicles Available
,~.,, ~Yra,r ~~~,~~,~,, ~,~Rwart
owo,.~a ~o.rvey R°m m
9MY seven percent of pmeeneere do not have a drwer'e hcenee or are not able to
d~ive~ ae elmwuiu Figu~ e V-5. Theme two attributes elmw Hat Hies e y~esumahly
aye very few chrtice Hde.~ e using 8re eyetem~ ae Hie m jmity of yaeeeuge~e have
hmhed vehrde azcew or do not possess the abIDtYto drrve.
ERIGtiNRhfII
Paeeeuge~e we~eaeY dtnHrveteHreuumbe~ nfpmT-Hmeaudfull-Hmeemylnyed
yep emie nve~ 15 year e nfageiu8r~~ Imueel W d. Au ave.~age of 0.9iudicfidualewe.~ e
employed full time and 0.9 were employed part time. Of these employed rndr
mduale over the age of 15 rn eazh of the respondent's houeeholdq appronmatelY
SJ percent are employed full hme and JO percent are employed part hme. Thre
queetimr was dig ected to tleR~ mine Hre employment wi8du Hie ~egimr to aid iu
plarr dug haueit service fm job azcew.
n IP~4loli
Passengers were asked to rndreate then occupation umng several mduetry care
e ea Results are shown m Frgure V o. Pa^eengere represent abroad epectmm
of nccupatimre. The Idghest ~ espmreee were L nm 8mee wlm ~eymted nccupatimie
euchae"6ervice WmY Y' Il B pe.~ ceut)~ "IZbm eY' 119 ye.~ ce.~R) fNlnwed by"Retie ed"
113 yemeut). Wdicdduale whn]ieted Hremeelvee ae "UUemplnyed" ae Hiei~ nccupa
ftrylrv_ CynatlawLMNWb, .RnaL.PeYM P¢9e e 5
owo,.~a ~o.,vay r,.m
hon represented ten percent of respondents Students made up appronmatelY "+x
yemeut of die ~ eeymide.~Re.
Figure V-6
Occupation
>_
v„,~
Etlwi~i
EthmcrtY m shown m Fie re V 9. Whites made up about 90 percent of the pa^
seuge.~e~a~dAfrieuAme.~ica~/Hla~ we~eabnut l9 pe~ceut Ayy~nztmatelY OgIR
yep ceut of die ~eeymide.~Re iudicatedb~ug Ame~icau hitlimy AlaeYau Native. Toe
~emv~du%~ide~e ~eymtedb~u%Hiepa~m~ Aaimy PaWic Iehudey m nthe~ e8udc
e ouPS.
san ~,' n P~ythr epnaffiw1~iwlwL,.anal x.Yart
owo,.~a ~o.mey R°m m
Figure V-7
Race or Effiniciry
wx_
h~\
o5vrce of InhRmdI15T
Paeeene were mkedto mdssate how theYvet mforma4on ab out FeYL:ne Tran
mL Thecreeponeee are ehown m Tablet/ 2. The primary murcee ofmforma4on are
Lnmthe d~ive~e~ bue guidee~ audediedulee. Gt4e.~ enwcee nfi~Smmatimriur]ude
bue atop ai%u/beutly elrelR~~ hmrefr~ etatimre~ tNdby enmemre~ audthe hrteuret
Newepaye.~ / magaziue and elmp}ug ceute~ /etm a were ideuti5ed by fay frwe~
eepondente m the waY they recewe rnformahon about FeYLrne Tranmt.
ftrylrv_ CynatlawLMNWb, .RnaL.PeYM P¢9e n4
owa,.~a ~o.,vey r,.m
Fvv F,wmvnt
Gue impmtaut aspect iu baueit eertfice ie Hie free ehuctw e. While unt a ei%
~dSLaR enwce of ~ eveuuefm auyHarreitageury~ far ee cauaidiu mve~iug a small
portron of opera4ne meta Thrmnforma4on rmmporEant m the markehne of ear
mce .,uch ae kmvane how many patmne are umne bus pmeee compared with
those who paY e%"h. Fre re V 8 pmmdee the responses patmne pmmded oath
~ egad to far e payment meHmd. Ae IDuehated ilr Figure V-B, 8re main me8md of
payment fm pab mre ie cash. Nearly F.2 yemeut of Hie wrduplicMed eu veyed
eeymreee f~~NCaRd a fa e payme.~R ualu% caelr. The nee[ moat oted ~ esymr~e
were u e a half Ears ticket ~1J parent) o an adultfare ticket seven percent).
ONY a small por4on of respondents four percent) reported umne a tranler.
Figure V-8
Fare Fayment Method
~,n
Trip Characteristics
The ewvey aeY dpaeeeuge~etn p~nvidei~Sm matinuab nutHreiudividual trig Hrey
were makme on FeYLrne Tranmt Pmeeneere were a:]ced to pmmde thm mforma
hon eazh time they were on a mn that was sampled.
san~,'s Pwthr cynaffiw1ar~IwL,.anal x.Yart
owa,.~a ~o.mey R°m m
Trio Fume-,a
Paeeeuge.~ a we.~ a asked the mre yurpnee fm wldtlr dray moat nfRU mde dre bue.
Tiyyurpnees m e elmwuiu FSgu~ e V-9. Tlrey~imary bip pwpneel'il yemeut) was
to vo to and from work. The second most common X28 percent) purpose wm for
personal bumneee and erranda The LUrd most common tuppurpos reportedwm
for school or mlleve with 15 percent of reepondenC. Not eurprv^m~Y. shopp~ne
and ~ emeatin~a] biye ~m~ d vetylnw by ~eeymrdeute.
Figure V-4
Trip Purpose
Ru~~ -~,,..-,
-n ~ e a,
Yuk ~~ Les
fi'e~ poll fol F'Id1110
Paeeeu%e~e were aeY d Hee moat lmpmtvR ~eaemr Hiey ~1de Bee bue. Ae elmwuve
FSgu~e V-ID, Bee top ~~emre fm riding Hee bus me paeeeuge~e wlm Itave e~
hnuhle/ uniuewmrce ~2F. peg ceut)~ wlmeefimily does unt haveaca~ B~ pemeut)~
andpmeeneere who do not drrve X30 percent). A small percentave of respondents
reported that the bue wm an ecommssal or movement way to travel.
ftrylrv_ CynatlawLMNWb, .RnaL.PeYM P¢9e n ~i
owo,.~a ~o.,vey r,.m
Figure V-10
Reasonfor Riding
„n ..x.r,
. /
~
_- ~ ~
~
Transfers
FSe reV 1l rlluetrateethe need for paeeeneere to tranler to complete then trip.
Near1Y o5 percent mdreated that they would not regwre atranleq while appron
mately 25 yep cent ueededtn harrefe~ to cnmy]eR tl~~ triy. Themnetynpular bue
to harrefe~ to was nve~w4elmiugly Hre Red R~ll4 tnwar d Hre Mall/ Wal-Mart wiHr
92 yemeut of ~eeymideute. Toe next ldg4est mutes to hauefe.~ in were Hre Grey
Route toward the Mall and the Green Route toward Shopko/ Goodwrll wrth 18 and
11 percent of reepondente reepec4velY~
Figure V-11
Transfer Need
Kw=~wo Pvthr cynaffiw1sr~IwL,.anal x.Yart
owa,.~a ~o.mey R°m m
i.~minn F~~ni and ~a~inn T~~
6eve~al queetimre we.~ a asked of eaz4 ~eeymrdeut about w4e~e they were rnmiug
Lnm and %MU% t^, ae well ae Imw they wID bntlr %et to the bue and ~ Bch thOl
5nal dee4nahon p.e.; tranefeq walk, bffie). Patmne responded that the primary
waY they reazhed the bus they boarded was to walk X80 percent). Ae shown m
Fre re V 12, seven percent transferred to the bus they eomplrted the survey oq
and fnw ye.~ ce.~R d~nve Hremeelvee m biY d.
Figure V-12
Modeto
Bus
-_
-
-
ue
/
s
/
e~
v,
_:a.w.
Ae shown m FSe re V 18, 05 percent reepontled that they came from home prror
to reachrne the bua Ten percent reported they came from work, while an addr
timral m~ e yemeut of ~eepnudeute ~eynrted rnmiu%Lnm elmpMU&/ye~emral
euaude. hrtntah n~dy fue yemeut ~eynrted Bat Hrey came Lnm edmN m rnllege
prror to boardrne the bm.
ftrylrv_ CynatlawLMNWb, .RnaL.PeYM RyF c 11
owo,.~a ~o.,vey r,.m
Determ~mne a patron'e 5na1 deehna4ome helpful m developub eemce opemhne
dta~ acR~ietice. FSgu~ e V-19 y~netldes 8~e ~ eeym~ees fm Hde queetim~fm 8~e eur
veye. Toe m ]nrity of ~esym~deute ~eym Rd %rtiug Imme IgB pe.~ceut). AYp~nx4
mately 39 ye.~ cent nfthe ~ eeymieee we~eL nm paeeeuge.~ a wlm we.~ egrtiug to wm
while a email pertenta~e ~ 35 percent) were emneehoppme. An add~honal ten per
cent of reepondente reported be~ne on then waY to echool.
Rage bV:: Pwtbie Cy'~affirvil g^^~,~L, .analxeYart
owo,.~a ~o.mey R°m m
Figure III-14
Destination After Alighting
ctr_,:
s F~a/~
''.'. :r._rk
`h 1. _. yS4Wrv ss
pe_
FinallY. paeeeneere were inked how they would travel to then 5na1 deehna4on
walki~~ ridiu%a biY ~ bmrefeuiu%t^ aunthe~ bue~ m ntlie~ memre.
hrthe ~ eceut ewveg 9F. pe.~ cent ~eynrtedtlat they would walktn tl~~ 5ual desti-
na4ou,aeehownrnFSe reV 15. Fourteen percent reeponded that they would be
tmnefemne to another bue to reach then 5nal deehna4ort AppronmatelY four
percent of reepondente reported that they were emne to have mmeone pssk them
uym ride th~~biY Lnm the bue to th~~deeti~tatim~
ftrylrv_ CynatlawLMNWb, .RnaL.PeYM RyF c Is
owo,.~a ~o.,vey r,.m
Blo~:k VV,ilked To/F om the Bir,
Paeeeugr~e we.~e asked Imw many hln~ Huey walked to get to die bus and Hie
uumbe~nf hln~ Hieywnuld ltave to walktn ~eatl~H~~~f~al deeH~¢Hm~. Tablee
V-8 and V-0 elmw Hie ye.~ ceutage of ~ esym~deute Hat walked to H~ebue aid L nm
the bua Neatly 98 pertent of respondents walked two blocks or lees to reach the
buq while 81 percent waffied two blocks or lees once vett~ne off the bus.
Toe average ~mmbe~nf hln~ walY dby ~eepm~deute to peach Hie bus was 3.8
hln~ . Tlmee rnmiug Lnm H~ebue Iad auave~age dietaue of 19 blocks to H~OI
5~a1 destiuatinu.
Page bV 4 Pwtbie Cy'~affirvil g^^~,~L, .analxeYart
Onboard Survey Results
Table V-3
Blocks Walked To Bus
Blocks Walked Respondents Percentage
0 29 9.5%
1 131 43.0%
2 63 20.7%
3 22 7.2%
4 20 6.6%
5 10 3.3%
6 6 2.0%
7 3 1.0%
8 7 2.3%
9 2 0 7%
10 5 1.6%
12 4 1.3%
20 2 0 7%
24 1 0.3%
Source. LSC Onboard Surv , 2009.
Table V-4
Blocks Walked From Bus
Blocks Walked Respondents Percentage
0 47 18.6%
1 110 43.5%
2 48 19.0%
3 21 8.3%
4 12 4 7%
5 5 2.0%
6 1 0 4%
7 1 0 4%
8 3 1.2%
9 1 0 4%
10 2 0.8%
12 1 04%
15 1 04%
Source: LSC Onboard Survey 2009.
Temporal Analysis
Several questions were asked of patrons regarding time spent waiting at a bus
stop for a bus, as well as the average time spent on a bus for each particular trip
they made.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page V I S
Onboard Survey Results
Table V-5 shows the range of bus wait times systemwide. The largest percentage
of respondents (57 percent) reported waiting between five and ten minutes for
their bus. Only 7.4 percent reported waiting longer than 15 minutes for their bus.
This only indicates how long a patron perceived waiting for their bus at each stop.
Respondents were also asked to indicate the length oftime they spent on the bus
for the particular portion of the trip for which they were being surveyed. The
average time spent on the bus for the respondents was approximately 27 minutes.
The times reported range from one minute to 120 minutes. The most frequent
answers were 30 minutes and 10 minutes.
Table V-5
Bus Waiting Times
Minutes Waited Respondents Percentage
1to4 110 261%
5 to 10 240 57.0%
11 to 15 40 9 5%
More than 15 31 7 4%
Source. LSC Onboard Survcy 2009
Ridership Frequency
Passengers were asked how often they ride the bus during the typical week. Figure
V-16 shows that approximately 27 percent of the passengers reported using
KeyLine's service five days per week. Sixteen percent reported riding three days
weekly, while 15 percent reportedusing the service four and six days, respectively.
This shows that the main riders of the system are frequent riders. Very few
respondents reported using the system only a few times a month.
Lsc
Page V 16 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
owo,.~a ~o.rvey R°m m
Figure III-16
Ridership Frequency
t.. wN._ - ~ 1. .rvd
m~
m~ni~ ~/
Perceptions about KeyLine Transit
Passengers were asked to rate the quahtY of eermce promded by GeYLine Tranmt.
Toe ~eeymiees wee eynn~~ fai~~ %nnd~ very%nnd~ aid dmitY mw. Eac4 BR%mywae
gveu a uumeHCal value Lnm mie to fnuy and die average ~eeymise was Hieu
calculated fm Bch atbibute The middleyrtiut of ~ esymieee would be 3.5, en ari
av e core of 8.0 or higher would mdssate pomhve percep4one for that par
hcular attribute. The responses from the survey are shown m Table V o. In the
.,urvey, the attribute hamne the highest score wm "Fares' with a ra4ne of 8.5.
FNlnwiug fa~ee~ Hie Idglieet gated atbibutes are'Bafrt)/' and "G~ive~ Gurtee)a'
wi8uatiu%e nfZA.
The loweet rated attributes were'SChedulee," "Saturday Seance," Bue Ruutee/
Areas Served," and "Sernce FrequencY~' Although these were the loweet rated
attrabuteq they all scored a BA or better. The ra4ne of eernce attrabutee should
~elaR to Sae goals fm KeyGUe Tau®L Fm examples a etaadard fr~ schedules
ftrylrv_ CynatlawLMNWb, .RnaL.PeYM RyF c IO
Onboard Survey Results
should be established at 3.0 or something similar. Each service attribute should
have an established standard and be compared during each iteration of survey
programs in the future.
Table V-6
Perceptions about KeyLine
Attribute Average Rating
Fares 3 5
Safety 3 4
Driver Courtesy 3 4
Overall Service Quality 3 3
Transfer Convenience 3 3
Condition of Buses 3.2
Transfer Stations 3.2
Comfort 3.2
Convenience 3.2
W e bs ite 3.2
Bus Routes/Area Served 3 1
Saturday Service 3 1
Service Frequency 3 1
Schedules 3 0
Source: LSC Onboard Survey 2009.
Additional Comments
Passengers were given the opportunity to include additional comments regarding
KeyLine Transit service. The actual comments are included in Appendix B. Many
of the comments were related to the extension of service, both in terms of geo-
graphy and time. Other comments were generally related to bus conditions, infor-
mation, schedules, web content, and stops. The appendix has the comments dis-
aggregated by type, along with the percentage of comments that relate to that
specific category.
Lsc
Page V 18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
CHAPTER VI
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 am. 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, Final Report Page VI 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 fixed-route services.
There are no trip restrictions or ranking of trip purposes. Service is as comparable
to fixed-route as possible. Figure VI-1 presents the service area as defined by
three-quarters of a mile from the fixed-route service.
Lsc
Page VI2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
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 VI4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
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
otherlocation) 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, Final Report Page VI 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 VI 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
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 fromvariable 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-WayPassenger-Trips- Refers to the total numberofpassengerstranspnrted.
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-Hour-Either the time the engine is running or the time a driver is assigned
to avehicle; the operatingtime for avehicle. 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 VI-1 provides the FY2008 Mini-bus budget. Table VI-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, Final Report Page VI7
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini bus Service
A cost allocation model, similar to the one presented for fixed-route services, is
presented in Table VI-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 was compared to the RTA service to determine
possible coordination and cost savings.
Lsc
Page VI 8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Table VI-1
KeyLine Paratransit FY2008 Budget
% of Total Unexpended % of Budget
Expense Budget Actual % Expended
Budget Amount Unexpended
Wages $ 391,277 $ 429,771 62.7% 109 8% $ (38,494) -9 8%
Benefits $ 88,292 $ 94,134 14.1% 106.6% $ (5,842) -6.6%
Other Employee Expenses $ 3,280 $ 156 0.5% 4.8% $ 3,124 95.2%
Supplies and Services $ 230 $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ 230 100 0%
Printing and Publishing $ 260 $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ 260 100 0%
Insurance $ 10,093 $ 10,244 16% 1015% $ (151) -15%
Utilities and Property $ 370 $ 237 0.1 % 64.1 % $ 133 35.9%
Motor Vehicle Expenses $ 117,289 $ 181,694 18.8% 154.9% $ (64,405) -54.9%
Contract Services $ 7,308 $ 9,255 1.2% 126.6% $ (1,947) -26.6%
Office E ui ment $ 5,741 $ 3,689 0.9% 64.3% $ 2,052 35.7%
Subtotal Operating $ 624,140 $ 729,180 116.8% $ (105,040) -16.8%
Source: KeyLine Transit, 2008.
R~
P
m
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini bus Service
Ridership and Effectiveness Trends
Ridership was examined from the last five years of data. Figure VI-2 provides the
weekday ridership for the last five years. Ridership has declined nearly 25 percent
from fiscal year (FY) 2004. Table VI-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 severalyears.
This is likely due to differences in record keeping and implementation of new
scheduling software.
Table VI-4
Mini-bus Services
Disabled
Year Total Rides Elderly Trips % Elderly
Trips 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%
Revenue- Total Operating Passenger Cost per
Year Revenue-Miles
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 $411
Source KeyLine Transit, 2009
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VI 11
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini bus Service
Cost Per Service-Hour
As mentioned, the cost per service-hour is a way to measure e$`iciency. 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 e$`iciently 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 $40. In comparison, fixed-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-Trip
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 VI-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, Final Report Page VI 13
b
P
s
Table VI-5
National Peer Community Analysis for Paratransit Service
2007 Pertormance Measures
Service Area No. of Annual Annual Annual Operating Fare Fare Miles Pass per Pass per Cost per Cost per Cost per Trips per
Transit System-Location Population Vehicles Miles Hours Ritlership Butlget Revenues Recovery Per HOUr Hour Mile Pass Hour Mile Capita
Pueblo Transit System (PT). CO 103.500 13 246.710 17.932 51.457 $653.214 $68.782 11% 13.76 2.9 0.21 $12.69 $36.43 $2.65 0.50
Great Falls Transit District (GFTD). MT 59.380 9 150.078 12.958 31.392 $388.424 $54.638 14% 11.58 2.4 0.21 $12.37 $29.98 $2.59 0.53
Fargo Metropolitan Area (MATT, SD 125,000 10 294,112 23,708 55,133 $948,961 $257,633 27% 12.41 2.3 0.19 $17.21 $40.03 $3.23 0.44
LaCrosse Municipal Transit Utility (La Crosse MTU). WI 65.000 19 520.427 41.816 90.073 $1.198.647 $885.861 74% 12.45 2.2 0.17 $13.31 $28.66 $2.30 1.39
Mesa County (GVT). CO 120.000 5 69.225 4.669 8.411 $166.466 $14.079 8% 14.83 1.8 0.12 $19.79 $35.65 $2.40 0.07
Santa Fe Trails -City of Santa Fe (SFTI, NM 75,500 49 20,401 33,698 48,409 $1,083,699 $103,591 10% 0.61 1.4 2.37 $22.39 $32.16 $53.12 0.64
Albany Transit System (ATS). GA 79.939 5 131.091 9.294 23.322 $537.415 $38.589 7% 14.10 2.5 0.18 $23.04 $57.82 $4.10 0.29
AVERAGE 89,760 i6 204,578 20,582 44,028 $710,975 $20$310 22Yo 11.39 2.22 0.49 $ 17.26 $ 37.25 $ 10.06 0.55
K ine Mini-bus 58,000 10 182,679 18,577 46,713 $729,180 $155,400 21 % 9.83 2.51 0.26 $ 15.61 $ 39.25 $ 3.99 0.81
o. ~r mao.,nai r~nnt ~aanar~ ano n(epune, 2oou
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini bus Service
Effectiveness
Passengers 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 VI-3 shows the current service requests with the three-quarter-mile ADA-
required paratransit boundary. Figure VI-4 provides an analysis of the origin-
destination patterns by neighborhood district.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VII S
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 VI-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 afixed-cost factor of 1.5. Table VI-7 provides a
comparison of the cost allocation models for KeyLine's Mini-bus and for the RTA
services. As shown, the RTA is $12.27 less 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 VI 18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini bus Service
TEM PORAL 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 VI-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 VI-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 VI-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 muld 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 VI 22 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Evaluation of KeyLine Mini bus Service
MINI-BUS SURVEY ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This section provides the analysis of data collected through the paratransitsurvey.
Information is provided about passenger demographics, trip characteristics, and
perceptions of the quality ofservice. This survey was conducted during February
2009. The survey form is shown in Appendix C.
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 regardingthe characteristics of the trip.
The demographic information is summarized from undupliarted 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 VI-10 shows the responses to this question.
Lsc
Page VI26 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
CHAPTER VII
Demand Analysis
INTRODUCTION
A key step in developing and evaluating transit plans is a careful analysis of the
mobility needs of various segments of the population and the potential ridership
of transit services. Transit demand analysis is the basic determination ofdemand
for public transportation in a given area. There are several factors that affect
demand, not all of which can be forecasted. However, as demand estimation is an
important task in developing any transportation plan, several methods of esti-
mation have been developed in the transit field. The analysis makes intensive use
of the demographic data and trends discussed previously.
This chapter presents an analysis of the demand for transit services in the
Dubuque County area based upon standard estimation techniques. The transit
demand identified in this section was utilized in the identification of transit service
alternatives and the evaluation of the various alternatives. Three methods are
used to estimate the transit trip demand in Dubuque County area.
• Fixed-Route Model
• ADA Eligibility Model
• Greatest Transit Needs Index
The first two models specifically focus on developing a sense of demand for
existing services, while the third model highlights the areas with the greatest need
for transit services. It is critical to develop a farecasting tool for future develop-
ment in the area. Astop-level fixed-route demand model has been developed spe-
cific to the Dubuque area, and the analysis is presented in the following text.
FIXED-ROUTE MODEL
The fixed-route demand model has been developed to evaluate scheduled service
alternatives for the Dubuque area. The model uses data from other communities
that are applicable in Dubuque.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VII 1
Demand Analysis
Approach
The model format is based on household vehicle ownership, average walking
distance to bus stops, and frequencyof operation. The basic approach is described
in the paper, "Demand Estimating Model for Transit Route and System Planning in
Small Urban Areas, "Transportation Research Board, 730, 1979. This model incor-
porates factors for walking distance, the distance traveled on the bus, and the
frequency of service or headway. The calibrated fixed-route model for KeyLine
Transit is presented in Table VII-1. This model reflects the existing population
based on the 2008 population estimates and the 2009 ridership.
The percentage of households with transit access is determined by the number of
households within aquarter-mile of the scheduled transit service. Census block
groups located entirely within aquarter-mile show 100 percent transit access.
The model has been calibrated to existing ridership levels by using data from the
2009 boarding and alighting counts. This fixed-route model was used to estimate
ridership for the alternate service concepts. The alternate concepts were incorpo-
ratedinto the model by changing the percentage of households served by transit,
the walking distance, and frequency of service.
As shown in Table VII-1, the model generated 879 daily trips and approximately
274,374 annual trips-consistent with KeyLine Transit's current ridership. This
model does not include those trips that would need to still ride the paratransit
service due to the FTA's ADA requirements.
Lsc
Page VI72 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Demand Analysis
ADA ELIGIBILITY MODEL
LSC prepared demand estimates for the demand-response ridership based on a
methodology developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Factors used
in this methodology include demographics, eligibility criteria, service area, avail-
ability ofother services, socioeconomic characteristics, service characteristics, and
fares. The methodology does not include program-related trips.
Paratransit trips are frequently designated as:
• Program-related: Program-related trips occur only to support specific
programs, and the demand is directly related to the number of partici-
pants in the program.
• Non-program-related trips: Non-program trips are represented most by
those individuals traveling for work, school, or other personal reasons.
Low and high demand estimates are produced with this methodology and are
shown in Table VII-2. The demandestimates have been calculated by census block
group and show the current demand for paratransit services in the Dubuque
County area. The annual trips for Dubuque County's certified paratransit popula-
tion ranges from approximately 38,000 to 47,000 annual trips.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VIII
Table VII-2
2008 Estimated Paratransit Demand -Dubuque
Trip Rates (1)
of Mobility- Estimate Estimate per Eligible Eligible Certified
Census Total Limited Mobility- ADA ofADA of Person Population Population
Census Block 2008 Population Limited Eligibility Eligible Certification Certified Per Month Annual Trips Annual Trips
Tract Group Population 2008 Est. Population Factor Population Factor Population Low High Low High Low High
1 1 1,003 4% 41 60% 24 0.44 18 3.5 4.4 1,028 1,293 754 948
1 2 615 3% 21 60% 13 0.44 9 3.5 4.4 527 663 387 486
1 3 609 5% 33 60% 20 0.44 15 3.5 4.4 844 1,061 619 778
1 4 753 8% 61 60% 36 0.44 27 3.5 4.4 1,530 1,923 1,122 1,410
3 1 1,274 2% 28 60% 17 0.44 12 3.5 4.4 712 895 522 656
3 3 982 1 % 10 60% 6 0.44 5 3.5 4.4 264 332 193 243
4 1 994 1 % 8 60% 5 0.44 4 3.5 4.4 211 265 155 194
4 2 1,307 3% 39 60% 23 0.44 17 3.5 4.4 976 1,227 716 900
4 4 1,868 3% 57 60% 34 0.44 25 3.5 4.4 1,424 1,790 1,044 1,313
5 1 805 1 % 7 60% 4 0.44 3 3.5 4.4 185 232 135 170
5 2 1,112 5% 61 60% 36 0.44 27 3.5 4.4 1,530 1,923 1,122 1,410
5 3 773 3% 21 60% 13 0.44 9 3.5 4.4 527 663 387 486
5 4 633 6% 41 60% 24 0.44 18 3.5 4.4 1,028 1,293 754 948
5 5 943 4% 33 60% 20 0.44 15 3.5 4.4 844 1,061 619 778
6 1 925 5% 48 60% 29 0.44 21 3.5 4.4 1,213 1,525 890 1,118
6 2 1,234 4% 46 60% 28 0.44 20 3.5 4.4 1,160 1,459 851 1,070
6 3 1,587 0% 6 60% 4 0.44 3 3.5 4.4 158 199 116 146
701 1 1,917 2% 44 60% 26 0.44 19 3.5 4.4 1,108 1,392 812 1,021
7 01 2 715 2% 18 60% 11 0.44 8 3.5 4.4 448 564 329 413
701 3 1,193 0% 0 60% 0 0.44 0 3.5 4.4 0 0 0 0
7 02 1 711 2% 15 60% 9 0.44 6 3.5 4.4 369 464 271 340
7 02 2 934 2% 23 60% 14 0.44 10 3.5 4.4 580 729 425 535
702 4 1,286 1% 13 60% 8 0.44 6 3.5 4.4 316 398 232 292
7 02 5 666 1 % 5 60% 3 0.44 2 3.5 4.4 132 166 97 122
8.01 1 698 1 % 9 60% 6 0.44 4 3.5 4.4 237 298 174 219
8.01 2 1,744 0% 0 60% 0 0.44 0 3.5 4.4 0 0 0 0
8.01 3 1,026 1% 5 60% 3 0.44 2 3.5 4.4 132 166 97 122
8.01 4 856 0% 0 60% 0 0.44 0 3.5 4.4 0 0 0 0
8.01 5 603 1 % 5 60% 3 0.44 2 3.5 4.4 132 166 97 122
8.02 1 815 2% 20 60% 12 0.44 9 3.5 4.4 501 630 367 462
8.02 2 1,608 2% 33 60% 20 0.44 15 3.5 4.4 844 1,061 619 778
8.02 3 1,020 3% 28 60% 17 0.44 12 3.5 4.4 712 895 522 656
9 1 656 3% 19 60% 11 0.44 8 3.5 4.4 475 597 348 438
9 2 855 3% 28 60% 17 0.44 12 3.5 4.4 712 895 522 656
9 3 1, 463 1 % 14 60% 8 0.44 6 3.5 4.4 343 431 251 316
9 4 1,024 3% 31 60% 19 0.44 14 3.5 4.4 791 995 580 729
1101 1 1,624 2% 36 60% 21 0.44 16 3.5 4.4 897 1,127 658 827
1101 2 1,310 4% 57 60% 34 0.44 25 3.5 4.4 1,424 1,790 1,044 1,313
1101 3 729 3% 23 60% 14 0.44 10 3.5 4.4 580 729 425 535
1102 1 697 4% 27 60% 16 0.44 12 3.5 4.4 686 862 503 632
1102 2 961 2% 20 60% 12 0.44 9 3.5 4.4 501 630 367 462
1102 3 915 4% 36 60% 21 0.44 16 3.5 4.4 897 1,127 658 827
1102 4 702 2% 12 60% 7 0.44 5 3.5 4.4 290 365 213 267
1102 5 1,141 2% 28 60% 17 0.44 12 3.5 4.4 712 895 522 656
1102 6 1,354 1% 18 60% 11 0.44 8 3.5 4.4 448 564 329 413
12.01 1 1,946 2% 30 60% 18 0.44 13 3.5 4.4 765 961 561 705
12.01 2 799 1 % 9 60% 6 0.44 4 3.5 4.4 237 298 174 219
12.01 3 611 1 % 7 60% 4 0.44 3 3.5 4.4 185 232 135 170
12.01 4 841 2% 19 60% 11 0.44 8 3.5 4.4 475 597 348 438
Table VII-2 (continued)
2008 Estimated Paratransit Demand -Dubuque
Trip Rates (1)
of Mobility- Estimate Estimate per Eligible Eligible Certified
Census Total Limited Mobility- ADA ofADA of Person Population Population
Census Block 2008 Population Limited Eligibility Eligible Certification Certified Per Month Annual Trips Annual Trips
Tract Group Population 2008 Est. Population Factor Population Factor Population Low High Low High Low High
12.02 1 730 4% 27 60% 16 0.44 12 3.5 4.4 686 862 503 632
12.02 3 1,323 2% 27 60% 16 0.44 12 3.5 4.4 686 862 503 632
12.03 2 1,161 1 % 8 60% 5 0.44 4 3.5 4.4 211 265 155 194
12.03 3 1,256 2% 28 60% 17 0.44 12 3.5 4.4 712 895 522 656
12.03 4 1,240 1% 16 60% 9 0.44 7 3.5 4.4 396 497 290 365
12.03 5 2,625 3% 66 60% 40 0.44 29 3.5 4.4 1,661 2,089 1,218 1,532
101 01 1 869 1 % 12 60% 7 0.44 5 3.5 4.4 290 365 213 267
10101 2 1,146 1% 12 60% 7 0.44 5 3.5 4.4 290 365 213 267
10102 1 2,424 1% 32 60% 19 0.44 14 3.5 4.4 817 1,028 599 754
10102 2 1,319 4% 50 60% 30 0.44 22 3.5 4.4 1,266 1,591 928 1,167
10102 3 1,420 2% 25 60% 15 0.44 11 3.5 4.4 633 796 464 583
10102 4 900 2% 15 60% 9 0.44 6 3.5 4.4 369 464 271 340
10102 5 985 4% 38 60% 23 0.44 17 3.5 4.4 949 1,193 696 875
10103 1 751 0% 0 60% 0 0.44 0 3.5 4.4 0 0 0 0
10103 2 1,286 1% 14 60% 8 0.44 6 3.5 4.4 343 431 251 316
101 03 3 697 3% 23 60% 14 0.44 10 3.5 4.4 580 729 425 535
102 1 1,013 3% 29 60% 18 0.44 13 3.5 4.4 738 928 541 681
102 2 998 1% 14 60% 8 0.44 6 3.5 4.4 343 431 251 316
102 3 2,113 2% 37 60% 22 0.44 16 3.5 4.4 923 1,160 677 851
102 4 1,530 2% 35 60% 21 0.44 15 3.5 4.4 870 1,094 638 802
102 5 1,459 3% 46 60% 28 0.44 20 3.5 4.4 1,160 1,459 851 1,070
103 1 635 4% 28 60% 17 0.44 12 3.5 4.4 712 895 522 656
103 2 682 0% 0 60% 0 0.44 0 3.5 4.4 0 0 0 0
103 3 702 3% 19 60% 11 0.44 8 3.5 4.4 475 597 348 438
103 4 1,104 2% 21 60% 13 0.44 9 3.5 4.4 527 663 387 486
104 1 1,111 1% 10 60% 6 0.44 5 3.5 4.4 264 332 193 243
104 2 961 2% 19 60% 11 0.44 8 3.5 4.4 475 597 348 438
104 3 830 2% 13 60% 8 0.44 6 3.5 4.4 316 398 232 292
104 4 1,200 1% 12 60% 7 0.44 5 3.5 4.4 290 365 213 267
105 1 1,248 1% 13 60% 8 0.44 6 3.5 4.4 316 398 232 292
105 2 1,289 2% 29 60% 18 0.44 13 3.5 4.4 738 928 541 681
105 3 1,054 1% 9 60% 6 0.44 4 3.5 4.4 237 298 174 219
105 4 1,030 3% 33 60% 20 0.44 15 3.5 4.4 844 1,061 619 778
106 1 1,673 3% 45 60% 27 0.44 20 3.5 4.4 1,134 1,426 832 1,045
106 2 733 2% 17 60% 10 0.44 7 3.5 4.4 422 530 309 389
106 3 950 0% 1 60% 1 0.44 0 3.5 4.4 26 33 19 24
Total 93,285 2% 2,015 1,209 887 50 790 63 851 37 246 46 824
(1) Source. Survey of 7 "exemplary" paratransit operators. Crain, Et al. "Working Paper 6. Service Needs Analysis, San Francisco Bay Area Regional Paratransit Plan," Jan. 1990
Demand Analysis
GREATEST TRANSIT NEEDS
The "greatest transit need" is defined as those areas in the Dubuque study areawith
the highest density of zero-vehicle households and elderly, disabled, and below-
poverty populations. This information was used in the development of a transit
service plan and the identification of appropriate service district boundaries.
Methodology
The data included in Chapter III were used to calculate the greatest transit need.
The categories used for the calculation were zero-vehicle households, elderly
population, disabled population, and below-poverty population. Using these cate-
gories, LSC developed a "transit need index" to determine the greatest transit
need. The density of the population for each US Census block group within each
category was calculated, placed in numerical order, and divided into six segments.
Six segments were chosen in order to reflect a reasonable range. Each segment
contained an approximately equal number of US Census block groups in order to
provide equal representation.
The US Census block groups in the segment with the lowest densities were given
a score of 1. The block groups in the segment with the next lowest densities were
given a score of 2. This process continued for the remainder of the block groups.
The blocks groups in the segment with the highest densities were given a score of
6. This scoring was completed for each of the categories (zero- vehicle households,
elderly population, disabled population, and below-poverty population). After each
of the block groups was scored for the four categories, the four scores were added
up to achieve an overall score. Table VII-3 presents the ranked scores for each US
Census block group in Dubuque County. The scores range from 4 (lowest need)
to 24 (highest need).
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VI713
Table VII-3
2008 Greatest Transit Need Scores by Census Block Group
Zero- Total Total Number Mobility- Below- Total
Census Land Vehicle #of of Elderly Limited Poverty Overall Population
Census Block Area Hhlds Hhlds 60 & over Population Population Score (Persons)
Density Density Density
(persons per Density (persons (persons per (persons per
Tract Group (sq.ml.) # sq. mi.) rank # # per sq. mi.) rank # sq. mi.) rank # sq. mi.) rank (4-24) #
1 1 2.623 106 40.29 4 435 104 3950 2 41 15.56 3 171 65.03 3 12 1,003
1 2 0.052 89 1,710.56 6 308 66 1,26783 5 21 402.49 6 134 2,575.91 6 23 615
1 3 0.117 139 1,189.57 6 343 61 518.76 4 33 286.21 6 226 1, 931.93 6 22 609
1 4 0.177 249 1,407.11 6 475 245 1,383.46 6 61 342.91 6 180 1,016.90 6 24 753
3 1 0.170 33 196.98 5 547 223 1,31115 6 28 166.20 5 49 289.32 5 21 1,274
3 3 0.096 29 305.22 6 320 238 2,474.45 6 10 109.01 5 49 512.33 5 22 982
4 1 0.165 27 164.90 5 426 348 2,111.95 6 8 50.74 4 206 1, 249 41 6 21 994
4 2 0.193 43 222.31 5 516 220 1,138.64 5 39 200.62 6 40 206.04 4 20 1, 307
4 4 1.055 120 114.07 5 645 1,032 978.02 5 57 53.56 4 223 211.28 4 18 1,868
5 1 0.120 26 218.01 5 344 192 1,595.85 6 7 6104 4 94 784.85 5 20 805
5 2 0.110 48 437 61 6 454 178 1, 617.26 6 61 551 77 6 120 1, 094.03 6 24 1,112
5 3 0.054 49 910.81 6 317 71 1, 317 77 6 21 387 58 6 72 1, 337 15 6 24 773
5 4 0.061 103 1,681.20 6 289 76 1,252.32 5 41 66905 6 202 3,310.94 6 23 633
5 5 0.103 53 518.15 6 395 127 1,229.34 5 33 325.11 6 178 1,72717 6 23 943
6 1 0.141 37 259 76 5 375 107 757 01 4 48 341 40 6 117 831.23 5 20 925
6 2 0.110 133 1,208.19 6 580 197 1,788.50 6 46 418.58 6 227 2,064.38 6 24 1,234
6 3 0.464 23 4962 4 382 176 378.89 3 6 13.53 3 42 90.21 3 13 1,587
701 1 0.272 45 165.43 5 369 172 630.95 4 44 161.59 5 225 82717 5 19 1,917
7 01 2 0.077 26 339 76 6 323 44 570.80 4 18 231 04 6 181 2,351 14 6 22 715
7 01 3 0.144 10 72.67 4 416 159 1,104.60 5 0 0.00 1 130 901 12 6 16 1,193
702 1 0.061 33 548.96 6 297 63 1,029.31 5 15 240.17 6 16 257.33 4 21 711
7 02 2 0.213 17 78.61 4 309 235 1,105.42 5 23 108.09 5 199 933.46 6 20 934
7 02 4 0.151 50 332.65 6 532 163 1, 081 11 5 13 83.16 4 177 1,171.21 6 21 1, 286
702 5 0.119 22 184.67 5 257 164 1,380.63 6 5 43.97 4 20 167.08 4 19 666
8.01 1 1.286 12 8.95 3 194 434 337 70 3 9 7 32 2 196 152.17 4 12 698
8.01 2 1182 20 16.82 3 632 326 276.22 3 0 0.00 1 77 65.51 3 10 1,744
8.01 3 0.304 6 20.65 3 405 188 61962 4 5 17.21 3 44 144.58 4 14 1,026
8.01 4 0.243 28 116.27 5 341 213 878.51 4 0 0.00 1 133 546.92 5 15 856
8.01 5 0.108 12 106.58 4 225 82 755.78 4 5 48.45 4 12 106.58 3 15 603
8.02 1 0.681 26 38.42 4 335 155 227 42 3 20 29.20 3 35 50.71 3 13 815
8.02 2 0.894 12 12.88 3 516 86 95.98 3 33 3746 3 41 45.65 3 12 1,608
8.02 3 1047 5 5.00 3 404 303 28985 3 28 26.99 3 18 16.99 2 11 1,020
9 1 0.085 28 332.41 6 278 130 1,526.60 6 19 22160 6 25 295.47 5 23 656
9 2 0.171 6 36.72 4 330 138 807 79 4 28 165.23 5 65 379 42 5 18 855
9 3 0.337 0 0.00 1 489 295 875.67 4 14 40.37 3 109 322.94 5 13 1,463
9 4 0.199 15 73.62 4 426 257 1,293.62 6 31 157.76 5 53 268.19 4 19 1,024
1101 1 0.486 0 0.00 1 582 188 38758 3 36 73.21 4 27 55.98 3 11 1,624
11 01 2 0.454 20 43.79 4 516 416 917 38 5 57 124.47 5 26 57 62 3 17 1,310
11.01 3 0.141 0 0.00 1 311 251 1,781.21 6 23 163.28 5 25 178.12 4 16 729
1102 1 0.126 0 0.00 1 290 127 1,004.94 5 27 215.94 6 35 274.07 5 17 697
1102 2 0.187 45 240.63 5 407 128 682.72 4 20 106.32 5 117 626.76 5 19 961
1102 3 0.277 9 34.00 4 384 239 86135 4 36 128.45 5 37 132.22 4 17 915
1102 4 0.180 0 0.00 1 291 195 1,08134 5 12 63.95 4 50 27906 5 15 702
11 02 5 2.964 2 0.71 2 379 137 46.25 2 28 9 53 3 32 10.94 2 9 1,141
11.02 6 2.489 36 14.29 3 469 276 110.99 3 18 7.15 2 82 32.79 2 10 1,354
12.01 1 0.707 73 103.61 4 806 631 892.53 4 30 42.92 4 181 256.06 4 16 1,946
12.01 2 0.222 35 155.56 5 401 364 1,640.40 6 9 42.42 4 18 80.13 3 18 799
12.01 3 0.127 15 115.36 5 244 109 856.94 4 7 57 68 4 30 238.96 4 17 611
12.01 4 0.196 35 176.19 5 385 241 1,227.99 5 19 96.10 5 46 234.92 4 19 841
Table VII-3 (continued)
2008 Greatest Transit Need Scores by Census Block Group
Zero- Total Total Number Mobility- Below- Total
Census Land Vehicle #of of Elderly Limited Poverty Overall Population
Census Block Area Hhlds Hhlds 60 & over Population Po ulation Score Persons
Density Density Density
(persons per Density (persons (persons per (persons per
Tract Group (sq.ml.) # sq. mi.) rank # # per sq. mi.) rank # sq. mi.) rank # sq. mi.) rank (4-24) #
12.02 1 0.605 46 76.11 4 398 210 347 67 3 27 44.97 4 50 83.03 3 14 730
12.02 3 0.203 103 505.19 6 558 572 2,819.78 6 27 134.03 5 94 463.95 5 22 1,323
12.03 2 0.192 37 190.76 5 459 247 1, 286.28 6 8 43.60 4 19 98.11 3 18 1,161
12.03 3 0.234 8 35.78 4 456 235 1,006.21 5 28 120.75 5 77 330.93 5 19 1,256
12.03 4 0.984 29 2978 4 544 149 15101 3 16 15.95 3 114 115.92 4 14 1,240
12.03 5 1.293 8 6.47 3 891 296 229.04 3 66 50.99 4 38 29.14 2 12 2,625
101 01 1 1 304 0 0.00 1 358 167 128.40 3 12 8.83 3 23 17 66 2 9 869
101.01 2 2.068 17 8.10 3 511 217 104.75 3 12 5.57 2 112 54.14 3 11 1,146
101 02 1 7 540 22 2.91 3 813 209 27 76 2 32 4.30 2 98 13.05 2 9 2,424
10102 2 10.800 0 0.00 1 451 183 16.96 2 50 4.65 2 52 4.84 2 7 1,319
10102 3 21394 14 0.64 2 483 134 6.26 1 25 117 2 88 4.11 2 7 1,420
101 02 4 18.119 7 0.40 2 298 138 7 62 1 15 0.81 1 26 1 44 1 5 900
10102 5 20.308 6 0.31 2 347 172 8.45 2 38 186 2 32 160 1 7 985
10103 1 4.338 0 0.00 1 295 150 34.50 2 0 0.00 1 10 2.41 1 5 751
10103 2 0.938 15 15.62 3 535 298 317.95 3 14 14.50 3 59 62.48 3 12 1,286
101 03 3 1 321 15 11 09 3 272 70 53.08 2 23 17 43 3 58 43.57 3 11 697
102 1 20.262 36 176 2 370 201 9.92 2 29 145 2 53 2.63 1 7 1,013
102 2 43.422 0 0.00 1 303 90 2.07 1 14 0.31 1 13 0.29 1 4 998
102 3 30.542 5 0.17 1 719 217 7 09 1 37 1.20 2 111 3.63 2 6 2,113
102 4 4.314 18 4.12 3 511 216 49.97 2 35 8.00 2 86 1989 2 9 1,530
102 5 5.703 21 3.67 3 534 248 43.49 2 46 8.07 2 76 13.40 2 9 1,459
103 1 38.351 0 0.00 1 180 140 3.66 1 28 0.74 1 72 188 1 4 635
103 2 46.577 2 0.04 1 250 90 1.93 1 0 0.00 1 31 0.67 1 4 682
103 3 46.900 4 0.09 1 242 106 2.25 1 19 0.40 1 75 161 1 4 702
103 4 13.418 16 1 17 2 395 100 7 49 1 21 1 56 2 92 6.86 2 7 1,104
104 1 45.642 13 0.28 2 396 211 4.63 1 10 0.23 1 81 1 77 1 5 1,111
104 2 32.752 15 0.45 2 336 183 5.59 1 19 0.58 1 73 2.24 1 5 961
104 3 30.333 12 0.38 2 292 129 4.24 1 13 0.41 1 23 0.76 1 5 830
104 4 36.830 18 0.48 2 450 298 8.10 2 12 0.31 1 107 2.90 2 7 1,200
105 1 6.095 4 0.69 2 466 213 35.03 2 13 2.06 2 39 6.35 2 8 1,248
105 2 1838 45 24.48 3 502 165 89.96 3 29 15.94 3 33 18.22 2 11 1,289
105 3 0.808 13 15.54 3 429 315 38983 4 9 1166 3 118 146.35 4 14 1,054
105 4 5.122 6 1.23 2 371 179 34.94 2 33 6.54 2 13 2.45 1 7 1,030
106 1 28.411 26 0.92 2 573 248 8.73 2 45 158 2 71 2.50 1 7 1,673
106 2 25.526 8 0.33 2 270 159 6.23 1 17 0.66 1 6 0.25 1 5 733
106 3 43.132 2 0.05 1 305 128 2.96 1 1 0.02 1 31 0.73 1 4 950
STUDYAREA TOTAL: 2540 35,255 17,654 2,015 6,947 93,285
Sowce: US Census Bureau and LSC, 2008.
Demand Analysis
Results
Figure VII-1 presents Dubuque County's US Census block groups with the
greatest transit need, along with the transit need index. Twenty-six block groups
were determined to have the greatest transit needs based on the density of zero-
vehicle households, elderly population, disabled population, and below-poverty
population. Table VII-4 presents information on these 26 block groups. As shown
in Figure VII-1, the greatest transit need is mainly in downtown Dubuque, along
Central Avenue (US Highway 52) in the area near City Hall, the Carnegie-Stout
Public Library, the Dubuque Courthouse, and the Dubuque Housing Department.
The other areas ofgreatest transit need are scatteredin the City of Dubuque, west
of Emmaus Bible College and the area south of Dubuque Senior High School.
Table VII-4
Census Block Grou s with Greatest Transit Need
Census Tract Census Block Group Overall Score Ranking
1 4 24 6
5 2 24 6
5 3 24 6
6 2 24 6
1 2 23 6
5 4 23 6
5 5 23 6
9 1 23 6
1 3 22 6
3 3 22 6
7 01 2 22 6
12.02 3 22 6
3 1 21 5
4 1 21 5
7 02 1 21 5
7 02 4 21 5
4 2 20 5
5 1 20 5
6 1 20 5
7 02 2 20 5
7 01 1 19 5
7 02 5 19 5
9 4 19 5
11 02 2 19 5
12.01 4 19 5
12.03 3 19 5
Source. LSC, 2008
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VI719
Demand Analysis
By identifying those areas with a high need for public transportation, LSC was
able to uncover a pattern for the areas with the highest propensity to use transit
service. As LSC examines different future transit scenarios, Figure VII-1 was used
in the analysis to ensure that areas with a high transit need would be adequately
served. Those US Census block groups not scoring in the highest category, but
still having a high score, could still be considered a high priority for transit
service.
Figure VII-2 shows the greatest transit needs overlaid with the existing KeyLine
Transit routes in the study area. As illustrated, most of the areas with the greatest
transit needs are served by KeyLine Transit routes.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VI721
Demand Analysis
DEMOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SERVICE AREA
The FTA Title VI demographic section of this report focuses on the three Title VI
population groups:
• Low-income population
• Minority population
• Limited English proficiency
The map for each demographic category presents the specific population of the
census block group as a percentage of the total population in that census block
group for the year 2008. The threshold used to determine whether a census block
group had predominately low-income or minority population was calculated based
on the KeyLine Transit service area's overall low-income or minority population
percentage. The threshold was calculated by dividing the low-income population
in the KeyLine service area by the total population in the KeyLine service area.
Hence, the KeyLine service area threshold is different for each demographic cate-
gory. These demographic information maps are overlaid with the existing KeyLine
Transit service area. The purpose is to identify the areas within the KeyLine Tran-
sitservice area that have the highest percentage of traditionallyunder-represented
groups-such as low-income, minority, and limited English proficiency popu-
lations-and whether they are geographically served.
Low-Income Population
Figure VII-3 presents the region's low-income population as a percentage of the
total population by US Census block groups with the existing KeyLine Transit
service area overlaid for the 2008 estimated population. The low-income popu-
lation-as defined by the FTA is a person whose household income is at or below
the Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines. The low-
income population used in the GIS maps includes those individuals who are living
below the poverty line using the Census Bureau's poverty threshold. The Dubuque
service area threshold calculated for low-income population was 7.4 percent of
the total population. These figures show that the areas with the greatest per-
centage oflow-income population are in downtown Dubuque extending northwest
and south along Central Avenue and areas scattered on the western portion of the
city along US Highway 20 (Dodge Street). Areas of the city that have a high per-
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VI723
Demand Analysis
centage of population that are deemed to be low-income are all served by multiple
KeyLine Transit routes and stops.
Minority Population
Figure VII-4 presents the region's minority population as a percentage of the total
population by US Census block groups for the 2008 estimated population. The
minority population includes minority race populations such as American Indian
and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American populations, Hispanic/
Latino, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and also includes white per-
sons ofHispanic/Latino origin. The Dubuque service area threshold calculated for
minority population was 3.3 percentof the total population. This map shows that
the areas with the highest percentage of minority population are predominantly
in downtown Dubuque, as well as areas extending to the western portions of the
city along Dodge Street. The areas with the highest percentages ofminority popu-
lation are served by KeyLine Transit.
Limited-English-Proficient Population
Figure VII-5 depicts census block groups that have above average limited-English-
proficientpopulations compared to the overall Dubuque service area for 2008. The
limited-English-proficient population is defined as individuals for whom English
is not their primary language spoken at home and who rated their own ability to
speak English as "not well" or "not at all." The Dubuque service area threshold
calculated for the limited-English-proficient population was 0.9 percent of the
total population. The proportion of individuals with limited English proficiency is
in downtown Dubuque and scattered throughout the west and northwestern
portions of the city where the proportion of the minority population is high. All
limited-English-proficient populations have adequate geographic access to the
transit system. The area in the western portion of the city also shows up as an
area with predominantly limited-English-proficiency population. The very low
population in this area and the low population density make it ineffective to serve
with public transit.
Lsc
Page VI724 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Seruioe Options
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-
quarter mile to reach a bus stop. Therefore, afixed-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 arelatively 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 VI772 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Seruioe Options
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
commuter trips 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.
TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS
The following section reviews the various conceptual transit service options. Table
VIII-2, at the end of this chapter, details the various service options reviewed in
this analysis. The number of vehicles operating in maximum service for each
alternative as well as operating costs are estimated. Each altemative is presented
with a brief description of the transit service option and some other attributes.
A cost of $61.53 per hour of service was derived from the fully allocated costs
presented in Chapter IV. Demand-response service was estimated at $40 per hour.
All of the service options assume operating a 13-hour day compared to the current
11-hour operating time. Having service operating from roughly 6:00 a.m. until
7:00 p.m. allows commuters to more effectively use the system.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VIII 5
Transit Seruioe Options
It should be noted that the proposed costs do not take into account that ADA
paratransit service would operate an extra hour daily. This may add to the cost of
providing the Mini-bus service. The exception would be the option that has
midday demand-response service, which could lower this cost.
Option 1 -Central Hub
The first transit service option can be seen in Figure VIII-1. This option has one
central transfer point to be located in the vicinity of the existing Delhi transfer
center. The current location of the Delhi transfer center may not be appropriate
for future options due to the limited size and area for growth. The majority of
routes that go through the Eagle Point neighborhood have not changed. This is
due to the fact that ridership is highest through these neighborhoods, which also
have the greatest transit needs.
Under this option, the downtown shuttle would be similar to the current trolley
service being offered, but would operate year round and provide more frequent
service. The downtown shuttle extension is used to accommodate people traveling
between the Greyhound Park and Downtown.
The route shown in Orange is primarily a shopping circulator, which runs from
the transfer point and accesses locations such as Wal-Mart, Kennedy Mall, Kmart
and HyVee. The turquoise route is designed to serve individuals living in the
southern part ofDubuque. It allows residents to travel to the transfer center or to
downtown. The maroon route serves Pennsylvania Avenue as well as the growing
industrial park. The teal route is designed to serve the northwestern part of the
city, along with Goodwill and the rest of Asbury Road.
Three scenarios were explored in terms of frequency. Costs and ridership were
determined for Option 1 using both 30- and 60-minute headways, as well as a
combination option that operates with a 30-minute headway during peak times,
and a 60-minute headway during midday. Under each scenario, the downtown
shuttle operates at 10-minute intervals, with the extension operating with a 30-
minute headway.
Lsc
Page VIII 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Seruioe Options
60-Minute Headway
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 12
• Total number of vehicles: 15
• Initial capital cost: $600,000
• Paratransit cost: $788,000
• Annual operational cost: $2,927,000
• Annual hours of service: 47,580
• Annual passenger-trips: 540,700
• Passengers per hour: 11.4
• Cost per passenger-trip: $5.41
30-Minute Peak Headwav. 60-Minute Off-Peak
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 18
• Total number of vehicles: 22
• Initial capital cost: $1,350,000
• Paratransit cost: $787,514
• Annual operational cost: $3,601,000
• Annual hours of service: 58,500
• Annual passenger-trips: 747,500
• Passengers per hour: 12.5
• Cost per passenger-trip: $4.96
30-Minute Headwav
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 18
• Total number of vehicles: 22
• Initial capital cost: $1,350,000
• Paratransit cost: $787,514
• Annual operational cost: $4,391,000
• Annual hours of service: 71,370
• Annual passenger-trips: 990,250
• Passengers per hour: 13.9
• Cost per passenger-trip: $4.43
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VIII?
Transit Seruioe Options
Option 2 -East and West Hubs
The second option is based on two transfer points as shown in Figure VIII-2. The
transfer points would be located downtown and at Kennedy Circle or Kennedy
Mall. This option incorporates the Eagle Point routes and the downtown shuttle
configuration described in Option 1. Three crosstown routes were developed to
connect riders between the two transfer points. This option also contains a
shopping shuttle that leaves from the Kennedy Circle transfer point and serves
many of the popular shopping destinations.
This option also explored using 60- and 30-minute headways as a base and the
combination peak and off-peak headways. The downtown shuttle is the only route
that differs, with a 10-minute headway and 30 minutes for the extension.
60-Minute Headway
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 12
• Total number of vehicles: 15
• Initial capital cost: $600,000
• Paratransit cost: $787,514
• Annual operational cost: $2,927,000
• Annual hours of service: 47,580
• Annual passenger-trips: 511,000
• Passengers per hour: 10.7
• Cost per passenger-trip: $5.73
30-Minute Peak Headwav. 60-Minute Off-Peak
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 18
• Total number of vehicles: 22
• Initial capital cost: $1,350,000
• Paratransit cost: $787,514
• Annual operational cost: $3,601,000
• Annual hours of service: 58,500
• Annual passenger-trips: 706,250
• Passengers per hour: 11.8
• Cost per passenger-trip: $5.25
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VIII 9
Transit Seruioe Options
30-Minute Headway
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 18
• Total number of vehicles: 22
• Initial capital cost: $1,350,000
• Paratransit cost: $787,514
• Annual operational cost: $4,391,000
• Annual hours of service: 71,370
• Annual passenger-trips: 935,000
• Passengers per hour: 13.1
• Cost per passenger-trip: $4.69
Lsc
Page VIII 10 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Seruioe Options
Option 3 -Central Hub Hybrid System
The third option is shown in Figure VIII-3. This option is the most different from
the current service being utilized. It involve s a central and western transfer center.
The key features of this option are the utilization of demand-response zones.
These demand-response zones offer flexibility for patrons.
In addition to the demand-response zones, there are two circulators that depart
from the transfer points. There is a medical circulator that leaves from the Delhi
transfer point and that operates as a deviated route. This means that it can
deviate a set distance from the route to serve passengers. The Kennedy transfer
point operates a shopping shuttle similar to the ones presented in the previous
options.
This option was exploredwith four different scenarios. The first scenario is to have
15-minute headways during peak times with 30-minute headways during the rest
of the day. The second option looks at 30-minute headways all day. The third
option involves a 30-minute peak headway with 60-minute headways the rest of
the day. The last option considers using 30-minute peak headways with only
demand-response service during the middle portion of the day.
15-Minute Peak Headway 30-Minute Off-Peak
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 27
• Total number of vehicles: 33
• Initial capital cost: $3,150,000
• Paratransit cost: $787,514
• Annual operational cost: $5,296,577
• Annual hours of service: 90,243
• Annual passenger-trips: 1,152,000
• Passengers per hour: 12.8
• Cost per passenger-trip: $4.60
30-Minute Headway
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 20
• Total number of vehicles: 25
Lsc
Page VIII 12 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Seruioe Options
• Initial capital cost: $1,100,000
• Paratransit cost: $788,000
• Annual operational cost: $4,623,000
• Annual hours of service: 79,300
• Annual passenger-trips: 1,023,000
• Passengers per hour: 12.9
• Cost per passenger-trip: $4.52
30-Minute Peak Headway. 60-Minute Off-Peak
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 20
• Total number of vehicles: 25
• Initial capital cost: $1,100,000
• Paratransit cost: $788,000
• Annual operational cost: $3,964,000
• Annual hours of service: 68,595
• Annual passenger-trips: 780,000
• Passengers per hour: 11.4
• Cost per passenger-trip: $5.52
30-Minute Peak Headwav. Midday Demand-Response Service
• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 20
• Total number of vehicles: 33
• Initial capital cost: $1,400,000
• Paratransit cost: $748,138
• Annual operational cost: $3,650,000
• Annual hours of service: 68,713
• Annual passenger-trips: 662,000
• Passengers per hour: 9.6
• Cost per passenger-trip: $5.52
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VII( 13
Transit Seruioe Options
Option 4 -Taxi Voucher Program
Taxi voucher programs are fairly common in rural areas and smaller communities.
They allow users to have subsidized trips with the convenience of a private
provider. Riders generally purchase vouchers that are redeemable for a taxi trip
with certain conditions. The user generally pays for the voucher, the cost of which
would be comparable to bus fare. The taxi company then redeems the vouchers
with the issuer to receive full payment for the trip.
We looked at this option under multiple scenarios. The first was to determine the
cost based on current demand. We then examined the cost if demand increased
due to convenience and enhanced service. The last option looked at the cost of
providing taxi vouchers from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and on Sundays to supple-
ment the regular transit service. Using costs provided by the local taxi company
and an average trip length of 4.6 miles, the average cost per passenger was esti-
mated at $10.80. The trip length of 4.6 miles is a fairly typical national average for
passenger trip length on transit.
Please note that this option would eliminate the need to provide paratransit ser-
vice. It is assumed that current paratransit riders would be shifted to the taxi
voucher program. At least a few available vehicles will have to be wheelchair-
accessible in order to accommodate users with limited mobility. In Table VIII-2 the
costs associated with paratransit riders are listed under paratransit costs even
though these riders would most likely be using the voucher program.
Current Demand
Looking at the cost of providing taxi vouchers at the current ridership level of 554
unlinked daily trips, provides a good baseline. Using the aforementioned rate
yields an approximate daily cost of$5,972. The yearly cost of providing this service
is estimated at $1.86 million. The additional cost of providing this service to those
individuals who were previously using Mini-bus service is approximately $ 54 5, 000
annually.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VIII l S
Transit Seruioe Options
Increased Demand
The use of taxi vouchers would undoubtedly cause an increase in use due to the
convenience and cost. Using a comparable demand to the Central Hub system
that operates a 30-minute headway during peak times and a 60-minute headway
during off-peak times, the system would cost approximately $5,475,600 annually
to operate. In addition, it is estimated to cost another $545,000 to accommodate
former paratransit riders with the service, bringing the total cost to over
$6,000,000.
Late Nights and Sunday Service
While using taxi vouchers as the primary service doesn't seem feasible, using it
to supplement transit service might be. If taxi vouchers were used to cover gaps
in service, such as from 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and
6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, it is more practical. Using current ridership
statistics, this type of service would cost $1.56 million to operate on week nights
and $1.03 million to operate on Sunday. The cost to provide this service to former
paratransit users is estimated to be around $168,500 per year. This option does
pose a potential unintended consequence. Riders might avoid using regular transit
service, instead opting to wait until it was time to use their taxi vouchers, as it is
more convenient.
Taxi Voucher Examples
The following section gives brief descriptions of some communities that are cur-
rentlyusing taxi voucher programs in various scenarios. When available, statistics
on cost and ridership are provided. Three applicable examples were found that
could be used in some form for Dubuque.
Iowa City, Iowa
The After Hours Cab program was developed in 2008 to supplement current
transit service. This program is designed to allow users to access job and educa-
tion opportunities during times when transit service is not in operation. The
program is available to city residents for a work, education or child daycare trip.
These limitations exist in part because the program is funded through JARC. The
participants are accepted based upon apre-qualification application process,
Lsc
Page VIII 16 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Seruioe Options
which then gives them the ability to ride. The program provides them with half-
priced cab fare. The transit system is billed the remaining cab fare.
Olathe, Kansas
The City of Olathe, Kansas offers a taxi voucher program for residents who are
elderly, disabled, or low income. This program is available Monday through Satur-
day from 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Participants in this program must first apply
and receive verification. Elderly and disabled individuals are able to get green
coupons, while low-income individuals are issued purple coupons. The two
coupons determine the purpose for which they can be used. The elderly and dis-
abledmay use their coupons, which cost $2.50 each way, for any general purpose.
Low-income individuals, who also pay $2.50 each way, may only use their
coupons for trips related to work or job skills training. Participants are allowed to
purchase up to 20 vouchers per month. The program has approximately 1,000
participants who are registered in order to be able to use the service in some
capacity.
Washington County, Maryland
County Commuter of Washington County currently operates the Ride Assist
program through the Statewide Specialized Transportation Assistance Program
(SSTAP). This program is open to disabled individuals and the elderly. Individuals
in the program must submit an application to the transit system before being
allowed to participate. Program participants may use the vouchers Monday
through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. The cost for vouchers varies by
location within the county and ranges between $3.75 and $5.00 for a booklet
worth $10.00. Thus, users pay a maximum of half of the fare. A maximum of
fourteen booklets may be purchased within aone-month period; the vouchers do
not expire. Total expenses for this program in FY 2008 were $202,000. There were
approximately 200 clients enrolled in the program, meaning that the mst per
participant was roughly $1,000.
Rhinelander. Wisconsin
The City of Rhinelander, Wisconsin operates a general public taxi voucher pro-
gram. The program cost passengers $2.50 each way per trip and may be used
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VII( 17
Transit Seruioe Options
within Oneida County. The program provided 73,000 trips during 2007, the most
recent year that data were available. The total operational cost for the voucher
program was $629,000. This equates to a cost per passenger-trip of $8.60. The
total mileage traveled for the system is approximately 270,000 miles. The cost per
mile was approximately $2.33.
ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS
Central Dispatch for All Demand-Response Service
One way to improve service in the region may be to consolidate services. Cur-
rently, the RTA and KeyLine have separate dispatching functions and personnel.
Consolidating these services into one location would be more efficient. Both
systems use comparable scheduling and dispatching software; consolidation
would save on licensing and upgrade costs. It is estimated that the consolidation
of scheduling and dispatching could improve efficiency of the Mini-bus by as
much as one passenger per hour. This efficiency increase would save a total of
7,400 hours of service if the Mini-bus went from 2.5 passengers per hour to 3.5
by placing some passengers on RTA buses and some RTA passengers on the Mini-
bus. The cost savings could amount to approximately $208,000 annually. This
option would also require a service agreement between the RTA and the City for
the dispatching service and for passengers transported on vehicles operated by the
other agency. Anon-monetary benefit is the enhanced customer service that could
arise from this scenario. Local residents would be able to have the majority oftheir
transportation needs covered by one office, maldng both systems more convenient
to use.
RTA Operation of All Demanda2esponse Services
Both KeyLine and RTA provide paratransit services within the region. The Mini-
bus service being operated by KeyLine costs approximately $47.90 per hour. The
service provided by RTA is significantly less, costing only $42.73 per hour. This
cost difference suggests that it may be wise financially for KeyLine to contract
their paratransit services to RTA.
Using the current expenses for both agencies, the total estimated cost for both
agencies to provide paratransit services is approximately $2.4 million. If KeyLine
Lsc
Page VIII 18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Seruioe Options
were to contract the services to RTA, this cost would be reduced to roughly $2.1
million with an estimated savings of $328,000 annually. This represents a savings
of 14 percent in total paratransit costs. This figure represents the cos t of RTA pro-
viding paratransit services along with having centralized dispatch which would
increase the efficiency of the system.
ITS Technology Improvements
Many intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements can help improve transit
service by providing information or by giving buses a distinctive advantage. This
includes providing information in real time as well as signaling improvements. In
the late 1900s, the use of automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems to better
monitor and control operations was being used. As these AVL systems further
developed, transit agencies recognized that data from an AVL system could be
used to customers' benefit by providing real-time predictions of bus arrivals.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) applications for KeyLine Transit should
be considered to reduce the amount of information drivers must record and to
streamline the information processes. By combining systems on vehicles with
computer-aided dispatch, there is the potential for significant improvements in
productivity. One component of the system is automatic vehicle location (AVL),
which includes a global positioning system (GPS) receiver on the vehicle with
digital communication to a central computer. The AVL system provides informa-
tion to the dispatcher showing the vehicle's precise location at any time. KeyLine
already has an AVL component in place. The second key component is a mobile
data terminal (MDT), which displays information for the driver and can serve as
a data entry terminal. Rather than using manual tally boards to record passen-
gers, passenger boardings are entered on the MDT and the data is transmitted to
the central computer. This reduces the need for the driver to record total board-
ings at the end of the shift. It is also possible to record deadhead mileage directly
using the MDT. KeyLine could install MDTs for recording passenger counts. These
systems cost approximately $10,000 to $12,000 per vehicle.
ITS is also used to improve service to the customer and to benefit the community
at large. The public values information about when the next vehicle is coming,
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VII( 19
Transit Service Options
potential delays, possible travel itineraries for future trips, etc. They expect more
reliable travel times and connections, etc. These expectations will only build
further as communication technologies permeate society. ITS realtime display
boards can be installed in parking garages, colleges, major downtown businesses,
transfer locations, malls, and major shopping centers in the City of Dubuque.
However, to achieve increased ridership, control must be effective enough to
permit accurate estimates of vehicle arrival times. Security, through quick
response to incidents, can also result in increased ridership.
According to the TCRP Synthesis 48: "Real-Time Bus Arrival Information,"most
transit systems use light-emitting diode (LED) signs to present bus arrival
information at stops. Other methods of real-time bus information being used are
the Internet, cell phones, and personal digital assistants (PDAs). Information
displayed on LEDs are the route number and final destination of the vehicle,
waiting time displayed either in a countdown format or as a time range, and, in
some cases, service disruptions and/or asecuritymessage is displayed. The view
among patrons is that bus services have improved and that people traveling late
at night now have the reassurance that the next bus is not far away. Also,
real-time bus arrival information results in benefits to the transit agency such as
less time required to monitor and control schedule adherence, improved safety
and security for personnel and riders, and less time invested in responding to
customer inquiries.
The Smarter City initiative, in partnership with IBM, should form the backbone
of ITS implementation. The Smarter City initiative will initially collect better data
about travel patterns in Dubuque. The proposed transit service plan will rely on
advanced technology and the ability to collect real-time data and dispatch
vehicles. This initiative provides an opportunityto effectively implement these ITS
recommendations.
Implementation
Passenger Information Signs
Buses operated by the RTA and KeyLine are equipped with automatic vehicle
locators (AVL) that allow their locations and other variables to be tracked. This
Lsc
Page VIII20 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Transit Seruioe Options
information can be relayed to screens that are placed at the busiest or most
prudent locations. Table VIII-1 provides a list of preliminary locations along with
the quantities required. The screens cost approximately $9,900 each. The total
cost for the 22 proposed locations would be approximately $217,800. TCRP
Synthesis 68: Methods of Rider Communication reveals a varying degree of opera-
tion and maintenance costs for electronic signs at stops. Dubuque can most likely
expect to pay between five and ten percent of the capital cost annually for oper-
ation and maintenance. This is estimated to be between $11,000 and $22,000 per
year.
Table VIII-1
Real-Time Information Board Locations
Board Location Number
Parking Ramps 3
Medical Associates (East and West) 2
McKesson 1
IBM 1
Prudential 1
Mercy Hospital 1
Finley Hospital 1
Dubuque lnternalMedicine 1
Target 1
Kennedy Mall 1
Kmart 1
Wal-Mart 1
Hy-Vee (Locust) 1
Downtown Transfer Center 1
Kennedy Circle 1
Delh i Transfer Center 1
NICC 1
Dubuque College 1
Loras College 1
Total 22
Real-Time Internet Information
This same technology can also be used to provide information to passengers over
the Internet. This information can be used in a variety ofways, giving passengers
access to important bus information. The buses can be tracked so that users know
exactly where they are or they can provide simffar information to the passenger
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page VII( 21
Transit Seruioe Options
signs, just in a different medium. Recently a similar system in Des Moines was
estimated to cost approximately $101,000. The downside to this system is that it
excludes users without Internet access.
Queue-Jump Lanes
A queue-jump lane gives buses priority at a signalized intersection. Buses have
a designated lane in which only they are allowed to queue. This allows the bus not
to have to wait in line behind other vehicles. This is a common occurrence in bus
rapid transit systems. The creation of a queue jump lane is made easierif right-of-
way is able to be purchased or ifthere are multiple single-direction lanes that can
be modified. The cost to retrofit a signalized intersection can be between $5,000
and $50,000 or more depending on the magnitude of required improvements.
Signal Priority
Signal priority gives buses a priority signal over other forms of travel. This allows
the bus to depart a few seconds ahead of traffic. Signal priority is often used in
conjunction with queue-jump lanes. The cost associated with signal priority are
the signal heads. Certain configurations of signals may exist that allow them to
be reprogrammed to coincide with a transponder on the bus. Converting a signal
to give buses priority can cost between $2,000 and $8,000 depending on the
current signal system.
Lsc
Page VIII 22 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Table VIII-2
Service Operation Summary
Vehicles Estimated
Operated in Annual FR Operating Paratransit Total System Revenue-
Service Type Base Frequency Max. Svc. Ridership Cost Costs Operating Costs Hours Cost/Trip Pass/Hour
Current Service 60 10 270,762 $1,545,816 $729,180 $2,274,996 25,122 $5.71 10.8
Central Hub 60 12 540,696 $2,927,597 $757,514 $3,715,111 47,560 $5.41 11.4
30 Peak, 600ff 1S 747, SOS $3,600,945 $757,514 $4,3SS,459 SS, 523 54.96 12.5
30 1S 990,2SS $4,391,396 $757,514 $5,175,910 71,370 $4.43 13.9
East and West Hub 60 12 511,056 $2,927,597 $757,514 $3,715,111 47,560 $5.73 10.7
30 Peak, 600ff 1S 706,243 $3,600,945 $757,514 $4,3SS,459 SS, 523 $5.25 11.5
30 1S 935,376 $4,391,396 $757,514 $5,175,910 71,370 $4.69 13.1
Central Hub Hybrid 15 Peak, 300ff 27 1,151,904 $5,296,577 $757,514 $6,064,091 90,243 $4.60 12.5
30 20 1,022,736 $4,623,330 $757,514 $5,410,544 79,300 $4.52 12.9
30 Peak, 600ff 20 779,6SS $3,964,520 $757,514 $4,752,034 65,595 $S.OS 11.4
Midday DR 20 661,752 $3,650,OOS $746,136 $4,395,146 65,713 $5.52 9.6
Taxi Voucher Program Current Demand n/a 172,S4S $1,566,755 $544,936 $2,411,694 n/a $10.50 n/a
Increased Demand n/a 507,000 $5,475,600 $544,936 $6,020,536 n/a $10.50 n/a
Nights and Sunday n/a 240,532 $2,600,956 $165,460 $2,769,466 n/a $10.50 n/a
R~
P
m
b
IN
W
CHAPTER IX
Equipment and Facility Needs
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the vehicle and facility requirements for the options
previously presented. Because ofthe proposed increases in service, purchase of
new vehicles may be required to add to the fleet. The required facilities, including
bus stop improvements and maintenance facilities, are also discussed in this
chapter.
VEHICLES
KeyLine is already requesting funding to replace some of their fleet. This includes
replacing four heavy-dutybuses with four medium-duty hybrids and replacing 10
paratransit vehicles with eight vans and two standard taxis. Many of the options
presented in Chapter VIII require more vehicles than KeyLine currently owns.
Table IX-1 shows the required number of vehicles for operations and the spares
needed by type of vehicle.
Table IX-1
Fixed-Route Vehicle Re uirements
Operating Spares
Service T e Base
Fre uenc
Small Bus
Trolle
Van
Small Bus
Trolle
Van
Central Hub 60 9 3 0 2 1 0
30 15 3 0 3 1 0
East and West Hub 60 9 3 0 2 1 0
30 15 3 0 3 1 0
Central Hub Hybrid 15 Peak, 30 Off 20 4 3 4 1 1
30 14 3 3 3 1 1
30 Peak, 60 Off 14 3 3 3 1 1
Midday DR 14 3 10 3 1 2
Table IX-2 shows the number of vehicles that would need to be purchased, at a
minimum, to operate the specified type of service with adequate spares. It is
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX 1
Equipment and Facility Needs
assumed that the vehicles required to run the RTA Express will be provided by the
RTA, so they are not included.
Lsc
Page IX 2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Table IX-2
Fixed-Route Vehicle Purchases
Needed Cost
Service Type Base Frequency Small Bus Trolley Van Small Bus Trolley Van Total
Central Hub 60 0 2 0 $0 $600,000 $0 $600,000
30 3 2 0 $750,000 $600,000 $0 $1,350,000
East and West Hub 60 0 2 0 $0 $600,000 $0 $600,000
30 3 2 0 $750,000 $600,000 $0 $1,350,000
Central Hub Hybrid 15 Peak, 30 Off 9 3 0 $2,250,000 $900,000 $0 $3,150,000
30 2 2 0 $500,000 $600,000 $0 $1,100,000
30 Peak, 60 Off 2 2 0 $500,000 $600,000 $0 $1,100,000
Midday DR 2 2 4* $500,000 $600,000 $300,000 $1,400,000
*Vehicles may be available from the RTA for midday service
R~
P
m
~C
w
Equipment and Facilihj Needs
As shown in Table IX-2, all the options require the purchase of trolleys because
they will now be running all year to operate the downtown shuttle. The most costly
option for KeyLine in terms of capital costs is the Central Hub Hybrid system that
operates with a 15-minute peak headway. It will cost approximately $3.15 million
to purchase the additional vehicles required to operate the system under that
option.
ALTERNATIVE FUELS
To reduce pollution from mobile sources, the national Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 encouraged the use of clean fuels such as methanol, ethanol, and natural
gas derivatives (including compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and
liquefied petroleum gas). In order to develop a working concept of the different
alternative fuels, their advantages and disadvantages, and their potential applica-
tion for the area, the following review of relatively common alternative fuels has
been prepared.
The purpose of this report is to analyze the effectiveness of alternative-fuel buses
as compared to the operational effectiveness of the traditional diesel-powered bus.
This report evaluates existingstudies on Hydrogen Fuel Cell, Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG), Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), and Hybrid Diesel-Electric powered
buses. There is also some discussion of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) powered
buses. This report presents the highlights of each study and charts that compare
each of the above-mentioned fuels in areas of cost and reliability.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Transit agencies have been using CNG- or LNG-
fueledbuses since approximately 1991, which makes
these two fuels the oldest technology available for
alternative fuel use. In 1991, the State of Texas
enacted House Bill 734 (Senate Bill 200) which
,~ E
Y fs.
required all centrally fueled fleets of 15 or more vehicles to convert 90 percent of
their vehicles to alternative fuels by 1998. The non-funded mandate law encour-
aged the use of natural gas, which is produced in Texas, in either the form ofCNG
or LNG. For this analysis, three research documents were reviewed-a case study
LSC
Pnge IX-4 KeyLine OpernrionnlAnniysis, Finni Report
Equipment and Facility Needs
developed by the US Department of Energy on the use of CNG and LNG buses at
Sun Metro Transit of El Paso, Texas; A Comparative Analysis of the Feasibility and
Cost of Compliance with. Potential Future Emission Standards for Heavy Duty
Vehicles Using Diesel or Natural Gas prepared by Sierra Research of Sacramento,
California for Californians for a Sound Fuel Strategy; and statistical data com-
paringnatural gas performance to diesel fuel obtained from the Clean Air Initiative
website.
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 $20,000 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 ultralow sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD). The Sierra Research study
stated the following:
By using after treatment devices to reach. the 0.01 g/bhlrhr level for
Particulate Matter (PM) emissions, diesel PM emissions will be the
equivalentto PMemissions from natural gas engines, eliminating most
if not aIl 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.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX 5
Equipment and Facility Needs
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.
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 associatedwith the moisture in the com-
pressed fuel freezing during the fueling process, since the approximate time to fill
a bus may be 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 ofthe 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
Lsc
Page IX 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Equipment and Facility Needs
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
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-fueledengines 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 AirAct Amendments (CAA 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.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX 7
Equipment and Facility Needs
AC Transit ran a reliability test comparing the three fuel cell buses with three
traditional diesel-powered buses. During the test period, April through November
2006, the fuel cell buses were available for service only 77 percent of the time. The
diesel buses were available for service 85 percent of the time. Maintenance cost
per mile for the fuel cell buses was $1.45, whereas the diesel buses had a cost per
mile of only $0.58.
Due to the high volatility of hydrogen gas, AC Transit had to renovate a vehicle
maintenance bay at a cost of $1.5 mfflion. 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.
VTA 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~lectric Gfflig buses were purchased at a cost of $10.6 million
(approximately $3.5 million each).
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX 9
Equipment and Facility Needs
Specific information gathered from this study includes:
• 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.
• Diesel bus availability during the testing period was 85 percent.
Hydrogen bus availability was only 58 percent. This means that for a
transit service operating365 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 $3.55.
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-
chased its 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 $375,000 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.
Lsc
Page IX 10 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Equipment and Facilihj Needs
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-
sulphur diesel 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
expenses for facility construction and remodeling. SunLine's expenses were lower
mainly because it had experience in using alternative fuels and developing facil-
ities for these vehicles. The desert climate in which SunLine operates also saved
on construction of a facility that did not need to be protected from cold weather
or heavy rainfall.
Hybrid Buses
Hybrid electric buses combine a traditional diesel
engine with a parallel electric propulsion unit that
blends both the diesel engine power and the
electric motor power to provide propulsion power
to move the bus. This hybrid propulsion system
lowers the amount of diesel fuel needed to power
the bus, which also lowers the amount of pollutants produced by diesel fuel. The
parallel propulsion system has a drive unit that contains two motors and fits
where a standard size transmission would normally be placed in a transit bus. The
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, an agency within the United States
Department of Energy (DOE), has prepared an analytical study on this new tech-
nology. The study was conducted at King County Metro, which replaced their old
fleet of hybrid buses that ran on diesel and electricity provided by a cantilevered
power wire with the hybrid electric buses described above.
LsC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX 11
Equipment and Facility Needs
King County Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Buses
This evaluation focused on diesel and hybrid diesel bus comparative operational
efficiencies. Ten hybrid buses were compared with 10 diesel buses over a 12-
month evaluation period.
King County Metro operates public transit service for the City of Seattle and King
County. Its fleet contains 1,400 standard and articulated buses, trolleybuses, and
streetcars. New Flyer is the manufacturer of the new hybrid electric buses used
in this study. The vehicles are powered by a General Motors Allison E50 electric
parallelhybrid propulsion system and a Caterpillar C9 diesel engine. Listed below
are some pertinent findings from the study.
• 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 ofthe 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
Lsc
Page IX 12 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Equipment and Facility Needs
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 vehi-
cles. 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 weigh-
ing less than 8,500 pounds, the base credit will be $8,000, whffe heavier vehicles
will get bigger credits.
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 sig-
nificantenvironmental improvements over a dieselengine 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.
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
The addition of multiple new buses may require some changes to the existing
storage facility located on Central Avenue. The facility may have to be reorganized
to accommodate the new fleet of buses. The capacity that exists at the garage may
be enough to house the additional buses, under some of the options. Additional
spaces might be necessary to accommodate additional buses under most options.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX 13
Equipment and Facility Needs
individuals, such as the elderly or those who use wheelchairs, and should be
addressed in those areas where the replacement of ditches or paved shoulders will
be a long-term project.
Bus Stop Areas. Bus Landing Pads. and Accessible Paths
The recommended design encompasses the baseline requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and allows patrons to have direct access to the
transit vehicle. Sidewalks are common in Dubuque and it should be feasible to
have a concrete landing pad at each stop. As shown in Figure IX-1, the recom-
mended bus stop provides an accessible and comfortable waiting area for all
transit users. Wheelchair users, in particular, require a stable, level, and unob-
structedlanding pad for the wheelchair lift or ramp to be deployedwhen boarding
and alighting. With respect to the waiting area, wheelchair users also require
adequate spacing at the stop as well as adequate space to maneuver from the
waiting area to the landing pad. Anecdotal experience throughout the country
shows that a curb of some sort is usuallynecessary in orderfor a wheelchair user
to be able to easily get on or off a bus with a ramp, even if the ramp is seemingly
"ADA compliant." As virtually all transit passengers are also pedestrians on one
or both ends of their trip, well-planned access that provides direct, safe, and
attractive access to bus stops can significantly encourage transit use.
Accessible path design should include the following:
• Access to and from bus stops should be as direct as possible.
• The site design process for new developments should strive to reduce
the length and inconvenience of pedestrian accesses between destina-
tions and transit stops.
• A sidewalk should be provided from the nearest intersection to the bus
stop to provide a minimum level of access, if possible.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX I S
Equipment and Facility Needs
Minimum ADA design implications for bus stop areas, bus landing pads, and
accessible pedestrian accesses include the following:
• A minimum clear passage width of 48 inches is recommended by the
Access Board's guidelines for the public right-of-way. This is especially
important next to a curb drop-off.
• An accessible route from public transportation stops to the route that
is accessible for people with disabilities as well as for the general public.
• The running slope of the accessible pathway shall not be steeper than
1:20 while the cross slope shall not be steeper than 1:48 (two percent).
• Parallel to the roadway, the slope of the boarding and alighting area
shall be the same as the roadway (to the maximum extent practicable).
The maximum slope perpendicular to the roadway shall not exceed 1:48
(two percent).
• The bus landing pad, when installed alone on a shoulder in arural area,
must be elevated six inches above road grade for safety and accessibility
purposes.
• Stable, firm, and slip-resistant ground and floor surfaces.
• Grating spaces or drainage grates, which are necessary for water
drainage, should be no greater than 9.5 inches long in one direction.
Spaces longer than this would impede the use of a wheelchair.
Signs
It is recommended that signs be posted at all bus stops. Signed stops are a key
element in informing passengers where service is available. In addition, bus stop
signs provide a permanent "presence" on the street that substantially increases
public awareness of the transit program among riders and non-riders alike.
The most common type of sign is a flag sign displaying route and passenger infor-
mation. The design of bus stop signs should be standardized throughout the
system so they are instantly recognizable. It is useful for signs to be double-sided
(so they can be read from both directions) and reflectorized (for easy night
reading). It is recommended that bright colors be used for easy bus stop identi-
fication. Characters and sign backgrounds should have anon-glare finish; how-
ever, characters and symbols should contrasting with the background.
Design elements on the sign should include the logo, a phone number for transit
information, and, optionally, the major destination of the routes available at the
stop. The bus stop sign should, wherever possible, be placed even with where the
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX 17
Equipment and Facility Needs
operator is trained to stop the front door of the bus, thus letting patrons know
where to stand. Signs closer to the curb should be positioned to face toward the
sidewalk to prevent bus mirrors from hitting the signs. Placement within an
existing sidewalkfour feetwide or less should be avoided wherever possible. Signs
can be located on existing poles such as streetlights or other traffic information
signs. Unprotected signposts should be of the breakaway type in order to minimize
injuries and damage resulting from motor vehicle accidents.
Metal poles at bus stops should be easily recognizable, especially for persons with
visual disabilities. There are a few methods that can be used in order to distin-
guish a bus stop pole from other street poles commonly used by a public works
department:
• Erect metal poles with adistinctive pattern and shape, such as a square
or hollow-holed pole.
• Enhance existing poles with a band of distinctive adhesive at a
minimum height of four feet. This marking should be brightly colored
(ideally, the band would be a color identified with the transit system),
waterproof, and should possess a distinctive texture.
Minimum ADA design guidelines apply to the installation of new or replacement
signs and include the following.
• The bottom of the sign should be at least seven feet from the ground
and the sign should not be closer to the curb than three feet. In areas
where there are sidewalks, allow at least 36 inches of clear path on the
sidewalk.
• Letters and numbers should have awidth-to-height ratio between 3:5
and 1:1 and astroke-width-to-height ratio between 1:5 and 1:10.
• Characters and numbers should be sized according to the viewing
distance from which they are to be read.
• Minimum height is measured using an upper case X. Lower case char-
acters are permitted.
• Accompany pictograms with an equivalent verbal description placed
directly below, with a border dimension of six inches (152 millimeters)
minimum in height.
• Follow requirements regarding protruding objects (described in the
Accessible Path section).
Lsc
Page IX 18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Equipment and Facility Needs
Passenger Amenities
Passenger amenities are significant elements in attracting public transportation
users. Shelters provide protection from the elements and benches add comfort;
trash receptacles, lighting, bicycle parking facilities, and other amenities add con-
venience and safety.
Shelters
A bus shelter provides protection from the elements as well as seating. Typically,
a shelter is constructed of clear side panels for visibility and safety. Standardized
shelters are available that accommodate various site demands and passenger
volumes. Existing shelters are typically 10 feet by 5 feet and installed at stops with
10 or more passenger boardings per day (based on prevailing standards). In a few
locations, such as transfer points, larger shelters, or multiple shelters are used.
Minimum ADA design guidelines apply to the installation of new or replacement
bus shelters and include the following:
• A minimum clear floor area of 30 inches by 48 inches, entirely within
the perimeter of the shelter.
• Maintain shelter openings to be a minimum of 36 inches to allow a
wheelchair to pass through.
• Bus stop shelters should be connected by an accessible route to the bus
stop landing pad.
• Bus stop shelters should not be placed on the wheelchair landing pad.
• General ADA mobility clearance guidelines should be followed around
the shelter and between the shelter and other street furniture.
In addition to the number of boardings per day, other factors that Dubuque may
wish to consider when evaluating the installation of a shelter include:
• Climate (wind, rain, heat, etc.), which may lead to recommendations
regarding whether or not to have side panels or the need for air circu-
lation, heating, or cooling systems
• Vandalism (broken or scribed glazings)
• The number of transfers at a stop
• The avaffability of space to construct a shelter and waiting area
• The number of elderly individuals or people with disabilities in the area
• The proximity to major activity centers
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX 19
Equipment and Facility Needs
• The frequency of service
• Adjacent ]and uses
Benches
Minimum ADA design considerations apply to the installation of new or replace-
ment benches and include the following:
• Clear floor or ground space for wheelchairs
• 20 inches minimum to 24 inches maximum in "overall" depth for
benches with backrests
• Seat height of 17 inches minimum to 19 inches maximum above the
floor or ground
• Structure supportingvertical or horizontal forces of 250 pounds applied
at any point on the seat, fastener, mounting device, or supporting
structure
• Exposed benches should be slip-resistant and designed to shed water
Trash Receptacles
Litter at a bus stop is a negative image far the transit agency as well as the
community. The installation of trash receptacles at bus stops can alleviate this
problem. Not all bus stops require trash receptacles. The decision to include a
receptacle at a stop is typically based on boarding counts. If litter is a problem at
a particular stop (due, perhaps, to the presence of a fast-food outlet or a
convenience store near the stop), a trash receptacle should be installed regardless
of boarding counts. Trash receptacles should only be placed at those stops that
the transit agency can reliably schedule for trash pickup. In some instances,
communities require maintenance of transit receptacles as a condition of nearby
development. There is a mutually beneficial relationship between businesses and
transit and the need to work together with the community, particularly with
fast-food restaurants, to service trash receptacles.
Lighting
Lighting at a bus stop affects the safety of patrons and the use of the stop by
patrons and non-patrons in the hours after sunset. A well-lit bus stop enhances
the waiting passengers' comfort and security, while a dimly lit or unlit stop
encourages non-patrons to loiter at the stop. It is recommended that from two- to
five-foot-candles of illumination be provided at all bus stops that will be in use
Lsc
Page IX 20 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Equipment and Facility Needs
after daylight hours. Lighting fixtures should be vandal-proof and easily main-
tained. The use of exposed bulbs and other elements that can be easily tampered
with or destroyed should be avoided. Whenever possible, bus stops should be
located near existing streetlights as this is acost-effective method of providing
adequate lighting. Another option is the use of solar power to illuminate bus
shelters. Typically, the power system mounts to a pole that makes it compatible
with any shelter and maximizes the solar energy harvest.
Bicycle Parking
It is appropriate to provide bicycle parking at some bus stops. The provision of
bike parking facilities discourages bicycle riders from locking their bikes to the
bus stop or adjacent structures and reduces visual clutter by locating bikes
together in one area. Bicycle parking facilities should be located away from other
activities to reduce congestion and improve safety. At lighted stops, bike parking
should be located near the lighting to offer protection from theft. Bike parking
should not restrict views into the bus stop area. It is recommended that racks for
bike parking be provided at bus stops where there is potential for a high level of
bike access by patrons, such as near educational facilities.
Park-and-Ride/Multimodal Facilities
Multimodal, or intermodal, centers are facilities designed to encourage transfer
between travel modes. Multimodal centers, for the purposes of this study, are
those that facilitate the transfer to buses of users of other modes of transporta-
tion. Typically, park-and-ride lots and transit transfer facilities meet this criterion.
Amenities that should be provided at these facilities include one or more shelters
and benches, adequate lighting, an auto drop-off area, bicycle parking, motorcycle
parking, toilet, kiosks, and appropriate landscaping.
Industry Standards
Standards for bus stops include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Stops should meet minimum ADA standards.
• Bus parking pads should be a minimum of eight feet in width,
preferably 10 feet. Stop pads should be constructed of concrete,
especially if they are served by four or more buses per hour.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page IX 21
Equipment and Facility Needs
• If asphalt is to be used, a minimum of three inches of asphalt over a
minimum of five inches of base materials is recommended. Concrete
bus pads should be a minimum of eight inches of reinforced concrete.
• Curb heights should be no less than four inches and no more than eight
inches to minimize passenger falls when alighting from a bus.
• A minimum horizontal clearance of two feet should be provided between
the curb and any obstruction (bench/sign).
Lsc
Page IX 22 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
CHAPTER X
Financial Needs
INTRODUCTION
Chapter X provides an evaluation of the funding gaps and existing options for
transit services within the study area. One of the principal challenges facing any
transit service is developing a funding system that supports capital investment
(buses, maintenance facility, etc.) and provides a stable source of revenue for
operations and maintenance. Organizational and legal issues for multi-jurisdic-
tional transit agencies further compound this challenge. An important objective
of this study is to present recommendations for an institutional framework and a
financing plan for public transit that are acceptable to the parties involved and
that can be realistically implemented. With this goal in mind, the following discus-
sion presents an analysis of the most appropriate financial alternatives and a
basis for making a decision.
FUNDING GAPS
One of the main barriers to providing an increased amount of service is beingable
to fund it. The current operating budget for the KeyLine fixed-route system is
approximately$1,546,000. About seven percent of the budget is paid by fares. The
remaining money comes from various funding sources, including state and federal
grants, advertising, and property tax revenues. The advertizing revenue makes up
a very small portion of the total budget (less than one percent), with the majority
(53 percent) coming from property taxes.
The proposed systems all have greater operating costs and some of them include
expanding the fleet, thus increasing the capital cost as well. Table X-1 shows the
operating costs over the next five years (using a 3.5 percent inflation rate) for the
proposed systems, and the existing budget for comparison. Depending on the
option that Dubuque decides to implement, the gap in funding for the first year
is anywhere from $1.38 million to $3.75 million in terms of operating costs.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page X 1
Financial Needs
Table X-1
O eratin Cost Com arison
Option Headway First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year Fifth Year
Central Hub 60 $3,715,00 $3,845,00 $3,980,00 $4,119,00 $4,263,000
30 Peak, 60 Off $4,388,00 $4,542,00 $4,701,00 $4,866,00 $5,036,000
30 $5,179,00 $5,360,00 $5,548,00 $5,742,00 $5,943,000
East and West Hub 60 $3,715,00 $3,845,00 $3,980,00 $4,119,00 $4,263,000
30 Peak, 60 Off $4,388,00 $4,542,09 $4,701,00 $4,866,00 $5,036,000
30 $5,179,00 $5,360,00 $5,548,00 $5,742,00 $5,943,000
Central Hub Hybrid 15 Peak, 30 Off $6,084,00 $6,297,00 $6,517,00 $6,746,00 $6,982,000
30 $5,411,00 $5,600,00 $5,796,00 $5,999,00 $6,209,000
30 Peak, 60 Off $4,752,00 $4,918,00 $5,090,00 $5,269,00 $5,453,000
Midday DR $4,398,00 $4,552,00 $4,711,00 $4,876,00 $5,047,000
Taxi Increased Demand $6,021,00 $6,231,00 $6,449,00 $6,675,00 $6,909,000
Current Fundin $2 275 00 $2 355 00 $2 437 00 $2 522 00 $2 611 000
FUNDING SOURCES
Successful transit systems are strategic about funding and attempt to develop
funding bases that enable them to operate reliably and efficiently within a set of
clear goals and objectives according to both short-range and long-range plans.
Potential strategies for funding the transit services within the study area are
described below.
Capital Funding
The existing and future transit services will require capital funding for vehicle
procurement and transit facilities. The following strategies for funding the capital
development should be considered.
Federal funding (along with any state matching funds) should be applied for, both
within the existing Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Sections 5307, 5309,
5316, and 5317 programs and through the pursuit of discretionary grants from
FTA channels and direct congressional earmarked funding. Small transit systems
often underachieve their potential for federal grant assistance because they
assume that they cannot compete in this arena. In general, the best use of federal
discretionary grant funding is for capital needs since this is a highly speculative
source of money that requires extensive political effort at a level that is feasible
only as a one-time or occasional undertaking.
Lsc
Page X 2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Financial Needs
Planning for capital facilities (such as vehicles and transit facilities) examines the
long-range transit system's development needs. Many transit systems outgrow
their facilities quickly and face costly relocation and expansion needs because of
inadequate space or other constraints. The financial management system of any
future organization overseeing the regional transit service should include specific
provisions for fleet replacement and other capital investments. Note that buses
and certain other capital facilities purchased with federal participation (80 percent
under SAFETEA-LU) are also eligible for federal participation for replacement costs
once the buses and facilities reach maturity (as defined in the FTA rules).
Operations and Maintenance Funding
The primary financial requirement of a local transit system is funding routine
operations and maintenance including the daily transit service, vehicle
maintenance, and system administration. Labor represents about 50 percent of
the operatingcosts. Maintenance for KeyLinevehicles currently represents almost
a third of the entire fixed-route budget. The following strategies for funding
operations and maintenance should be considered.
Reliance on general fund appropriations from local governments should be avoided
if possible. It is common for local and regional transit agencies in many states to
be dependent upon annual appropriations from their constituent towns, cities,
and counties. As a practical matter, such appropriations mean that it will not be
possible to forecast future funding levels given the exigencies of local government
funding. A transit agency that relies upon such appropriations will be unable to
undertake capital planning and will continually face potential service cutbacks.
This, in turn, makes it difficult or impossible for the transit agency to enter into
partnership arrangements with other agencies or private entities. Transit agencies,
like highway agencies, require that most or all of their operations and mainte-
nance funding comes from dedicated sources so that they can undertake respon-
sible planning and offer reliable, consistent service.
Operations and maintenance funding mechanisms should be designed to anti-
cipate transit system growth. Successful small urban transit systems around the
country are experiencing annual growth in ridership. It is important to be able to
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page X 3
Financial Needs
respond to such growth by increasing service levels to meet the transit demand.
This means that the ideal funding sources for operations and maintenance are
those that have the flexibility to be increased or expanded as the transit demand
grows. Such flexibility will, in most cases, require voter approval. The important
consideration is that the need for growth has been anticipated and that the
potential for larger budgets is not precluded by the choice of a specific funding
source.
Local and Regional Funding Sources
General Fund Appropriations
Counties and municipalities may appropriate funds for transit operations, main-
tenance, and capital needs. Funds to be appropriated generally come from local
property taxes and sales taxes. Competition for such funding is high and local
governments generally do not have the capacity to undertake major new annual
funding responsibilities for transit.
Local Transit Levy
The state of Iowa allows municipalities to levy a maximum of $0.95 on every
$1,000 of assessed property value annually for transit usage. For FY 2009, the
levy rate for Dubuque is approximately $0.67 for every $1,000 of taxable
valuation. This yields $1,253,638 for the year. The amount that Dubuque has
levied for transit has increased each year since 2002, when the rate was $0.27. At
the current levy rate, this may be increased to $1,291,000 far FY 2010. If the
maximum allowable amount of $0.95 was levied, this figure would rise to
approximately $1,839,000 for FY 2010.
Advertising
One modest but important source of funding for many transit agencies is on-
vehicle advertising. The largest portion of this potential is for exterior advertising
rather than interior "bus card" advertising, since the potential funds generated by
interior advertising are comparatively low. Advertising on bus shelters has also
been used to pay for the cost of providing the shelters.
Lsc
Page X 4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Financial Needs
Hotel/Motel Tax
The appropriate use of lodging tales (occupancy taxes) has long been the subject
of debate. Historically, the bulk of lodging tales has been used for marketing and
promotion efforts regarding conferences and general tourism. In other areas, such
as resorts, a lodging tax is an important element of the local transit funding
formula. A lodging tax can be considered a specialized sales tax placed only upon
lodging bills. Taxation of this type has been used successfully in Park City, Utah;
Sun Valley, Idaho; Telluride, Colorado; and Durango, Colorado. A lodging tax
shares many of the advantages and disadvantages of a sales tax. A lodging tax
creates inequities between different classes of visitors as it is only paid by over-
night visitors.
Local Colleae Fundina
A strategysuccessfully applied in several similar cities to generate transit funding
from college campuses is to levy a student activity fee for transit services or an
established amount from the college general fund. An activity fee will have to be
approved by a majority of the students and will be applied each school semester
or quarter. 11ie additional funds will allow increased transit service for the college
students, including more frequent service or later service.
Anotheroption that relates to local colleges is offering students a discounted pass.
Offering discounts for college students increases their likelihood of riding more
frequently. Students that reside on campus are often willing transit riders and this
option may help boost ridership.
Federal Transit Funding
Through SAFETEA-LU, the federal government has substantially r
.V
increased the transit funding levels for rural and small urban
areas. Also, changes in the program requirements have provided ~
increased flexibility regarding the use of federal funds. Following
are discussions of the federal transit funding programs for which the regional
transit service may be eligible.
LSC
KeyLuw Oyer-atioiwl Aiwlysis, Fowl Reyort
Page X-5
Financial Needs
FTA Section 5309 -Capital Improvement Grants
The FTA Section 5309 program is split into three categories-new starts, fixed
guideway modernization, and transit vehicles and facilities. These funds were
formerly apportioned directly by the FTA. For several years, however, Congress
has earmarked these funds directly and there is no indication that this trend
toward earmarking the funds will change. In recent fiscal years, rural and small
urban areas have received a greater share of these funds than in previous years.
FTA Section 5307 -Public Transportation for Urbanized Areas
The FTA Section 5307 program makes federal resources available to urbanized
areas and to governors for transitcapital/operating assistance and transportation-
related planning in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is an incorporated area
with a population of 50,000 or more that is designated as such by the US
Department of Commerce -Bureau of the Census. Eligible purposes include plan-
ning, engineering design, and evaluation of transit projects and other technical
transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related
activities such as replacement, overhaul/rebuilding, crime prevention, security
equipment, and construction of maintenance/passenger facilities; and capital
investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock,
vehicle overhaul/rebuilding, tracks, signals, communications, and computer
hardware/software. All preventive maintenance costs and some of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit s ervice costs are considered
capital costs.
For urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more, funds are apportioned
and flow directly to a designated recipient selected locally to apply for and receive
federal funds. For urbanized areas under 200,000 in population, the funds are
apportioned to the governor of each state for distribution. However, a few areas
under 200,000 in population have been designated as transportation management
areas and receive apportionments directly.
Operating assistance is not an eligible expense for urbanized areas with popula-
tions of 200, 000 or more. In these areas, at least one percent of the funding appor-
tinned to each area must be used for transit enhancement activities such as
Lsc
Page X 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Financial Needs
historic preservation, landscaping, public art, pedestrian access, bicycle access,
and enhanced access for the disabled. In those areas with a population of less
than 200,000, 50 percent of the funding allocated by the governor can be used for
operations. For every dollar the agencyuses for operations, the amount available
for capital expenditures is reduced.
FTA Section 5316 -Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
The FTA Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program, funded
through TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, has an emphasis on using funds to provide
transportation within rural areas that currently have little or no transit service.
The list ofeligible applicants includes states, metropolitan planningorganizations
(MPOs), counties, and public transit agencies, among others. A 50 percent non-
Department of Transportation (DOT) match is required, but other federal funds
may be used as part of the match. According to SAFETEA-LU, this funding is now
allocated by the state rather than the FTA. The grants are for aone-year period.
Therefore, an agency may submit for this funding every year.
FTA Section 5317 -New Freedom
FTA Section 5317 New Freedom funding is for states to provide formula grants for
operating and capital expenses related to transportation services for the disabled.
The program's primary purpose is to increase access beyond the standard ADA
paratransit requirements. Public and private transportation providers are eligible
for the funding. The formula for this funding is consistent with the rural formula
funding calculation.
Transit Benefit Program
The Transit Benefit Program is a provision within the Internal Revenue Code that
permits an employer to pay for an employee's cost to travel to work in other than
asingle-occupancy vehicle. The program is designed to improve air quality, reduce
traffic congestion, and conserve energy by encouraging employees to commute by
means other than single-occupancy vehicles. Under Section 132 of the Internal
Revenue Code, employers can provide up to $110 per month to those employees
who commute to work via transit or vanpool. A vanpool vehicle must have a
seating capacity of at least six adults, not including the driver, to qualify. The
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page X 7
Financial Needs
employer can deduct these costs as business expenses. Employees do not report
the subsidy as income for tax purposes since the subsidy is considered a qualified
transportation fringe benefit.
Under TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, the Transit Benefit Program has become more
flexible. Prior to TEA-21, the program could only be provided in addition to the
employee's base salary. With TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, the transit benefit
program may be provided as before or can be provided in lieu of salary. In
addition, the program may be provided as a cash-out option for employer-paid
parking for employees. The Transit Benefit Program may not necessarily reduce
an employer's payroll costs. Rather, it enables employers to provide additional
benefits for employees without increasing total payroll expenses.
Transportation and Community System Preservation Program
The Transportation and Community System Preservation Program is funded by the
Federal Highway Administration to provide discretionary grants for developing
strategic transportation plans for local governments and communities. The goal
of the program is to promote livable neighborhoods. Grant funds may be used to
improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system, reduce adverse
environmental impacts caused by transportation, and encourage economic devel-
opment through access to jobs, services, and centers of trade.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
States receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) grants to provide
cash assistance, work opportunities, and necessary support services for needy
families with children. States may choose to spend some of their TANF funding on
transportation and related services for program beneficiaries.
Head Start Program
Head Start is a program of comprehensive services for economically-disadvantaged
preschool children. Funds are distributed to local public and nonprofit agencies
to provide child development and education services, as well as supportive
services such as transportation. Head Start funding can be used to provide trans-
Lsc
Page X 8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Financial Needs
portation service, acquire vehicles, and provide technical assistance to local Head
Start centers.
Other Federal Funds
The US Department of Transportation funds other programs, including the
Research and Special Programs Administration and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's State and Community Highway Grants Program (which
funds transit projects that promote safety). A wide variety ofother federal funding
programs provide support for transportation programs for the elderly and handi-
capped, including the following:
• Retired Senior Volunteer Program
• Title IIIB of The Older Americans Act
• Medicaid Title XIX
• Veterans' Affairs
• Job Training Partnership Act
• Developmental Disabffities
• Housing and Urban Development -Bridges to Work and Community
Development Block Grants
• Department of Energy
• Vocational Rehabilitation
• Health Resources and Services Administration
• Senior Opportunity Services
• Special Education Transportation
• Justice Department -Weed and Seed Program
• National Endowment for the Arts
• Agriculture Department -Rural Enterprise Community Grants
• Department of Commerce -Economic Development and Assistance
Programs
• Environmental Protection Agency -Pollution Prevention Projects
FUNDING SUMMARY
Experience with transit systems across the nation underscores the critical impor-
tance of dependable (preferably dedicated) sources of funding if the long-term
viability of transit service is to be assured. Transit agencies that are dependent
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page X 9
Financial Needs
upon annual appropriations and informal agreements have suffered from reduced
ridership (because passengers are not sure if service will be provided from one
year to the next), high driver turnover (contributing to low morale and a resulting
high accident rate), and inhibited investment in both vehicles and facilities.
The advantages of financial stability indicate that a mix of revenue sources is
prudent. The availability of multiple revenue sources helps to avoid large swings
in available funds, which can lead to detrimental reductions in service. As the
benefits of transit service extend over more than one segment ofthe community,
dependence upon more than one revenue source helps to ensure that costs and
benefits are equitably allocated.
In order to enhance their image as a sustainable city, Dubuque must have a
transit system that is effective and reliable far its residents. To provide this
service, there will be an increase in operating costs associated with expanded
service. Additional fleet considerations may be required, which will also have
associated costs. Funding opportunities exist that can make the additional service
easier to afford for small communities.
Lsc
Page X 10 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
CHAPTER XI
Service Plan
INTRODUCTION
The preferred service plan is based on Option Three, which was presented in
Chapter VIII of this document. This option was chosen because it provides a great
deal of coverage with a mix of various service vehicles and options. It is recom-
mended that the conversion to this system be phased in for several reasons. It is
important to phase in the system changes to allow users to become familiar with
the new system which blends fixed-route, circulators, and demand-response
service areas. Phasing is also important due to the significant increase in costs.
Under the new system, new buses need to be purchased for the increased level of
service.
ROUTES
The proposed system creates a blend of service options so that the greatest geo-
graphic area may be covered and so that users are provided many options
regarding their transit trips. Figure XI-1 shows the entire system design as pro-
posed. Routes that are labeled "connectors" serve both transfer centers. Routes
that are labeled "circulators" serve only one specific transfer center. "Shuttle" or
"circulator" routes serve smaller geographic areas with specific purposes. Areas
that are shaded in as demand-response zones rely on call-ahead service to con-
nect to the main system. In addition, there is also a vanpool service that is aimed
at providing service to the office park on off hours. The last type of service are the
two "tripper" routes. These routes are designed to serve areas outside of the
normal fixed routes during prime commute times.
The names given to the routes are flexible and can be changed to better suit the
public. In addition, it is possible to add numbers to the routes for clarity. For
example, calling the current Central Avenue route "1 -Central Avenue" is a con-
sideration so that users do not have to remember the names of the routes
specifically.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 1
Service Plan
Pennsylvania Avenue Connector
The Pennsylvania Avenue Connector serves Pennsylvania Avenue between the
Delhi and Kennedy Circle transfer points. This route is very direct and serves the
hospital along with the Kennedy Circle shopping area. Figure XI-2 shows this
route.
Asbury Road Connector
Like the Pennsylvania Avenue Connector, this route also serves the Delhi and
Kennedy Circle transfer centers .However, this route travels further north between
the two points. This route serves many shopping areas as well, along with schools
and living centers for the elderly. The Asbury route can be seen in Figure XI-3.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 3
Service Plan
Rhomberg Avenue Circulator
As shown in Figure XI-4, the Rhomberg Avenue Circulator serves a similar route
to the former Grey route. This route, however, now serves the area from Delhi to
the east. It serves Clark College, Dubuque Senior High School, downtown, and the
corridor along Rhomberg Avenue.
Mt. St. Francis Circulator
This route serves University Avenue until it reaches downtown where it then
serves the dense transit-dependent population in northeast Dubuque. This is
shown in Figure XI-5. This route travels through a fairlydense urban neighbor-
hood while servin g a large portion of downtown.
Central Avenue Circulator
This route primarily serves Central Avenue and Loras Boulevard. It serves educa-
tional centers that are important to users of the system, while also providing
service in a largely transit-dependent neighborhood. Figure XI-6 shows the pro-
posed path of this route.
Lsc
Page XI 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
Shopping Circulator
Figure XI-7 shows the Shopping Circulator which is designed to serve the many
shopping locations located within the service area. The Shopping Circulator will
depart the Kennedy Circle transfer center and serve the Kennedy Mall, Wal-Mart,
Target, Lowes, HyVee, and other shopping destinations. This route also serves the
Medical Associates Clinic and the Social Security office.
Medical Loop
The Medical Loop is designed as a deviated route that serves the area around the
hospitals and medical centers near the Delhi transfer center. As a deviated route,
the Medical Loop serves a specific path, but deviates off ofthis path when needed
to better serve customers. For example, a user boarding the bus may request to
be dropped off at a specific location within the vicinity of the route. The bus driver
would deviate from the route to meet the demand of the customer, then return to
the route once that customer has been dropped off to ensure appropriate service.
Figure XI-8 shows the path of the deviated route.
Downtown Shuttle
The Downtown Shuttle is an extension of the current trolley that is operated
during the summer months in Dubuque. The shuttle will be operated year-round
and will serve as a means for tourists and commuters to move throughout the
downtown area. The shuttle is designed to provide frequent service within the
downtown area serving tourist attractions as well as commuters who may use it
to get from the parking area to their place of employment. An extension to the
shuttle service is designed to allow users to access the casino locations as well as
the Port of Dubuque. Figure XI-9 shows a possible alignment for the downtown
shuttle.
Lsc
Page XI 10 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
Industrial Park Tripper
The Industrial Park Tripper operates between Kennedy Circle transfer center and
the growing industrial park on the west end of town. This tripper route operates
once in the morning and once in the evening to serve workers that have traditional
commutes. Figure XI-10 depicts the tripper route as a dotted line, denoting that
it is not afull-time route. The proposed schedule for this route is to have a morn-
ing run that leaves the Delhi transfer point at 7:30 a.m. and an evening route that
leaves the industrial park at 5:30 p.m.
Asbury Plaza Tripper
The Asbury Plaza Tripper is designed to serve Asbury Plaza and Goodwill. The
tripperis aimed primarily at serving developmentally disabled individuals that are
employed at Goodwill so it is not necessary for them to rely on calling the demand-
response service. This route is shown in Figure XI-11. It is proposed that this
route leave Kennedy Circle at 8:00 a.m. and operate in the evening beginning at
Asbury Plaza at 4:30 p.m.
RTA Express
One of the aims of this plan is to encourage coordination between RTA and Key-
Line so that the best possible service can be provided for local patrons. The RTA
Express is designed to be able to provide quick service from the Delhi transfer
station to points in the western portion of the city and beyond the city limits. The
RTA Express is designed to transport passengers to Kennedy Mall more directly
than the KeyLine routes while also serving Northeast Iowa Community College
(NICC) in Peosta. This route will allowusers traveling from Delhi to the mall reach
their final destination quickly.
Lsc
Page XI 14 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
Demand-Response Areas
The shaded demand-response areas on the map allow for service in areas that
have lower demand than the rest of the system. In demand-response areas,
passengers call ahead to arrange for pick-up. They are then picked up at their
location and taken to the nearest bus stop or transfer point, depending on their
final location. This service does not supplant paratransit, but instead acts as a
component of the fixed-route service. This service is efficient because smaller
vehicles may be used and they are taking a more direct path to the customer
instead of operating on a fixed route.
Vanpool Area
A small portion of the map, corresponding to the industrial park, is targeted as a
vanpool area. Vanpools are often used in areas where many individuals commute
to and from similar points. Users are matched with other individuals that share
a similar work schedule and commute pattern. The vehicles are typically owned
by a local government, an employer, or a private vanpool service. Costs are shared
among the users and the sponsor. Two participants volunteer to serve as drivers,
often in exchange for reduced cost or free participation. These volunteers must
pass a background check and receive training. Vanpools are very cost-effective for
meeting the needs of small groups of commuters.
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION
As stated previously, phasing the implementation of the new service will allow
KeyLine some flexibility. It is proposed that athree-fold process be undertaken to
ensure a smooth transition. This process will allow KeyLine to evaluate their ser-
vice options while easing the financial burden to the system. Under all of the
scenarios, the recommended service time will be extended. Service will begin at
6:00 a.m. and run until approximately 7:00 p.m. This is roughly atwo-hour
extension in service each day. Saturday service would also be provided during the
same running times. By running service later, it will entice more commuters to
use the service.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 17
Service Plan
60-Minute Service
The system is currently operating with a 60-minute headway. It is proposed that
when implementing the new route and service structure the headways remain at
60 minutes. This will allow for service to begin with minimal vehicle procurement.
In addition, users are also familiar with the current 60-minute headway timings.
It is recommended that these headways remain constant for approximately three
years. During this time, any logistical problems or schedule refinements can be
made.
30-Minute Peak Service, 60-Minute Off-Peak Service
After the preliminaryperiod ofservice installation, service can be switched to allow
for 30-minute service during peak periods with 60-minute service during the
middle of the day. Under this scenario, bus procurement would take place in the
third year of the phasing plan with service beginning in the fourth year of opera-
tion. Peak service time is considered between 6:00 and 9:00 a.m. and again
between 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. The rest of the day-between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m.-is considered the off-peak period. Running service with 30-minute head-
ways will mean the purchase of additional vehicles. In addition, more drivers may
possibly need to be hired and trained in order to meet this demand. Because of
the design of peak and off-peak service, additional drivers will need to be part-time
drivers because of the separated peak service.
Conversion to 30-minute service would be fairly seamless in terms of capital.
Because the service is operating 30-minute service during a period of the day, the
required vehicles for both 30-minute service with 60-minute off-peak and 30-
minute service all day are the same. Ifthere is unmet demand in the middle of the
day when service is operating at 60-minute headways, then 30-minute service all
day should be considered as an option.
30-Minute Service
It is recommended that 30-minute service all day be adopted starting in the
seventh year of the phasing plan. A headway of 30 minutes throughout the day
is desired for optimal passenger demand. Having a consistent headway throughout
the course of the day is easy for passengers to understand and makes reading
Lsc
Page XI 18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
schedules convenient. One major advantage of this type of service, from a
passengerstandpoint, is that it is frequent enough to meet theirneeds throughout
the day. Service that is less frequent in the middle of the day is geared more
toward students and traditional commuters; this service is convenient far all users
within the service area.
SCHEDULES
The following section provides preliminary schedules for each of the three options.
These schedules represent estimates gathered based on the distances each bus
must travel and their respective speeds. As with any schedule, these routes
should all be driven in an appropriate vehicle and modified before implementation.
Please note that for all of the scenarios mentioned, the downtown shuttle schedule
remains the same. It is recommended that the downtown shuttle provide service
with a 10-minute headway throughout the day regardless of the timings of the rest
of the system.
60-Minute Service
Under the 60-minute headway scenario, all of the routes that proceed to the east
and northeast of downtown from the Delhi transfer take nearly an hour to return.
Some of the other routes interline, rotating between 30-minute routes to maintain
one-hour headways. For example, the same bus will be doing the Medical Loop
and the Asbury Connector. Because each route only takes 30 minutes to com-
plete, they can both be done by the same bus while remaining on schedule. Tables
XI-1 through XI-6 show the recommended schedules for each route with the 60-
minute headway.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 19
Table XI-2
60-Minute Headway -Pennsylvania Avenue Connector and Shopping Circulator
Penn Ave Shopping Circulator Penn Ave
Arrive Leave Kennedy Arrive Kennedy Leave
Delhi Kennedy Circle Circle Wal-Mart Social Security Wal-Mart Circle Kennedy Circle Delhi
6:15 AM 6:28 AM 6:30 AM 6:40 AM 6:45 AM 6:50 AM 6:58 AM 7:00 AM 7:13 AM
7:15 AM 7:28 AM 7:30 AM 7:40 AM 7:45 AM 7:50 AM 7:58 AM 8:00 AM 8:13 AM
8:15 AM 8:28 AM 8:30 AM 8:40 AM 8:45 AM 8:50 AM 8:58 AM 9:00 AM 9:13 AM
9:15 AM 9:28 AM 9:30 AM 9:40 AM 9:45 AM 9:50 AM 9:58 AM 10:00 AM 10:13 AM
10:15 AM 10:28 AM 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 10:45 AM 10:50 AM 10:58 AM 11:00 AM 11:13 AM
11:15 AM 11:28 AM 11:30 AM 11:40 AM 11:45 AM 11:50 AM 11:58 AM 12:00 PM 12:13 PM
12:15 PM 12:28 PM 12:30 PM 12:40 PM 12:45 PM 12:50 PM 12:58 PM 1:00 PM 1:13 PM
1:15 PM 1:28 PM 1:30 PM 1:40 PM 1:45 PM 1:50 PM 1:58 PM 2:00 PM 2:13 PM
2:15 PM 2:28 PM 2:30 PM 2:40 PM 2:45 PM 2:50 PM 2:58 PM 3:00 PM 3:13 PM
3:15 PM 3:28 PM 3:30 PM 3:40 PM 3:45 PM 3:50 PM 3:58 PM 4:00 PM 4:13 PM
4:15 PM 4:28 PM 4:30 PM 4:40 PM 4:45 PM 4:50 PM 4:58 PM 5:00 PM 5:13 PM
5:15 PM 5:28 PM 5:30 PM 5:40 PM 5:45 PM 5:50 PM 5:58 PM 6:00 PM 6:13 PM
6:15 PM 6:28 PM 6:30 PM 6:40 PM 6:45 PM 6:50 PM 6:58 PM 7:00 PM 7:13 PM
ource: LSC, 2009
R~
P
m
lJ
W
Service Plan
Table XI-3
60-Minute Headway -Medical Loop and Asbury Road
Medical Loo Asbur Road
Leave Delhi H Vee Arrive Delhi Leave Delhi Kenned Arrive Delhi
6 15 AM 6 30 AM 6 43 AM 645 AM 7 00 AM 7 13 AM
7 15 AM 7 30 AM 743 AM 7 45 AM 8 00 AM 8 13 AM
8 15 AM 8 30 AM 843 AM 8 45 AM 9 00 AM 9 13 AM
9'15 AM 9'30 AM 9'43 AM 9 45 AM 10:00 AM 1013 AM
1015 AM 10:30 AM 1043 AM 1045 AM 11 00 AM 11 13 AM
11 15 AM 11 30 AM 11 43 AM 11 45 AM 12:00 PM 12:13 PM
12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:43 PM 12:45 PM 1 00 PM 1 13 PM
1 15 PM 130 PM 1 43 PM 1 45 PM 2:00 PM 2:13 PM
215 PM 2:30 PM 2:43 PM 245 PM 300 PM 313 PM
3 15 PM 3 30 PM 3 43 PM 345 PM 4 00 PM 4 13 PM
4 15 PM 4 30 PM 4 43 PM 445 PM 5 00 PM 5 13 PM
5 15 PM 5 30 PM 543 PM 5 45 PM 6 00 PM 6 13 PM
6 15 PM 6 30 PM 643 PM 6 45 PM 7 00 PM 7 13 PM
Source. LSC, 2009
Table XI-4
60-Minute Headway - Rhomberg Avenue
Outbound Inbound
Delhi Downtown Hawthorne Downtown Delhi
6 15 AM 6 25 AM 6 40 AM 6 55 AM 7 O5 AM
7 15 AM 7 25 AM 7 40 AM 7 55 AM 8 O5 AM
8 15 AM 825 AM 8 40 AM 8 55 AM 9 O5 AM
9 15 AM 9'25 AM 9'40 AM 9'55 AM 10:05 AM
1015 AM 10:25 AM 1040 AM 10:55 AM 11 O5 AM
11 15 AM 11 25 AM 11 40 AM 11 55 AM 12:05 PM
12:15 PM 12:25 PM 12:40 PM 12:55 PM 1 O5 PM
1 15 PM 1 25 PM 1 40 PM 1 55 PM 2:05 PM
215 PM 2:25 PM 2:40 PM 2:55 PM 305 PM
3 15 PM 325 PM 3 40 PM 3 55 PM 4 O5 PM
4 15 PM 4 25 PM 440 PM 455 PM 5 O5 PM
5 15 PM 5 25 PM 540 PM 555 PM 6 O5 PM
6 15 PM 6 25 PM 6 40 PM 6 55 PM 7 O5 PM
Source. LSC, 2009
LSC
Page X724 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
Table XI-5
60-Minute Headway - Mt. St. Francis
Outbound Inbound
Leave Delhi Downtown Eagle Point Downtown Arrive Delhi
6 15 AM 6 25 AM 6 40 AM 6 55 AM 7 O5 AM
7 15 AM 7 25 AM 7 40 AM 7 55 AM 8 O5 AM
8 15 AM 8 25 AM 8 40 AM 8 55 AM 9 O5 AM
9'15 AM 9'25 AM 9'40 AM 9 55 AM 10:05 AM
1015 AM 10:25 AM 1040 AM 10:55 AM 11 O5 AM
11 15 AM 11 25 AM 11 40 AM 11 55 AM 12:05 PM
12:15 PM 12:25 PM 12:40 PM 12:55 PM 1 O5 PM
115 PM 1 25 PM 1 40 PM 1 55 PM 205 PM
2:15 PM 2:25 PM 2:40 PM 255 PM 305 PM
3 15 PM 3 25 PM 3 40 PM 3 55 PM 4 O5 PM
4 15 PM 4 25 PM 4 40 PM 4 55 PM 5 O5 PM
5 15 PM 5 25 PM 5 40 PM 5 55 PM 6 O5 PM
6 15 PM 6 25 PM 6 40 PM 6 55 PM 7 O5 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
Table XI-6
60-Minute Headway -Central Avenue
Outbound Inbound
Delhi Downtown 32nd Downtown Delhi
6 15 AM 6 25 AM 6 40 AM 6 55 AM 7 O5 AM
7 15 AM 7 25 AM 7 40 AM 7 55 AM 8 O5 AM
8 15 AM 8 25 AM 8 40 AM 8 55 AM 9'05 AM
9'15 AM 9 25 AM 9'40 AM 9'55 AM 10:05 AM
1015 AM 10:25 AM 1040 AM 10:55 AM 11 O5 AM
11 15 AM 11 25 AM 11 40 AM 11 55 AM 12:05 PM
12:15 PM 12:25 PM 12:40 PM 12:55 PM 1 O5 PM
1 15 PM 1 25 PM 1 40 PM 1 55 PM 2:05 PM
2:15 PM 2 25 PM 2:40 PM 2:55 PM 3 O5 PM
3 15 PM 3 25 PM 3 40 PM 3 55 PM 4 O5 PM
4 15 PM 4 25 PM 4 40 PM 4 55 PM 5 O5 PM
5 15 PM 5 25 PM 5 40 PM 5 55 PM 6 O5 PM
6 15 PM 6 25 PM 6 40 PM 6 55 PM 7 O5 PM
Source. LSC, 2009
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 25
Service Plan
30-Minute Peak Service, 60-Minute Off-Peak Service
The second phase in the development plan is to have service operating with 30-
minute headways during the peak hours (6:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 - 7:00 p.m.)
with 60-minute service during midday. This type of service is efficient for systems
that serve a large number of school and commuting customers. The schedules
allow for interlining between the Medical Loop/Asbury routes as well as the Penn
Avenue/ Shopping Circulator during the middle of the day. Times that are in italics
represent that during this time span, service is at one-hour headways. Tables XI-7
through XI-13 show the proposed schedules for this alignment.
Table XI-7
30-Minute Peak Headway -Shopping Circulator
Leave Kennedy Arrive Kennedy
Wal-Mart Social Security Wal-Mart
Circle Circle
6 15 AM 6 24 AM 6 30 AM 636 AM 6 43 AM
645 AM 6 54 AM 7 00 AM 706 AM 7 13 AM
7 15 AM 7 24 AM 7 30 AM 736 AM 7 43 AM
745 AM 7 54 AM 8 00 AM 806 AM 8 13 AM
8 15 AM 8 24 AM 8 30 AM 836 AM 8 43 AM
845 AM 8 54 AM 9 00 AM 9'06 AM 9 13 AM
9 15AM 9 24AM 9 30AM 9~36AM 9 43AM
1015 AM 1024 AM 1030 AM 1036 AM 1043 AM
11 15 AM 11 24AM 11 30AM 11 36AM 11 43AM
12. 15 PM 12.24 PM 12.30 PM 12.36 PM 12.43 PM
1 15 PM 1 24 PM 1 30 PM 1 36 PM 1 43 PM
2. 15 PM 2.24 PM 2.30 PM 2:36 PM 2.43 PM
3 15 PM 3 24 PM 3 30 PM 3~36PM 3 43 PM
345 PM 354 PM 400 PM 406 PM 413 PM
415 PM 424 PM 430 PM 436 PM 443 PM
445 PM 454 PM 500 PM 506 PM 513 PM
515 PM 524 PM 530 PM 536 PM 543 PM
545 PM 554 PM 600 PM 606 PM 613 PM
615 PM 624 PM 630 PM 636 PM 643 PM
645 PM 654 PM 700 PM
Source. LSC, 2009
LSC
Page X726 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plcai
Table XI-8
30-Minute Peak Headway- Pennsylvania Avenue
Leave
Leave Arrive Arrive
Kennedy
Delhi Kennedy Circle Delhi
Circle
6'00 AM 6'15 AM 6'15 AM 6:28 AM
630 AM 645 AM 645 AM 658 AM
7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:15 AM 7:28 AM
730 AM 745 AM 745 AM 758 AM
8'00 AM 8'15 AM 8'15 AM 8:28 AM
8:30 AM 8:45 AM 8:45 AM 8:58 AM
9OOAM 915 AM
9'45 AM 9'58 AM
1000AM 1015 AM
1045 AM 1058 AM
11 OO AM 11 15 AM
11 45 AM 11 58 AM
12:00 PM 12:15 PM
12:45 PM 12:58 PM
1 OO PM 1 15 PM
1 45 PM 1 58 PM
2:00 PM 2:15 PM
2:45 PM 2:58 PM
3:00 PM 3:15 PM
3'45 PM 3'58 PM
4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:15 PM 4:28 PM
4:30 PM 4:45 PM 4:45 PM 4:58 PM
5'00 PM 5'15 PM 5'15 PM 5:28 PM
530 PM 545 PM 545 PM 5'58 PM
6'00 PM 6'15 PM 6'15 PM 6:28 PM
630 PM 645 PM 645 PM 6'58 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
LSC
KeyLnie Oyerafioruxl Analysis, Fnial Reyort Page fa-27
Service Plan
Table XI-9
30-Minute Peak Headway -Asbury Road
Leave Arrive
Kennedy
Delhi Delhi
6 00 AM 6 15 AM 6 28 AM
630 AM 645 AM 658 AM
700 AM 7 15 AM 7 28 AM
730 AM 745 AM 758 AM
800 AM 8 15 AM 8 28 AM
830 AM 845 AM 858 AM
9 30AM 9~45AM 9~58AM
1030 AM 1045 AM 1058 AM
11 30 AM 11 45AM 11 58AM
12.30 PM 12.45 PM 12.58 PM
1 30 PM 1 45 PM 1 58 PM
2.30 PM 2.45 PM 2.58 PM
330 PM 345 PM 358 PM
400 PM 415 PM 428 PM
430 PM 445 PM 458 PM
500 PM 515 PM 528 PM
530 PM 545 PM 558 PM
600 PM 615 PM 628 PM
630 PM 645 PM 658 PM
Source. LSC, 2009
Table XI-10
30-Minute Peak Headway- Medical Loop
Leave Delhi HyVee Arrive Delhi
6 00 AM 6 15 AM 6 28 AM
6 30 AM 6 45 AM 6 58 AM
7 00 AM 7 15 AM 7 28 AM
7 30 AM 7 45 AM 7 58 AM
8 00 AM 8 15 AM 8 28 AM
8 30 AM 8 45 AM 8 58 AM
9~OOAM 9 15AM 9 28 AM
1000 AM 10 15 AM 1028 AM
11~OOAM 11 15AM 1128 AM
12:OOPM 12. 15 PM 12:28 PM
1'00 PM 1 15 PM 1 28 PM
2:OOPM 2.15 PM 2.28 PM
3~OOPM 315 PM 328 PM
4 00 PM 4 15 PM 4 28 PM
4 30 PM 4 45 PM 4 58 PM
5 00 PM 5 15 PM 5 28 PM
5 30 PM 5 45 PM 5 58 PM
6 00 PM 6 15 PM 6 28 PM
6 30 PM 6 45 PM 6 58 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
LSC
Page X728 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
Table XI-11
30-Minute Peak Headway- Rhomberg Avenue
Outbound Inbound
Leave Delhi Downtown Hawthorne Downtown Arrive Delhi
6 00 AM 6 10 AM 625 AM 6 40 AM 6 50 AM
630 AM 640 AM 655 AM 7 10 AM 7 20 AM
700 AM 7 10 AM 725 AM 7 40 AM 7 50 AM
730 AM 740 AM 755 AM 8 10 AM 8 20 AM
800 AM 8 10 AM 825 AM 8 40 AM 8 50 AM
830 AM 840 AM 855 AM 9'10 AM 9'20 AM
9~OOAM 9~10AM 9~25AM 9 40 AM 9 50 AM
10~OOAM 1010 AM 1025 AM 1040 AM 1050 AM
11~OOAM 11 10 AM 1125 AM 1140 AM 1150 AM
12:00 PM 12. 10 PM 12.25 PM 12.40 PM 12.50 PM
1'00 PM 1 10 PM 1 25 PM 140 PM 150 PM
2:00 PM 2. 10 PM 2.25 PM 2:40 PM 2:50 PM
3~OOPM 310 PM 325 PM 3~40PM 3~50PM
400 PM 410 PM 425 PM 440 PM 450 PM
430 PM 440 PM 455 PM 510 PM 520 PM
500 PM 510 PM 525 PM 540 PM 550 PM
530 PM 540 PM 555 PM 610 PM 620 PM
600 PM 610 PM 625 PM 640 PM 650 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
Table XI-12
30-Minute Peak H eadw ay - Mt. St. Francis
Outbound Inbound
Leave Delhi Downtown Eagle Point Downtown Arrive Delhi
6 00 AM 6 10 AM 6 25 AM 6 40 AM 6 50 AM
6 30 AM 6 40 AM 6 55 AM 7 10 AM 7 20 AM
7 00 AM 7 10 AM 7 25 AM 7 40 AM 7 50 AM
7 30 AM 7 40 AM 7 55 AM 8 10 AM 8 20 AM
8 00 AM 8 10 AM 8 25 AM 8 40 AM 8 50 AM
8 30 AM 8 40 AM 8 55 AM 9'10 AM 9 20 AM
9~OOAM 9 10AM 9 25AM 9 40AM 9 50AM
10~OOAM 10~10AM 1025 AM 1040 AM 1050 AM
11~OOAM 11 10AM 1125 AM 1140AM 1150 AM
12:OOPM 12: 10 PM 12.25 PM 12.40 PM 12.50 PM
1'00 PM 1 10 PM 1 25 PM 1 40 PM 1 50 PM
2:OOPM 2.10 PM 2.25 PM 2.40 PM 2.50 PM
3~OOPM 3 10 PM 3 25 PM 3 40 PM 3 50 PM
4 00 PM 4 10 PM 4 25 PM 4 40 PM 4 50 PM
4 30 PM 4 40 PM 4 55 PM 5 10 PM 5 20 PM
5 00 PM 5 10 PM 5 25 PM 5 40 PM 5 50 PM
5 30 PM 5 40 PM 5 55 PM 6 10 PM 6 20 PM
6 00 PM 6 10 PM 6 25 PM 6 40 PM 6 50 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 29
Service Plan
Table XI-13
30-Minute P eak H eadw ay -Central Avenue
Outbound Inbound
Leave Delhi Downtown 32nd Downtown Arrive Delhi
6 00 AM 6 10 AM 6 25 AM 6 40 AM 6 50 AM
6 30 AM 6 40 AM 6 55 AM 7 10 AM 7 20 AM
7 00 AM 7 10 AM 7 25 AM 7 40 AM 7 50 AM
7 30 AM 7 40 AM 7 55 AM 8 10 AM 8 20 AM
8 00 AM 8 10 AM 8 25 AM 8 40 AM 8 50 AM
8 30 AM 8 40 AM 8 55 AM 9'10 AM 9'20 AM
9~OOAM 9 10AM 9 25AM 9 40 AM 9 50 AM
10~OOAM 10~10AM 1025 AM 1040 AM 1050 AM
11~OOAM 11 10 AM 1125AM 1140 AM 1150 AM
12:OOPM 12. 10 PM 12.25 PM 12.40 PM 12.50 PM
1'00 PM 1 10 PM 1 25 PM 1 40 PM 1 50 PM
2:00 PM 2. 10 PM 2.25 PM 2.40 PM 2.50 PM
3~OOPM 310 PM 325 PM 340 PM 350 PM
4 00 PM 4 10 PM 4 25 PM 4 40 PM 4 50 PM
4 30 PM 4 40 PM 4 55 PM 5 10 PM 5 20 PM
5 00 PM 5 10 PM 5 25 PM 5 40 PM 5 50 PM
5 30 PM 5 40 PM 5 55 PM 6 10 PM 6 20 PM
6 00 PM 6 10 PM 6 25 PM 6 40 PM 6 50 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
30-Minute Service
The last phase of the implementation plan is to convert to 30-minute headways
all day long. Under this option, some of the routes-Central Avenue, Rhomberg
Avenue, and Mt. St. Francis-will have two buses operating on the route simul-
taneously. The downtown shuttle will still have three vehicles serving the route.
These routes are timed so that the inbound and outbound routes pulse at the
downtown transfer point. This allows users to transfer without having to wait until
the Delhi transfer point. Tables XI-14 through XI-20 present the proposed sched-
ules for each of the routes under the all-day 30-minute headway service.
Lsc
Page X7 30 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
Table XI-14
30-Minute Headway -Shopping Circulator
Leave Kennedy Arrive Kennedy
Wal-Mart Social Security Wal-Mart
Circle Circle
6 15 AM 6 24 AM 630 AM 6 36 AM 6 43 AM
6 45 AM 6 54 AM 7 00 AM 7 06 AM 7 13 AM
7 15 AM 7 24 AM 7 30 AM 736 AM 743 AM
7 45 AM 7 54 AM 8 00 AM 8 06 AM 8 13 AM
8 15 AM 8 24 AM 8 30 AM 8 36 AM 8 43 AM
845 AM 854 AM 9'00 AM 9'06 AM 9'13 AM
9'15 AM 9'24 AM 9'30 AM 9'36 AM 9'43 AM
9 45 AM 9 54 AM 10:00 AM 10:06 AM 1013 AM
1015 AM 10:24 AM 10:30 AM 10:36 AM 1043 AM
1045 AM 10:54 AM 11 00 AM 11 06 AM 11 13 AM
11 15 AM 11 24 AM 11 30 AM 11 35 AM 11 43 AM
11 45 AM 11 54 AM 12:00 PM 12:06 PM 12:13 PM
12:15 PM 12:24 PM 12:30 PM 12:36 PM 12:43 PM
12:45 PM 12:54 PM 1 00 PM 1 06 PM 1 13 PM
1 15 PM 1 24 PM 1 30 PM 1 36 PM 1 43 PM
145 PM 154 PM 2:00 PM 2:06 PM 2:13 PM
2:15 PM 2:24 PM 2:30 PM 2:36 PM 2:43 PM
2 45 PM 2 54 PM 3 00 PM 3 06 PM 3 13 PM
315 PM 324 PM 330 PM 336 PM 343 PM
3 45 PM 3 54 PM 4 00 PM 4 06 PM 4 13 PM
4 15 PM 4 24 PM 4 30 PM 4 36 PM 4 43 PM
445 PM 454 PM 5 00 PM 5 06 PM 5 13 PM
5 15 PM 5 24 PM 530 PM 5 36 PM 5 43 PM
5 45 PM 5 54 PM 6 00 PM 6 06 PM 6 13 PM
615 PM 624 PM 630 PM 636 PM 643 PM
6 45 PM 6 54 PM 7 00 PM
Source. LSC, 2009
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 31
Service Plan
Table XI-15
30-Minute Headway -Pennsylvania Avenue
Leave Delhi KennedyCircle Arrive Delhi
6 00 AM 6 15 AM 6 28 AM
630 AM 6 45 AM 6 58 AM
700 AM 7 15 AM 7 28 AM
730 AM 7 45 AM 7 58 AM
800 AM 8 15 AM 8 28 AM
830 AM 8 45 AM 8 58 AM
9'00 AM 9 15 AM 9'28 AM
9'30 AM 9 45 AM 9'58 AM
10:00 AM 1015 AM 10:28 AM
10:30 AM 1045 AM 10:58 AM
11 00 AM 11 15 AM 11 28 AM
11 30 AM 11 45 AM 11 58 AM
12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:28 PM
12:30 PM 12:45 PM 12:58 PM
100 PM 1 15 PM 1 28 PM
130 PM 1 45 PM 1 58 PM
2:00 PM 2 15 PM 2:28 PM
2:30 PM 245 PM 2:58 PM
300 PM 3 15 PM 3 28 PM
330 PM 3 45 PM 3 58 PM
400 PM 4 15 PM 4 28 PM
430 PM 4 45 PM 4 58 PM
500 PM 5 15 PM 5 28 PM
530 PM 5 45 PM 5 58 PM
600 PM 6 15 PM 6 28 PM
630 PM 6 45 PM 6 58 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
LSC
Page X7 32 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
Table XI-16
30-Minute Headway -Asbury Road
Leave Delhi Kennedy Arrive Delhi
6 00 AM 6 15 AM 6 28 AM
6 30 AM 6 45 AM 658 AM
7 00 AM 7 15 AM 7 28 AM
7 30 AM 7 45 AM 758 AM
8 00 AM 8 15 AM 8 28 AM
8 30 AM 8 45 AM 858 AM
9'00 AM 9'15 AM 9'28 AM
9'30 AM 9'45 AM 9'58 AM
10:00 AM 1015 AM 10:28 AM
10:30 AM 1045 AM 10:58 AM
11 00 AM 11 15 AM 11 28 AM
11 30 AM 11 45 AM 11 58 AM
12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12.28 PM
12:30 PM 12:45 PM 12:58 PM
1 00 PM 1 15 PM 1 28 PM
1 30 P M 1 45 P M 1 58 P M
200 PM 215 PM 2:28 PM
230 PM 245 PM 2:58 PM
3 00 PM 3 15 PM 3 28 PM
3 30 PM 3 45 PM 3 58 PM
4 00 PM 4 15 PM 4 28 PM
4 30 PM 4 45 PM 4 58 PM
5 00 PM 5 15 PM 5 28 PM
5 30 PM 5 45 PM 5 58 PM
6 00 PM 6 15 PM 6 28 PM
6 30 PM 6 45 PM 6 58 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 33
Service Plan
Table XI-17
30-Minute Headway -Medical Loop
Delhi HyVee Delhi
6 00 AM 6 15 AM 6 28 AM
6 30 AM 645 AM 658 AM
7 00 AM 7 15 AM 7 28 AM
7 30 AM 745 AM 758 AM
8 00 AM 8 15 AM 8 28 AM
8 30 AM 845 AM 858 AM
9'00 AM 9'15 AM 9'28 AM
9'30 AM 9'45 AM 9'58 AM
10:00 AM 1015 AM 10:28 AM
10:30 AM 1045 AM 10:58 AM
11 00 AM 11 15 AM 11 28 AM
11 30 AM 11 45 AM 11 58 AM
12:00 PM 1215 PM 12.28 PM
12:30 PM 12:45 PM 12:58 PM
1 00 PM 1 15 PM 1 28 PM
1 30 P M 1 45 P M 1 58 P M
200 PM 2:15 PM 2:28 PM
230 PM 2:45 PM 2:58 PM
3 00 PM 3 15 PM 3 28 PM
3 30 PM 3 45 PM 3 58 PM
4 00 PM 4 15 PM 4 28 PM
4 30 PM 4 45 PM 4 58 PM
5 00 PM 5 15 PM 5 28 PM
5 30 PM 5 45 PM 5 58 PM
6 00 PM 6 15 PM 6 28 PM
6 30 PM 6 45 PM 6 58 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
LSC
Page X7 34 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
Table XI-18
30-Minute Headway - Rhomberg Avenue
Outbound Inbound
Delhi Downtown Hawthorne Downtown Delhi
6 00 AM 6 10 AM 625 AM 6 40 AM 6 50 AM
630 AM 6 40 AM 655 AM 7 10 AM 7 20 AM
700 AM 7 10 AM 725 AM 7 40 AM 7 50 AM
730 AM 7 40 AM 755 AM 8 10 AM 8 20 AM
800 AM 8 10 AM 825 AM 8 40 AM 8 50 AM
830 AM 8 40 AM 855 AM 9'10 AM 9'20 AM
9'00 AM 9 10 AM 9'25 AM 9'40 AM 9'50 AM
9'30 AM 9 40 AM 9'55 AM 1010 AM 10:20 AM
10:00 AM 1010 AM 10:25 AM 1040 AM 10:50 AM
10.30 AM 1040 AM 10:55 AM 11 10 AM 11 ZO AM
11 00 AM 11 10 AM 11 25 AM 11 40 AM 11 50 AM
11 30 AM 11 40 AM 11 55 AM 12:10 PM 12:20 PM
12:00 PM 12:10 PM 12:25 PM 12:40 PM 12:50 PM
12:30 PM 12:40 PM 12:55 PM 1 10 PM 1 20 PM
1 00 PM 1 10 PM 1 25 PM 1 40 PM 1 50 PM
1 30 PM 140 PM 1 55 PM 210 PM 220 PM
2:OOPM 2:10 PM 2:25 PM 240 PM 250 PM
2:30 PM 2:40 PM 2:55 PM 310 PM 320 PM
3 00 PM 3 10 PM 3 25 PM 3 40 PM 3 50 PM
3 30 PM 340 PM 3 55 PM 4 10 PM 4 20 PM
4 00 PM 4 10 PM 4 25 PM 4 40 PM 4 50 PM
4 30 PM 440 PM 4 55 PM 5 10 PM 5 20 PM
5 00 PM 5 10 PM 5 25 PM 5 40 PM 5 50 PM
5 30 PM 540 PM 5 55 PM 6 10 PM 6 20 PM
6 00 PM 6 10 PM 6 25 PM 6 40 PM 6 50 PM
Source. LSC, 2009
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 35
Service Plan
Table XI-19
30-Minute Headway - Mt. St. Francis
Outbound Inbound
Delhi Downtown Eagle Point Downtown Delhi
6 00 AM 6 10 AM 625 AM 6 40 AM 6 50 AM
630 AM 6 40 AM 655 AM 7 10 AM 7 20 AM
700 AM 7 10 AM 725 AM 7 40 AM 7 50 AM
730 AM 7 40 AM 755 AM 8 10 AM 8 20 AM
800 AM 8 10 AM 825 AM 8 40 AM 8 50 AM
830 AM 8 40 AM 855 AM 9'10 AM 9'20 AM
9'00 AM 9 10 AM 9'25 AM 9'40 AM 9'50 AM
9'30 AM 9 40 AM 9'55 AM 1010 AM 10:20 AM
10:00 AM 1010 AM 10:25 AM 1040 AM 10:50 AM
10.30 AM 1040 AM 10:55 AM 11 10 AM 11 ZO AM
11 00 AM 11 10 AM 11 25 AM 11 40 AM 11 50 AM
11 30 AM 11 40 AM 11 55 AM 12:10 PM 12:20 PM
12:00 PM 12:10 PM 12:25 PM 12:40 PM 12:50 PM
12:30 PM 12:40 PM 12:55 PM 1 10 PM 1 20 PM
1 00 PM 1 10 PM 1 25 PM 1 40 PM 1 50 PM
1 30 PM 140 PM 1 55 PM 210 PM 220 PM
2:OOPM 2:10 PM 2:25 PM 240 PM 250 PM
2:30 PM 2:40 PM 2:55 PM 310 PM 320 PM
3 00 PM 3 10 PM 3 25 PM 3 40 PM 3 50 PM
3 30 PM 340 PM 3 55 PM 4 10 PM 4 20 PM
4 00 PM 4 10 PM 4 25 PM 4 40 PM 4 50 PM
4 30 PM 440 PM 4 55 PM 5 10 PM 5 20 PM
5 00 PM 5 10 PM 5 25 PM 5 40 PM 5 50 PM
5 30 PM 540 PM 5 55 PM 6 10 PM 6 20 PM
6 00 PM 6 10 PM 6 25 PM 6 40 PM 6 50 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
LSC
Page X7 36 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Service Plan
Table XI-20
30-M in ute H eadw ay -Central Avenue
Outbound Inbound
Delhi Downtown 32nd Downtown Delhi
6 00 AM 6 10 AM 625 AM 6 40 AM 6 50 AM
630 AM 6 40 AM 655 AM 7 10 AM 7 20 AM
700 AM 7 10 AM 725 AM 7 40 AM 7 50 AM
730 AM 7 40 AM 755 AM 8 10 AM 8 20 AM
800 AM 8 10 AM 825 AM 8 40 AM 8 50 AM
830 AM 8 40 AM 855 AM 9'10 AM 9'20 AM
9'00 AM 9 10 AM 9'25 AM 9'40 AM 9'50 AM
9'30 AM 9 40 AM 9'55 AM 1010 AM 10:20 AM
10:00 AM 1010 AM 10:25 AM 1040 AM 10:50 AM
10.30 AM 1040 AM 10:55 AM 11 10 AM 11 ZO AM
11 00 AM 11 10 AM 11 25 AM 11 40 AM 11 50 AM
11 30 AM 11 40 AM 11 55 AM 12:10 PM 12:20 PM
12:00 PM 12:10 PM 12:25 PM 12:40 PM 12:50 PM
12:30 PM 12:40 PM 12:55 PM 1 10 PM 1 20 PM
1 00 PM 1 10 PM 1 25 PM 1 40 PM 1 50 PM
1 30 PM 140 PM 1 55 PM 210 PM 220 PM
2:OOPM 2:10 PM 2:25 PM 240 PM 250 PM
2:30 PM 2:40 PM 2:55 PM 310 PM 320 PM
3 00 PM 3 10 PM 3 25 PM 3 40 PM 3 50 PM
3 30 PM 340 PM 3 55 PM 4 10 PM 4 20 PM
4 00 PM 4 10 PM 4 25 PM 4 40 PM 4 50 PM
4 30 PM 440 PM 4 55 PM 5 10 PM 5 20 PM
5 00 PM 5 10 PM 5 25 PM 5 40 PM 5 50 PM
5 30 PM 540 PM 5 55 PM 6 10 PM 6 20 PM
6 00 PM 6 10 PM 6 25 PM 6 40 PM 6 50 PM
Source: LSC, 2009
PARATRANSIT SERVICE
Because of the service hours extension, paratransit services will also need to be
extended to match the fixed-route times. This will add roughly two hours onto
current fixed-route service. Demand for paratransit services is likely to remain
relatively constant, if not slightly lower, because of the increased service.
The preferred option is to consolidate dispatching services with RTA. Because the
two agencies have overlapping service areas, consolidation will allow for both
agencies to be more efficient. For example, if a user calls in to schedule a ride with
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI 37
Service Plan
KeyLine that is for a similar time as a rider who calls in for RTA service, these
riders can now use the same vehicle, saving resources and providing more effec-
tive service. Even if there are no savings in terms of personnel, the efficiency
savings will allow for a significant cost savings. In the second and third phases of
the plan, it is possible to consolidate these services further so that paratransit is
operated exclusively by RTA.
Lsc
Page X7 38 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
PerJumwuc Mmd2rty
mented. Mobile Oata Tvxmnal: a1:o allow both data and voi¢ mmmuxti.ation
between opnatox and di:patihn. It io oimilaz to having an alphanumai. pager
on the da.hboazd.
Pa..engn boazding data .an a1:o be .olleaed using ta114 boazd. on the burn.
Two oaznple counter., oimilaz to throe voed in Dubuque, aze .hown in Piguxe
YII 1. Suffi.ient bottom aze required to mroxd pa..engn. in ea.h faze.ateguy.
A dnvn':1og.heet.hould then be u:edto mroxd the pa..engn count. atthe end
of ea.h inp. The dnvex. do not need to .al.ulate the numbn of pa..engex. fox
that inp, but mroxd the mooing total by faze .ateguR A. data aze entned, the
.al.ulatron of pa..engn. on ea.h trip .an be made. An effective appxoa.h is to
pxepaze the dnvn': log :beet fox ea.h of the rkivnY con.. Thin will provide pre
pxiutr.lmut=ewl4ipi~Smxwtimy e w14v~hivrz viill u..+l u WYtu x.+m.14v d-et=
and the pa:^engn mu nt data.
Figure %II-1
Manual Passenger Boartling Coun[xs
• nxtlg ~hiv w.l yea d-ete ou iallY s1v=ts. L$t. ..14v
to llY Sh-=tsu .d bY'w. .MeuY'uuld pmt b=x ed -ewlw xuflittl=
rltia could eff~+t uv xrpm9uL of xidmeltip d-eie. TTv rally alir>ta m. tbna
=.m.l..l iue lw.lbuuwl hl~~rz book. Tlv 1n-e.ti.= uffallY slwtr whih m=
wed-ee bl=ewlx.+m.l..liue L-m.lbuuwll..l~~rz buukalmuld b=~tle..uuNuwd
mlietrly ?p=ciH.. folly alwta bymu ewl ffiw fw ~e.h drivrz aluould b=
n~l.TTa...=elv=taalmuld iwtl..et=boa mxival-ewl drparlur=thwet ap..iH..
tlxwpiriute e w.L -e weY iu • vut ge aanu~ne by mu emh et ffiwa~
lu..eNuu Au alts re Nv. a IDvupln nS e GP?-bend -eutm u9.. yea
vu4r. Itia L?l udmaf utim~4.etthis bud~~=tits GP?/APC uy~
b= fuud..l. Itia wn..d riot 4tia budL°t itnq ...ffiwh.l by %^lLiw aiaff et
g15~00q b=fuwl..l ewl huplnwut=d -ea sumaea possible TTtie iWmxw Nma
sow ut< rear=+~'F~na~tavpxa.=, tnvaxwv.e
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 boardings 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 capabffity could be integrated with the
MDT and database system so that the data are entered directly by the driver. This
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XII 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 andparatransit 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 boardings at each stop. This, combined with
Automatic Vehicle Location systems, can record the data automatically by stop,
eliminatingthe 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 boardings by
Lsc
Page X77 4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Performance Monitoring
route, passengers per revenue-hour by route, total passengers by fare category,
total passengers, andsystem 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 o$`icials, 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 ofdata 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 strongfunctional 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, Final Report Page XII 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 miles byone-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 ofthe level ofservice 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 XII 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
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, Final Report Page XII 7
Marketing Program
Transit in Seattle calls their program "F1exPass" and the Lloyd District TMA
program in Portland is the "Passport Program."
The pass program is based on pricing policies similar to group insurance, where
the employer purchases transit passes for all of its employees whether they use
transit or not. The purchase of passes could be restricted to only full-time
employees or to both full-time and part-time employees. The employer contributes
the cost of transportation by utilizing employee transit benefits, which are tax
deductible and are apre-tax benefit for employees. Transit agencies offer dis-
counted rates on these passes based on the assumption that not all employees
will use transit. The idea is that the ridership would significantly increase by being
available to both riders and those who previously did not use transit and may now
use transit for more trips. The pass also raises awareness of the local transit
agency among major employers and employees in the area. All pass employees
receive a photo ID with which they are given unlimited access within the transit
agency's designated service area.
An employer usually purchases the passes on an annual basis, the cost of which
is dependent on the number of employees, the location of the firm, and the level
of transit service received by that business. The cost of the pass varies depending
upon the place. Some transit agencies have established a minimum contract size
per year for all passes to cover administrative costs, cost of the employees'
pictures, and processing costs connect with all passes. Employers may decide
whether they want to pass the cost of the pass on to employees or solely bear the
cost of transportation.
This program is important in encouraging people to use transit because of its low
cost and ease in using the system. The program helps reduce the demand for
parking and reduces congestion. Use ofthe pass is not restricted to worktrips and
can be used for all types of trips. This program works well where a large number
of employers are concentrated in an area, where transit agencies can efficiently
provide transportation to employees for a lower cost per passenger.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XI77 3
Marketing Program
Having apre-paid pass encourages riders to use it where they typically wouldn't.
For example, if an employer buys the pass for an employee to commute to work,
the employee is more likely to use public transportation for getting around
because the cost to them is zero. Additionally, employers are allowed to provide
a tax-free transit fringe benefit to employees. This program will greatly help new
employers like IBM, which plans to bring 1,300 high-tech jobs to Dubuque, Iowa,
encourage employees to use transit to get to work. This will also help KeyLine
Transit attract more riders to the system.
OTHER TRANSIT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
Other transit incentives target existing riders to regularly use transit to get to
work by offering discount or monthly passes. The idea is to use transit for all trips
including work trips. There are other transit programs that target new riders by
providing incentives such as a free bus pass for a month or a complimentary pass
for new users. The concept is to target many first-time riders who will use transit,
familiarize themselves with the system, and then hopefully make more transit
trips.
OUTREACH PROGRAM
In addition to the various transit incentive programs, KeyLine Transit should
increase public awareness with both employees and employers and attract
ridership by creating an image of transit that meets the needs of the community
in the area, as well as increasing overall visibility of the transit system. KeyLine
could focus on rebranding its system to be more ecologically friendly by making
people aware that their fleet consists of ecological vehicles.
This can be accomplished by designing a transit logo tailored to identify the
KeyLine Transit System. This could also be done by holding a design logo contest
for children or students with a theme or an image that the transit system would
like to portray. In addition, buses could use an attractive paint scheme or be
draped with a simple bus wrap. For affixed-route system, simple bus stop signs
that are attractive and easy to identify should be created. Attractive bus passes
and a ride guide with key elements of service provided in an easy-to-read
document should also be designed.
Lsc
Page X777 4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Marketing Program
PROMOTE SERVICE TO USERS
Promotion of KeyLine Transit should be tailored by
establishing an educational program that includes a simple 1r,µ ti •'~ ~
,x
one-page information sheet. This will help to educate
M (ti*N , .
Id t;~ '
employers and employees on the use of the system. Also, , ~'n ` •' y yes I,•,F'~:
local businesses such as shopping malls, education centers, '~
hospitals, and restaurants should be provided with informational brochures that
they can post at their places of business. Local businesses should be encouraged
to advertise on the buses, thereby generating revenue and creating business
partnerships.
To further increase public awareness, a booth that provides service information
or showcases the buses should be setup at local events such as fesfivals or fairs.
Local schools, colleges, and social service agencies should be contacted to
publicize, educate, and inform local agencies about the transit system and to refer
clients and employers to KeyLine Transit for their transportation needs. An
outreach program should be put into pract ice for these groups and agencies where
they are regularly kept abreast ofthe transit system and any changes. In addition,
user incentives such as discount passes, free days, or the donation of canned food
to charities should be made available.
Advertisingshould beplaced in the local paper highlighting employees' orpatrons'
stories, promoting a special shopping tour for seniors/elderly/disabled to
numerous businesses and retailers, and allowing local retailers/businesses to sell
transit passes. Flyers should be placed at common meeting places as advertising
and information dissemination.
REBRANDING THE SYSTEM
One suggestion that has been made multiple times is to totally rebrand the
system. This is an effective strategy when making service changes because it often
gives potential riders the sense that there has been a significant overhaul and
detaches their association of the new transit system with the old system. The
rebranding of a system should be done in a multitude of ways. It is possible to
LSC
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page X111 5
CHAPTER XIV
Capital and Facilities Plan
INTRODUCTION
The restructuring of the KeyLine system will create the need to improve the cur-
rent facilities and also require the procurement of additional buses. Additional
buses are needed to accommodate the growth in the system that is due to more
routes and longer, more frequent service. Because of the additional buses, facility
improvements are needed to handle the new bus load. In addition to storage facil-
ities, transfer centerupgrades are likely and new bus stops will need to be placed.
VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS
When discussing the vehicle requirements for each type of service, it is important
to note that KeyLine is currently planning to incorporate smaller vehicles as part
of their fleet. The new vehicle fleet was taken into consideration when discussing
the necessary vehicle requirements for each type of service. As such, the addi-
tional vehicles section for both options discusses vehicles that are not currently
under KeyLine's planned fleet purchase. The new KeyLine fleet will consist of two
standard taxis, eight vans, four medium-duty hybrid buses, eight heavy-duty
buses, two body-on-chassis vehicles, and two trolleys. Allvehicles used for public
transit service should be equipped with racks to accommodate bicycles.
60-Minute Service
Replacement Vehicles
KeyLine currently has enough capacity to operate the fixed-route service with their
12 medium to heavy-duty buses. When discussing the replacement vehicles, it
was assumed that KeyLine will implement their vehicle replacement schedule
starting in FY 2010. While not necessary for immediate implementation, some
current buses should be replaced in addition to the current schedule prior to the
beginning of Phase Two.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XIV 1
Capital and Facilities Plan
Additional Vehicles
With all of the frequency options, it is recommended that the downtown shuttle
operate every ten minutes. This will require three trolley-style buses to operate
simultaneously. Because of the need for a spare, a total of four trolleys are
required. The agency currently owns two trolleys, meaning that the purchase of
two additional vehicles is required.
30-Minute Service
Service operating on 30-minute headways, or 30-minute headways with 60-
minute off-peak headways, have identical vehicle requirements because the fleet
is designed to accommodate the highest number of vehicles needed at one time.
As such, the followingsection relates to both types of service that were previously
discussed. In concert with the phasing plan, additional vehicle purchases for this
scenario should be budgeted into the third year. This will allow for service at 30-
minute headways to begin in year four.
Because of the phasing plan, it is assumed that KeyLine will already have pur-
chased the two additional required trolley-style buses that will be needed to run
service at 60-minute headways. These vehicles will also be necessary to operate
30-minute service, but will already be in KeyLine's fleet.
In addition to the trolleys, KeyLine will need to purchase an additional two small
to medium-duty buses for their fixed-route service. Not including the RTA Express
route, KeyLine will be operating 1 1 fixed-route vehicles underthis option. The fleet
currently consists of 12 buses capable of handling the capacity on these routes.
Because of the need for spares, it is recommended that two additional small to
medium-duty transit buses be purchased for this option.
FACILITIES
Vehicle Storage Facility
An increase in service to a 30-minute headway will mean that KeyLine will have
to purchase some additional buses to increase their fleet size. The current facility
accommodates the 14 fixed-route vehicles and 12 paratransit vehicles that are in
KeyLine's fleet. However, if moving to a system that operates under a 30-minute
Lsc
Page XIV 2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Capital and Facilities Plan
headway, a total of 14 small buses, four trolleys, and four vans will be needed for
regular service. In addition, if KeyLine continues to operate the paratransit ser-
vice, these 22 vehicles will need to share space with the 12 paratransit vehicles
currently housed in the garage. While many of the vehicles that KeyLine owns are
being downsized (i.e., eight paratransit vehicles to vans), it is unlikely that the
current facility will be able to hold approximately 34 vehicles.
New space may need to be purchased and developed to accommodate the influx
of vehicles that will be experienced. Another option that would come into play if
RTA operates paratransit service would be to house paratransit vehicles at the
RTA facility. The current RTA facility was not designed to accommodate the addi-
tional Minibus vehicles. Additional space would be required either at the RTA
facility or another location.
Transfer Centers
The current system uses three transfer centers-Delhi, Kennedy Circle, and
Downtown. With the proposed system, there will still be three transfer centers,
with the Delhi and Downtown locations most likely needing to be moved from their
current location, but within the same vicinity. Upgrades to the transfer sites will
need to be made to accommodate the number of vehicles and to enhance the
experience of passengers using the system.
The current location of the Delhi transfer center will need to be moved to handle
the number of buses arriving at the same time. Under the proposed system all of
the fixed routes, with the exception of the downtown shuttle and the shopping
circulator, will be using this location. The current location and configuration is too
small and does not provide the appropriate amenities desired in a transfer facility.
Figure XIV-1 shows possible locations for the newtransfer site. The new centrally
located transfer site should remain in proximity to the current transfer center,
with the hospital remaining a major origin and destination for transit. Another
possible location would be the University of Dubuque campus. The sites shown
in Figure XIV-1 reflect only a preliminary identification of areas near the existing
Delphi center. No evaluation has been completed of these sites and each would
have advantages and disadvantages. The cost to develop a transfer center will be
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XIV 3
Capital and Facilities Plan
dependent on the characteristics of the specific site. Selection of a site will require
a detailed investigation.
The Kennedy Circle transfer center will be handling up to three buses at a time.
Because of the amount of space that currently exists, it is possible that this site
could be improved to enhance the flow of both buses and pedestrians. Improve-
ments to bus shelters, signage, and lighting will need to be made, especially if the
system is rebranded.
Lsc
Page XIV 4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Capital and Facilities Plan
Bus Stop Improvements
Improving bus stop facilities is a necessity for the transit system. Because of the
newly proposed routes, many new bus stops will need to be created. This presents
a great opportunity for KeyLine Transit with regard to improving their bus stop
facilities.
All new bus stops should meet ADA guidelines for accessibility. The stops should
provide an unimpeded pathway from the sidewalk to the transit stop to ensure
safety as well as accessibility. Pedestrian safety is a top priority for all transit
systems, and creating appropriate bus stop facilities will allow for safety to be
improved while simultaneously enhancing the pedestrian experience.
One of the first considerations to keep in mind are the signs themselves. The cur-
rent signage blends in to the surroundings and is sometimes indistinguishable
from other forms of signage (i.e., the "no parking" signs). The system should use
signs that stand out from other regulatory signage so that users can easily denote
where a KeyLine stop is. There should be no dual signs; instead, the KeyLine signs
should stand alone. These signs can use existing sign poles as long as they are at
the appropriate heights and can be seen from a distance. The signs should
incorporate any rebranding for KeyLine Transit.
Along with the signs themselves, the spacing between signs should be considered.
The typical spacing for stops downtown should be around 600 feet. The central
business district is typically dense and serves many boardings and alightings.
This distance allows users to access the bus stop or their final destination with
minimal difficulty. In other areas of Dubuque, spacingshould be around 750 feet.
Housing within the City of Dubuque is fairly dense, and bus stop spacing should
be considerate of the housing stock. In the more suburban areas, stops are
typically spaced around 1,000 feet apart from each otheron each individual route.
The addition of critical amenities at bus stop locations can greatly enhance
pedestrian experience. It is recommended that bus stops that serve at least 10
boardings daily have a shelter placed at their location. Providing shelter acts as
a buffer to winds and rain, and can influence a potential passenger's decision to
Lsc
Page XIV 6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Capital and Facilities Plan
ride transit. Stops that provide at least five boardings should provide at least a
bench so passengers can rest prior to boarding. This is especially critical for
elderly passengers who may have a difficult time standing for long periods of time.
Because of the restructuring of the system, additional analysis of the stops may
need to be conducted after information is gathered on new boarding and alighting
patterns.
Other amenities should provide safe and clean bus stops. For example, appro-
priate lighting may be needed in areas that are dimly lit in the early morning or
evening. Appropriate lighting enhances the real and perceived safety and comfort
of passengers riding the system. It is important to provide tamper-resistant light-
ing fixtures to limit the chances of vandalism. Trash receptacles are also an
important bus stop feature. Bus shelters and stops that are often cluttered with
debris have a negative effect on the perception of the system. The presence of
trash receptacles makes litter a less likely occurrence in and around bus stops.
In addition to bike racks on buses, the presence of bike racks or lockers can
influence an individual's decision to ride transit. Users may prefer to ride to the
bus stop and lock up their bike to shorten their commutes.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XIV 7
CHAPTER XV
Financial Plan
INTRODUCTION
One of the biggest hurdles related to increasing transit service is financial. The
ability to procure funding for service expansion is a necessity, aiding in the devel-
opment of the long-term plan. This chapter presents a fare structure for the
KeyLine system, as well as financial plans for each of the three headways and a
10-year financial plan for the recommended system.
FARES
Farebox revenues represent only approximately eight percent of the total income
of the KeyLine system. The current fare for regular fixed-route service is $1.00 for
regular passengers, but is free for students with their school identification. Para-
transit service currently operates with a fare of $1.00 for ADA-approved pas-
sengers, and $2.00 for senior citizens. The Trolley, which operates in summer
months, currently has no fare.
Fare-Free System
One idea that has been discussed is to make the fixed-route transit system free.
Under this scenario, all of the fixed-route and general public demand-response
service would operate at no charge to the passenger. Because the system (fixed-
route and paratransit combined) only achieves a farebox recovery ratio of around
12 percent once farebox maintenance is considered, the gains are marginal. A free
fixed-route system allows for the system to eliminate the fareboxes and their
maintenance costs altogether. Afixed-route system also helps to increase rider-
ship, especially with those who have other options. Transit-dependent individuals
will ride the system whether the fare is $1.00 or is free because of their circum-
stances. Other riders, however, need an incentive to use transit instead of their
car. The two major ways to accomplish this are by providing a system that costs
less than driving and/or by providing a trip time that is similar to driving. By
eliminating fares on fixed-route service, riders (particularly commuters) may have
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XV 1
Financial Plan
an incentive to ride transit instead. They will save money on gas and parking
which can be a significant monthly cost for many commuters. When service is
made free for fixed-route riders, it must also be made free for paratransit riders
as well.
Fare Structure
In order to recoup a greater percentage of operating costs, another option is to
slightly raise fares. Raising fares on fixed-route service to $1.50 will help to
recover some of the rising costs that KeyLine is facing. Under this scenario,
transfers would remain free. Another option is to include a semester pass for
University and college students or a University Pass program. The proposed fare
structure is shown in Table XV-1.
Table XV-1
Proposed Fare Schedule
Fare Category Fare
Adult Cash Fare $1 50
Students K-12 with School ID Free
Students K-12 without School ID $ 75
Half-Fare with KeyLine Half-Fare Card $ 75
Half-Fare 11-Ride Ticket $7 50
11-Ride Ticket $15 00
Monthly Pass $50 00
University Semester Pass $50 00
Mini-bus Paratransit $3 00
Paratransit service for ADA members would also be $3.00, with seniors paying
$3.00 to use the service. Under the ADA, passengers may be charged up to twice
the fixed-route cash fare forparatransit service. Paratransit has a higher cost per
passenger, but provides a more convenient service. This fare structure would have
users paying a greater proportion of the costs. Currently, approximately 20
percent of all Mini-bus riders are elderly (non-ADS passengers. The Mini-bus
service should limit eligibility to that required by ADA only. This could result in
Lsc
Page XV 2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Financial Plan
a significant cost savings. Seniors who are not eligible would be provided other
options ofusing the general public service and DuRide.
It is recommended that the downtown shuttle continue to operate free of charge
year-round. Because the downtown shuttle will be geared toward moving
employees and tourists around the downtown area, ridership could be greatly
influenced by the presence of a fare. Having a free downtown shuttle and exten-
sionwill allow users toconvenientlyaccess entertainment, retail, and employment
within the downtown area. The shuttle will also allowusers to access parking that
is slightly farther away from their final destination, helping with congestion and
traffic flow.
FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN OPTIONS
For comparison, a financial plan was created using each of the three headway
options separately. That is to say, the financial costs of operating the three dif-
ferent levels of service for FY 2010 through FY 2014 were developed. Tables XV-2
through XV-4 depict these costs .The financial plan for the recommended phasing
is presented in the next section of this chapter.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XV 3
b
P
>c
C
Table XV-2
60-Minute Service Five-Year Budget
Fixed-Route FY 08 Budget FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
Operating Wages 464,274 1,124,157 1,163,502 1,204,225 1,246,373 1,289,996
Operating Benefits 131,723 318,944 330,107 341,661 353,619 365,995
Admin Wages 46,151 49,438 51,168 52,959 54,813 56,731
Admin Benefits 35,705 38,248 39,587 40,972 42,406 43,891
Maintenance Wages 73,295 177,471 183,682 190,111 196,765 203,652
Maintenance Benefits 22,844 55,313 57,249 59,252 61,326 63,473
Supplies and Services 10,360 25,328 26,341 27,395 28,490 29,630
Printing and Promotion 24,695 60,374 62,789 65,300 67,912 70,629
General Liability Insurance 32,283 78,925 82,082 85,365 88,779 92,331
Otherlnsurance 2,863 6,999 7,279 7,571 7,873 8,188
Travel 8,564 20,937 21,775 22,645 23,551 24,493
Utilities 86,347 93,393 98,996 104,936 111,232 117,906
Fuel 174,800 443,941 479,456 517,812 559,237 603,976
Vehicle Maintenance 288,389 705,045 733,247 762,577 793,080 824,804
Maintenance and Operating Expense 4,316 10,552 10,974 11,413 11,869 12,344
Shop Equipment 6,910 7,474 7,773 8,084 8,407 8,743
Miscellaneous Equipment 53,600 57,974 60,293 62,704 65,213 67,821
Contractual Services 162,563 175,828 182,861 190,176 197,783 205,694
Subtotal $ 1,629,682 $ 3,450,339 $ 3,599,160 $ 3,755,158 $ 3,918,730 $ 4,090,297
Mini-bus
Operating Wages 429,771 337,125 348,924 361,137 373,776 386,859
Operating Benefits 94,134 73,841 76,426 79,101 81,869 84,735
Supplies and Services 230 269 280 291 303 315
Printing and Promotion 260 304 316 329 342 356
General Liability Insurance 10,093 11,698 12,166 12,653 13,159 13,685
Utilities 370 467 495 525 556 590
Fuel 64,048 77,864 84,093 90,820 98,086 105,933
Vehicle Maintenance 117,225 137,186 142,673 148,380 154,315 160,488
Contractual Services 7,308 8,552 8,894 9,250 9,620 10,005
Dispatching 100, 000 104, 000 108,160 112, 486 116, 986
Software 5,741
Subtotal $ 729,180 $ 747,307 $ 778,268 $ 810,646 $ 844,514 $ 879,950
Total $ 2,358,862 $ 4,197,646 $ 4,377,428 $ 4,565,804 $ 4,763,244 $ 4,970,247
Source: KeyLine, 2008; LSC, 2009
b
m
>c
C
Table XV3
30-Minute Peak160-Minute Off-Peak Service Five-Year Budget
Fixed-Route FY 08 Budget FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
Operating Wages 464,274 1,357,980 1,405,509 1,454,702 1,505,616 1,558,313
Operating Benefits 131,723 385,284 398,769 412,725 427,171 442,122
Admin Wages 46,151 49,438 51,168 52,959 54,813 56,731
Admin Benefits 35,705 38,248 39,587 40,972 42,406 43,891
Maintenance Wages 73,295 214,384 221,888 229,654 237,692 246,011
Maintenance Benefits 22,844 66,818 69,156 71,577 74,082 76,675
Supplies and Services 10,360 30,596 31,820 33,093 34,416 35,793
Printing and Promotion 24,695 72,931 75,849 78,882 82,038 85,319
General Liability Insurance 32,283 95,341 99,154 103,121 107,245 111,535
Otherlnsurance 2,863 8,455 8,793 9,145 9,511 9,891
Travel 8,564 25,292 26,304 27,356 28,450 29,588
Utilities 86,347 93,393 98,996 104,936 111,232 117,906
Fuel 174,800 536,280 579,182 625,517 675,558 729,603
Vehicle Maintenance 288,389 851,694 885,762 921,192 958,040 996,362
Maintenance and Operating Expense 4,316 12,746 13,256 13,786 14,338 14,911
Shop Equipment 6,910 7,474 7,773 8,084 8,407 8,743
Miscellaneous Equipment 53,600 57,974 60,293 62,704 65,213 67,821
Contractual Services 162,563 175,828 182,861 190,176 197,783 205,694
Subtotal $ 1,629,682 $ 4,080,156 $ 4,256,120 $ 4,440,582 $ 4,634,012 $ 4,836,910
Mini-bus
Operating Wages 429,771 337,125 348,924 361,137 373,776 386,859
Operating Benefits 94,134 73,841 76,426 79,101 81,869 84,735
Supplies and Services 230 269 280 291 303 315
Printing and Promotion 260 304 316 329 342 356
General Liability Insurance 10,093 11,698 12,166 12,653 13,159 13,685
Utilities 370 467 495 525 556 590
Fuel 64,048 77,864 84,093 90,820 98,086 105,933
Vehicle Maintenance 117,225 137,186 142,673 148,380 154,315 160,488
Contractual Services 7,308 8,552 8,894 9,250 9,620 10,005
Dispatching 100, 000 104, 000 108,160 112, 486 116, 986
Software 5,741
Subtotal $ 729,180 $ 747,307 $ 778,268 $ 810,646 $ 844,514 $ 879,950
Total $ 2,358,862 $ 4,827,463 $ 5,034,388 $ 5,251,228 $ 5,478,525 $ 5,716,861
Source: KeyLine, 2008; LSC, 2009
b
m
~C
C
Table XV-4
30-Minute All-Day Service Five-Year Budget
Fixed-Route FY 08 Budget FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
Operating Wages 464,274 1,569,907 1,624,854 1,681,724 1,740,584 1,801,505
Operating Benefits 131,723 445,411 461,001 477,136 493,836 511,120
Admin Wages 46,151 49,438 51,168 52,959 54,813 56,731
Admin Benefits 35,705 38,248 39,587 40,972 42,406 43,891
Maintenance Wages 73,295 247,841 256,516 265,494 274,786 284,404
Maintenance Benefits 22,844 77,245 79,949 82,747 85,643 88,641
Supplies and Services 10,360 35,371 36,786 38,257 39,787 41,379
Printing and Promotion 24,695 84,313 87,686 91,193 94,841 98,634
General Liability Insurance 32,283 110,220 114,629 119,214 123,982 128,942
Other Insurance 2,863 9,775 10,166 10,572 10,995 11,435
Travel 8,564 29,239 30,409 31,625 32,890 34,205
Utilities 86,347 93,393 98,996 104,936 111,232 117,906
Fuel 174,800 619,972 669,570 723,135 780,986 843,465
Vehicle Maintenance 288,389 984,610 1,023,995 1,064,954 1,107,553 1,151,855
Maintenance and Operating Expense 4,316 14,736 15,325 15,938 16,576 17,239
Shop Equipment 6,910 7,474 7,773 8,084 8,407 8,743
Miscellaneous Equipment 53,600 57,974 60,293 62,704 65,213 67,821
Contractual Services 162,563 175,828 182,861 190,176 197,783 205,694
Subtotal $ 1,629,682 $ 4,650,996 $ 4,851,562 $ 5,061,822 $ 5,282,313 $ 5,513,610
Mini-bus
Operating Wages 429,771 337,125 348,924 361,137 373,776 386,859
Operating Benefits 94,134 73,841 76,426 79,101 81,869 84,735
Supplies and Services 230 269 280 291 303 315
Printing and Promotion 260 304 316 329 342 356
General Liability Insurance 10,093 11,698 12,166 12,653 13,159 13,685
Utilities 370 467 495 525 556 590
Fuel 64,048 77,864 84,093 90,820 98,086 105,933
Vehicle Maintenance 117,225 137,186 142,673 148,380 154,315 160,488
Contractual Services 7,308 8,552 8,894 9,250 9,620 10,005
Dispatching 100,000 104,000 108,160 112,486 116,986
Software 5,741
Subtotal $ 729,180 $ 747,307 $ 778,268 $ 810,646 $ 844,514 $ 879,950
Total $ 2,358,862 $ 5,398,302 $ 5,629,830 $ 5,872,467 $ 6,126,827 $ 6,393,560
Source: KeyLine, 2008; LSC, 2009
Financial Plan
One of the major reasons that there is a large increase in costs is that service will
be provided two hours longer each day, the Trolley will operate year-round, and
funding is provided for the RTA Express. The longer service hours, along with an
enhanced service area, create a greater cost. The cost to provide paratransit is
slightly lower during the first few years of implementation, largely due to the
savings created by greater efficiency with consolidated scheduling.
Using a 60-minute headway, the new system has the lowest costs as it provides
the least amount of service, comparatively. Because of the extended hours and a
mix of services provided, a service with 60-minute headways provides more than
double the revenue-hours. As the headways decrease in time, a greater amount
of service will be provided. A 30-minute daily headway is the most expensive
option, but it also provides sufficient service for both transit-dependent indi-
viduals and choice riders.
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table XV-5 provides a 10-year plan for the recommended phasing plan. This table
is important because it shows the progression of operating costs as services
increase over the next 10 years. Although the first year in the implementation plan
is the least costly, it represents the greatest increase in cost, albeit over atwo-year
period. In conjunction with the implementation plan, 60-minute service is in
operation between FY 2010 and FY 2012. Starting in FY 2013, service will be
operating at 30-minute headways during the peak times and 60-minute headways
during the middle of the day. This service will operate through 2016, with the final
four years of the 10-year plan operating service at 30-minute headways all day.
This phasing plan is tentative and will ultimately be decided as part of the
budgeting process.
Table XV-6 provides a 10-year phasing plan for capital projects, including bus pro-
curement and facility upgrades and maintenance. Costs for FY 2010 include the
replacement schedule provided by KeyLine, as well as the purchase of two addi-
tional trolleys to run service. In addition, the cost to develop a new site for the
Delhi transfer center is estimated at approximately$2 million. This figure includes
the attainment and development of land. The new site will need to provide ade-
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XV 7
Financial Plan
quate shelter, amenities, and appropriate space for pedestrian and vehicle cir-
culation. Actual costs will depend on the character of the chosen site.
Another cost that was added to the table is the cost to upgrade the current bus
stops. Current bus stop signage and access need to be improved to meet ADA
standards and provide a more comfortable experience for the passenger. This cost
is slightly higher during the first year with subsequent costs at roughly $30,000
annually. The cost to upgrade all of the bus stops simultaneously is too great to
incur at one time. Thus, the costs to upgrade these locations is dispersed among
the other capital costs.
In total, the capital costs for the first year of the system (FY 2010) are the highest
at approximately$4.18 million. Subsequent years are significantly less, primarily
because the bus replacement and transfer center costs are more significant during
the first year. The remaining capital costs generally peak during the years just
prior to a change in service. FY 2014 also shows a large cost as six heavy-duty
buses will need to be replaced with medium-duty vehicles during that year.
The costs forvehicle replacement and the need for additional vehicles was derived
from the current bus fleet's expected life and the need to increase the fleet size in
conjunction with the recommended phasing plan. Please note that in FY 2015 and
FY 2017 possible replacement costs for the standard taxis and sprinter vans
scheduled for purchase in 2010 are considered. These vehicles have a shorter
period of use than larger vehicles and will thus have to be replaced more fre-
quently.
Lsc
Page XV 8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
CHAPTER XVI
Short-Term Implementation Steps
INTRODUCTION
The proposed service improvements require a significant increase in funding over
the current level of service. Much of the increased cost in the proposed service
plan is related to the extension of service hours to better serve commuters. Until
the service hours are extended earlier in the morning and later in the evening, the
transit service in Dubuque will not be an option for most commuters.
There are steps which can be taken to improve transit service in Dubuque without
a significant increase in cost. However, it must be noted that these improvements
will better serve existing users, but should not be expected to make the service an
option for new users.
ROUTE AND SCHEDULE CHANGES
The following changes are recommended forthe current routes. In some cases the
routes are changed. The recommendation for the Orange Route is elimination of
the fixed route and replacement with ademand-response service zone. The pro-
posed changes are shown in Figure XVI-1.
Orange Route
The Orange Route will be converted to ademand-response zone service as
described below under the South End Demand Response. This change will serve
a broader area and provide service to the new Department of Motor Vehicles
location. Elimination of this route provides the service hours to operate the South
End Demand Response.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XVI 1
Short Term Implementation Steps
Green Route
The western terminus of the Green Route will be at the Kennedy Circle transfer
center. This route has been realigned to reduce the running time so that the route
may be operated with hourly service using one vehicle. The proposed schedule is
shown in Table XVI-1. The route will continue to serve the area north of down-
town, but will not serve the existing downtown transfer center. The route travels
west from Downtown on Loras Boulevard directly to the Delhi transfer center. The
route then follows Grandview to Route 20/Dodge Street to serve Kmart and then
west to Kennedy Circle via J.F. Kennedy Road. The Green Route would no longer
serve Pennsylvania Avenue and Hillcrest Road, or any areas west of J.F. Kennedy
Road. Reducing the number ofvehicles required on this route provides the vehicle
and hours of service to operate the West End Demand Response, the Asbury
Tripper, and the Industrial Park Tripper.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XVI 3
b
P
s
Table XVI-1
Green Line Interim Schedule
Westbound Eastbound
32nd & 24th & Jackson & Jackson & 24th & 32nd &
Delhi Plaza 20 Shopko JFK Shopko Plaza 20 Delhi
Saunders Central 14th 14th Central Saunders
6:30AM 6:35 AM 6:40 AM 6:45 AM 6:52 AM 6:57 AM 7:OOAM 7:03 AM 7:08 AM 7:15 AM 7:20 AM 7:25 AM 7:30AM
7:30 AM 7:35 AM 7:40 AM 7:45 AM 7:52 AM 7:57 AM 8:00 AM 8:03 AM 8:08 AM 8:15 AM 8:20 AM 8:25 AM 8:30 AM
8:30 AM 8:35 AM 8:40 AM 8:45 AM 8:52 AM 8:57 AM 9:00 AM 9:03 AM 9:08 AM 9:15 AM 9:20 AM 9:25 AM 9:30 AM
9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9:40 AM 9:45 AM 9:52 AM 9:57 AM 10:00 AM 10:03 AM 10:08 AM 10:15 AM 10:20 AM 10:25 AM 10:30 AM
10:30 AM 10:35 AM 10:40 AM 10:45 AM 10:52 AM 10:57 AM 11:00 AM 11:03 AM 11:08 AM 11:15 AM 11:20 AM 11:25 AM 11:30 AM
11:30 AM 11:35 AM 11:40AM 11:45 AM 11:52 AM 11:57 AM 12:00 PM 12:03 PM 12:08 PM 12:15 PM 12:20 PM 12:25 PM 12:30 PM
12:30 PM 12:35 PM 12:40 PM 12:45 PM 12:52 PM 12:57 PM 1:00 PM 1:03 PM 1:08 PM 1:15 PM 1:20 PM 1:25 PM 1:30 PM
1:30 PM 1:35 PM 1:40 PM 1:45 PM 1:52 PM 1:57 PM 2:00 PM 2:03 PM 2:08 PM 2:15 PM 2:20 PM 2:25 PM 2:30 PM
2:30 PM 2:35 PM 2:40 PM 2:45 PM 2:52 PM 2:57 PM 3:00 PM 3:03 PM 3:08 PM 3:15 PM 3:20 PM 3:25 PM 3:30 PM
3:30 PM 3:35 PM 3:40 PM 3:45 PM 3:52 PM 3:57 PM 4:00 PM 4:03 PM 4:08 PM 4:15 PM 4:20 PM 4:25 PM 4:30 PM
4:30 PM 4:35 PM 4:40 PM 4:45 PM 4:52 PM 4:57 PM 5:00 PM 5:03 PM 5:08 PM 5:15 PM 5:20 PM 5:25 PM 5:30 PM
5:30 PM 5:35 PM 5:40 PM 5:45 PM 5:52 PM 5:57 PM 6:00 PM 6:03 PM 6:08 PM 6:15 PM 6:20 PM 6:25 PM 6:30 PM
Source: LSC, 2009.
Short Term Implementation Steps
Red Route
The proposed changes to the Red Route will shorten the route and decrease the
running time. A revised schedule for the Red Route is shown in Table XVI-2. The
route will continue to serve Mt. Saint Francis and downtown. West of downtown,
the route follows 9"' Street and University to the Delhi transfer center. West of the
Delhi transfer center, the route follows Pennsylvania to J.F. Kennedy Road and
then to the Kennedy Circle transfer center. From Kennedy Circle, this route travels
to Kennedy Mall, Target, Wal-Mart, Medical Associates, and the Social Security
Administration office. The bus returns by the same route. The Red Route will no
longer serve Mercy Hospital which will be served by the South End Demand
Response. The Industrial Park will no longer be served by the Red Route, but will
be served by the Industrial Park Tripper and the West End Demand Response.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XVI 5
b
P
s
Table XVI-2
Red Line Interim Schedule
Westbound Eastbound
Medical
Mount St. Winder and Kennedy Kennedy Winder and Mount St.
Downtown Delhi 1FK Circle Wal-Mart Associates Wal-Mart 1FK Circle Delhi Downtown
Francis 22nd Mall Mall 22nd Francis
West
6:45 AM 6:50 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:25 AM 7:30 AM 7:35 AM 7:45 AM 7:52 AM 5:00 AM S:OS AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:40 AM 5:45 AM
7:45 AM 7:50 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:25 AM 5:30 AM S:3S AM 5:45 AM 5:52 AM 9:00 AM 9:05 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:40 AM 9:45 AM
5:45 AM 5:50 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:25 AM 9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9:45AM 9:52 AM 10:OOAM 10:OSAM 10:15AM 10:30AM 10:40 AM 10:45AM
9:45 AM 9:50 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:25 AM 10:30 AM 10:35 AM 10:45AM 10:52 AM 11:OOAM 11:OSAM 11:15AM 11:30AM 11:40 AM 11:45AM
10:45 AM 10:50 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:25 AM 11:30 AM 11:35 AM 11:45AM 11:52 AM 12:00 PM 12:05 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:40 PM 12:45 PM
11:45 AM 11:50 AM 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:25 PM 12:30 PM 12:35 PM 12:45 PM 12:52 PM 1:00 PM 1:05 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:40 PM 1:45 PM
12:45 PM 12:50 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:25 PM 1:30 PM 1:35 PM 1:45 PM 1:52 PM 2:00 PM 2:05 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:40 PM 2:45 PM
1:45 PM 1:50 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:25 PM 2:30 PM 2:35 PM 2:45 PM 2:52 PM 3:00 PM 3:05 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:40 PM 3:45 PM
2:45 PM 2:50 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:25 PM 3:30 PM 3:35 PM 3:45 PM 3:52 PM 4:00 PM 4:05 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:40 PM 4:45 PM
3:45 PM 3:50 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:25 PM 4:30 PM 4:35 PM 4:45 PM 4:52 PM 5:00 PM 5:05 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:40 PM 5:45 PM
4:45 PM 4:50 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:25 PM 5:30 PM 5:35 PM 5:45 PM 5:52 PM 6:00 PM 6:05 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:40 PM 6:45 PM
5:45 PM 5:50 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:25 PM 6:30 PM 6:35 PM 6:45 PM - - - - - - -
Sourze: LSC; 2009.
Short Term Implementation Steps
Grey Route
The proposed change to the Grey Route is to eliminate service to Kennedy Mall
and serve the loop of Pennsylvania Avenue, Chaney Road, and Hillcrest Road cur-
rently served by the Green Route. This route allows this area to be served while
shortening the Green Route to reduce the number of vehicles required on the
Green Route. The proposed schedule is presented in Table XVI-3.
Downtown Shuttle
The recommendation is to extend the downtown shuttle to year-round operations
and to increase the frequency of service. The year-round service and increased fre-
quency will require additional funding which could be provided through support
of major downtown employers.
Asbury Tripper
The Asbury Tripper will provide service to Goodwill and Asbury Plaza during peak
travel times with one trip in the morning and one in the afternoon. At other times
of the day, these areas will be served by the West End Demand Response.
Industrial Park Tripper
The Industrial Park Tripper will serve the Dubuque Industrial Park with one trip
in the morning and one afternoon trip to meet peak commute times. At other times
of the day, the area will be served by the West End Demand Response.
West End Demand Response
The West End Demand Response will operate as ademand-response service for
areas west of J.F. Kennedy Road. The bus will be scheduled to allow transfers to
and from the Green Route, Grey Route, and Red Route at Kennedy Circle. To be
picked up within the service zone, passengers will be required to call KeyLine to
schedule the ride. Passengers transferring from either of the routes will not be
required to call, but will only need to transfer at the transfer center.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XVI 7
b
P
s
Table XVI-3
Grey Line Interim Schedule
Westbound Eartbound
Chaney& Hillcrest& Chaney&
Point 20th&Elm Downtown Senior High Delhi St. Mary's Sunset Park 1FK Circle $ nnset Park St. Mary's Delhi Senior High Downtown 20th&Elm Point
Asbury Chaney Asbury
5:45 AM 5:53 AM 6:00 AM 6:10 AM 6:15 AM 6:19 AM 6:25 AM 6:30 AM 6:40 AM 6:45 AM ]:00 AM ]:OS AM ]:11 AM ]:15 AM ]:20 AM ]:30 AM ]:3]AM ]:45 AM
6:45 AM 6:53 AM ]:00 AM ]:10 AM ]:1S AM ]:19 AM ]:2S AM ]:30 AM ]:40 AM ]:4S AM 8:00 AM S:OS AM 8:11 AM S:1S AM 8:20 AM 8:30 AM 8:3]AM 8:45 AM
]:45 AM ]:53 AM 8:00 AM 8:10 AM 8:15 AM 8:19 AM 8:25 AM 8:30 AM 8:40 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:05 AM 9:11 AM 9:15 AM 9:20 AM 9:30 AM 9:3]AM 9:45 AM
8:45 AM 8:53 AM 9:00 AM 9:10 AM 9:15 AM 9:19 AM 9:25 AM 9:30 AM 9:40 AM 9:45 AM 10:00AM 10:05 AM 10:11 AM 10:15 AM 10:20 AM 10:30 AM 10:3]AM 10:45 AM
9:45 AM 9:53 AM 10:00AM 10:10 AM 10:15 AM 10:19AM 10:25 AM 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 10:4SAM 11:OOAM 11:05 AM 11:11 AM 11:15 AM 11:20 AM 11:30 AM 11:3]AM 11:45 AM
10:45 AM 10:53 AM 11:OOAM 11:10 AM 11:15 AM 11:19AM 11:25 AM 11:30 AM 11:40 AM 11:45AM 12:00 PM 12:05 PM 12:11 PM 12:15 PM 12:20 PM 12:30 PM 12:3]PM 12:45 PM
11:45 AM 11:53 AM 12:00 PM 12:10 PM 12:15 PM 12:19 PM 12:25 PM 12:30 PM 12:40 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:05 PM 1:11 PM 1:15 PM 1:20 PM 1:30 PM 1:3]PM 1:45 PM
12:45 PM 12:53 PM 1:00 PM 1:10 PM 1:15 PM 1:19 PM 1:25 PM 1:30 PM 1:40 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:05 PM 2:11 PM 2:15 PM 2:20 PM 2:30 PM 2:3]PM 2:45 PM
1:45 PM 1:53 PM 2:00 PM 2:10 PM 2:15 PM 2:19 PM 2:25 PM 2:30 PM 2:40 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:05 PM 3:11 PM 3:15 PM 3:20 PM 3:30 PM 3:3]PM 3:45 PM
2:45 PM 2:53 PM 3:00 PM 3:10 PM 3:15 PM 3:19 PM 3:25 PM 3:30 PM 3:40 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:05 PM 4:11 PM 4:15 PM 4:20 PM 4:30 PM 4:3]PM 4:45 PM
3:45 PM 3:53 PM 4:00 PM 4:10 PM 4:15 PM 4:19 PM 4:25 PM 4:30 PM 4:40 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM S:OS PM 5:11 PM 5:15 PM 5:20 PM 5:30 PM S:3]PM 5:45 PM
3:45 PM 3:53 PM 4:00 PM 4:10 PM 4:15 PM 4:19 PM 4:25 PM 4:30 PM 4:40 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:05 PM 5:11 PM 5:15 PM 5:20 PM 5:30 PM 5:3]PM 5:45 PM
4:45 PM 4:53 PM 5:00 PM 5:10 PM 5:15 PM 5:19 PM 5:25 PM 5:30 PM 5:40 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:05 PM 6:11 PM 6:15 PM 6:20 PM 6:30 PM 6:3]PM 6:45 PM
5:45 PM 5:53 PM 6:00 PM 6:10 PM 6:15 PM 6:19 PM 6:25 PM 6:30 PM 6:40 PM 6:45 PM
.: uc, zom.
Short Term Implementation Steps
South End Demand Response
The South End Demand Response will serve the areas currently served by the
Orange Route in the South End. The service areawill be extended to Key West to
include the Department of Motor Vehicles office. The bus will be scheduled to
allow transfers to and from the Green Route, Grey Route, and Red Route at the
Delhi transfer center. To be picked up within the service zone, passengers will be
required to call KeyLine to schedule the ride. Passengers transferring from either
of the routes will not be required to call, but will only need to transfer at the
transfer center.
University/College Shuttle
A proposed new service is to operate an evening shuttle service on Friday and
Saturday evenings to serve the university, colleges, and keydestinations including
downtown and the retail developments in the West End. This new service will
require additional funding of approximately $40,000. The recommended approach
to fund this new service is to obtain fmancial support from the student population
at the colleges and university. This could be in the form of funding by the
institution, a pass program for students, or a student fee.
Extend Operating Hours
One of the greatest improvements that could be made for transit service in
Dubuque is to extend the span of service hours on weekdays by starting earlier
in the morning and ending later in the evening. The preferred plan describes the
extended hours. The hours could be extended without changing the route struc-
ture from the current routes or could be implemented with the routes proposed
in this implementation plan.
This step will require additional funding because ofthe additional hours and miles
of service. The estimated additional cost to extend the hours of operation is
approximately $380,000 per year.
An option for providing extended service hours would be to use a subsidized taxi
program. This would rely on local taxi companies which would be required to
comply with all FTA requirements. The cost of this option would depend on the
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XVI 9
Short Term Implementation Steps
level of subsidy provided and could be limited to the current average subsidy for
fixed-route service.
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES
The only recommendation for immediate consideration is the consolidation of
scheduling and dispatching functions.
Consolidated Dispatching/Scheduling
Currently both the Mini-bus and the RTA provide scheduling and dispatching. By
consolidating this function between the two agencies, there is a potential cost
savings related to software maintenance and the number of dispatchers. There is
also the potential to improve productivity of the two systems by consolidating
trips.
The City should explore the possibility of consolidated dispatch with the RTA. This
could be set up through an Intergovernmental Agreement. The anticipated com-
bined cost savings to the RTA and the City is estimated to be a minimum of
$50,000 annually and could be as high as $200,000 annually based on increased
productivity.
MARKETING AND CUSTOMER INFORMATION
Automatic Vehicle Location
KeyLine has begun to install global positioning systems (GPS) in vehicles so that
vehicle location will be reported automatically and be observed by dispatchers.
This effort should continue. The data obtained through this system will allow
KeyLine to provide real-time schedule information to passengers.
Mobile Data Terminals
KeyLine should continue efforts to install Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) on all
buses. This will provide a better means of collecting passenger data and monitor-
ing system performance to make future system improvements.
Lsc
Page XVI 10 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Short Term Implementation Steps
Real-Time Passenger Information
KeyLine should take steps to improve information availability for passengers. One
ofthe steps is to provide real-time information to passengers about bus schedules.
KeyLine is in the process of coding routes and schedules for entry into Google
Transit. This will provide easy access to routes and schedules and allow passen-
gers to plan trips through the Google website.
The Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) system to be installed on buses will provide
data which can then be provided to users. Passengers will be able to see the
expected arrival time of a bus at a stop instead of relying on the scheduled time.
This information should also be posted on message boards at key stops such as
the downtown transfer center and the hospitals. Although this information will be
useful to some passengers, it is not expected to increase demand in the short
term. This step should be implemented to support future service improvements
which will be effective in attracting new riders.
FACILITIES
No major facility improvements are recommended in the immediate future. How-
ever, KeyLine should take steps to improve bus stops. The first recommendation
is to develop a bus stop sign that clearly identifies the stop as a KeyLine stop and
indicates which route or routes serve that stop. The sign pole should also have
space to display the scheduled times for the routes serving that stop. This
improvement should be implemented for all stops within the system.
Major stops should have additional improvements such as accessible walkways,
shelters, and wheelchair loading pads. KeyLine should identify stops for improve-
ments based on high passenger activity and develop an improvement plan to
upgrade several bus stops each year. Only those stops which will be served in
both the current route structure and the preferred service plan should be priori-
tized for improvements.
Lsc
KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report Page XVI 11
Short Term Implementation Steps
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Figure XVI-2 shows the proposed schedule for implementation of the recommen-
dations described in this chapter. Many of these actions may be implemented
immediately because there is no impact on the operating budget. Others will
require new funding and that is identified as part of the schedule for implemen-
tation.
Lsc
Page XVI 12 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Final Report
Appendix B
ONBOARD SURVEY COMMENTS
Question 29. What are your suggestions to improve KeyLine service/any other
comments?
Miscellaneous (3 percent)
• Information
• More posting if you guys have to cancel routes, like use the radio as well.
• Survey too long.
• Workers that know how to fix them.
Bus Conditions (8 percent)
• At the transfers, it would be great if the drivers took a rag and quicMy wiped off
the dirty seats. Increase the fare so the gas for the bus can be paid for.
• Bike rack.
• Bike racks.
• Bus could be cleaner.
• Buses could be more modern (update). Buses should run longer (7 pm).
• Get new bells and better doors.
• Need bicycle racks.
• Need new buses or they get fixed.
• Some of the buses need to turn the heat on.
• They need voice to say what stop is next on intercom. Show time and day/
month. More seats so extend hydraulic system to operate from front of bus.
Longer bus schedules for every 15-30 minutes instead of hours and more bus
routes and run on Sundays and hire more drivers to have a longer schedule.
Basically run 24 hours, you'll see more money, like Chicago.
• To get Nitro in the bus!!
Drivers (5 percent)
• Better attitude and bus running on Sunday.
• Bus drivers need better pay and insurance. Longer hours.
• Friendlier drivers and more poles to hold onto.
• Get better drivers.
• I would like to see the drivers let people getto a seat before pulling out of a stop.
• Some drivers need to be more friendlier and work on attitude.
• Some of the drivers' attitudes and their timeliness.
-1-
Fares (6 percent)
• Any school ID can be used.
• Don't raise the fare.
• Higher fare -- better service (more routes, more buses).
• I barely make it on $1.00 bus fare. I love riding bus; meet people. Bus drivers
are very nice to talk to. I love riding the bus.
• Keep the fare at no more than $1.00. You'llget more riders. Watch for more foul
mouth riders, etc.
• Maybe for all kids free and adults $1.00. Maybe they could wait for people a little
longer.
• The fare should be fora 24-hour pass valid for any line.
• This service is subsidized by the government! Make it free or $20 a month!
Passengers (2 percent)
• Kick more annoying people off.
• Most of the buses are fairly clean. It is sad to see people laying down on rainy
days or during the winter making the seats dirty. I know it's difficult, but I would
like the drivers to be stricter with the patrons regarding etiquette.
• The people on it
Positive (5 percent)
• Ok now.
• Everything is fine at this time.
• I think that it is outstanding that a city as small as Dubuque has a public transit
system with the level of coverage that KeyLine provides. My only suggestions
are that the buses should have bicycle racks (as seen on buses in some other
cities), that the bus service should also include Sundays, and that regular bus
hours should extend further into the evening hours.
• Just keep up the good work and do best KeyLine can do.
• Keep running on time.
• Love the bus service.
Safety (2 percent)
• Slow down, bumpy ride.
• When we pick up the kids at the Lincoln school area, they need to find a seat.
Not all the time but sometimes they stand on the back steps (not safe). Some
drivers must not see this or just leave it go.
Schedules (3 percent)
• Advance notice when buses are not running.
• Need to place time of arrival and leaving Medical Associates West.
• The online map is unreadable, should have an option to zoom in to see street
names.
-2-
• The website needs to be able to zoom in on the map because it is very hard to
read the print.
Service (64 percent)
• 1. Need to expand bus routes. 2. Need good drivers...[illegible] 3. Need to start
running at 4 AM and run late til 8 PM. 4. Keep noisy, rude kids off the bus or
come up with something that will keep them quiet.
• Sageville
• All week -longer Sunday.
• Allow Red line and Green line run every half hour. They're the most used buses.
I and others won't have to be on the bus most of the day. You could run the
Gray line every half hour also. It helps when you miss your bus to know you
don't have to stay in the elements too long.
• Being able to be dropped off on Hwy 20.
• Bus run for churches on Sunday.
• Bus should nan later in the day --until 10:00 p.m.
• Bus to Northend - Tanzanite
• Buses available on Sundays -longer hours.
• Buses running more often per bus stop.
• Earlier on Saturday and later during the week.
• Earlier service on Saturdays.
• Evening buses, Sunday buses.
• EXTEND BUS HOURS like years ago (run till 9:OOPM or 10:OOPM). Gives
people in this town a chance to get food for their families after work and to get
back home from the doctor, if you had a late appointment.
• Extend the hours at night.
• For buses to come more often.
• For buses to run longer.
• Get more buses. Run 7 days a week. Run 24 hours.
• Going to areas where more people actually use the bus, i,e. people who live on
the West End don't usually ride the bus.
• Half-hour service Monday through Saturday.
• Hardly any one picks up on west side --all cars. Can you get minivans and pick
up at bus stop those who call in. Done other places and Tiajuana. Train drivers
to smile and say "Hello"
• Have it cover more areas in the city. The arboretum is a nice place to visit but
no bus goes that way.
• Have service past 5 pm and on Sunday.
• Have the buses run on Sunday.
• How about Sunday service.
• I feel the buses should run later.
• I was downtown at 5:20 waiting for the Red line and sat there for 45 minutes in
the freezing cold. It wasn't pleasant. The bus never came. That was the only
problem I ever had.
• I wish buses would run to midnight.
-3-
• I would like ifthe bus would run a little later and on Sundays. There are so many
places myself and others would like to go after 5:30 and on Sundays but there
is no transit available.
• I would like the busto run later into the evening, say 11:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. Sunday doesn't matter.
• I would like to have bus service later each day. Also, Sunday service would help
people who have no other means of transportation.
• I would like to see the bus run on Sunday because that is when the ads come
out in the paper. Also run later on Friday and Saturday till 8 pm for people who
work till 5:00 on these days. Thank you.
• I'd be willing to pay a higher fare if service continued later in the evening.
• Later bus service -maybe till 8 or 9 at least.
• Later service hours.
• Later services
• Longer bus hours to do shopping and to get home from late doctor appoint-
ments. Would like to have a bus to drop off and to pick up people at Eagle Point
Park again.
• Longer hours and 30 minutes between buses.
• Longer hours even if this means that fares go up. I have to work late.
• Longer hours of service.
• Longer hours on Saturday.
• Longer hours.
• Make longer hours.
• Maybe think about running on Sundays until 3 p.m. at least. Regarding fare:
$1.00 is a lot for many low-income families.
• More buses, later service, and to be more frequent. It is hard to get around when
buses stop running. I don't have a carand I can'twork more hours because I will
have no way to get home.
• More buses, less time on bus, (more direct service).
• More night service and Sunday service.
• More routes.
• More times, would pay more.
• More weekend service -- Saturday longer and Sunday. Up to like 7 pm-ish at
night during week so people can do things after work or get home if working
after 5 p.m. (or longer). Drivers are pretty good.
• Need more buses, need to have better times.
• Need to run at least every 30 minutesinstead of hour, and need to operate after
6:00 PM.
• On Saturday let some buses run earlier or some buses run on Sunday.
• Open till 9:00.
• People have places to go every day at all times. My suggestion is to have
extended hours and to have bus service on Sundays aswell as Mon. -Sat.
• Please give us more rider time.
• Please go down Holiday Drive regularly instead of having to telephone. I do not
have a telephone. Please have buses go to the arboretum, Union Park and the
fairgrounds (during fair days) when spring and summer. Do not increase price --
it ishigh enough!! But if you go to special places like the Arboretum, Union Park
-4-
or the fairgrounds, then increase to $1.50 is OK because then that would be
$3.00 round trip.
• Please have Green line and Red line buses run every half hour. They're the
most used.
• Please have have buses comes every 30 minutes, then people dont have to
wait so long in the cold.
• Put more stops, more buses so it don't take so long, play a radio.
• Run it.
• Run longer in the evening.
• Run on Sundays 8-12.
• Run on Sundays and later hours.
• Run on Sundays.
• Saturday @ 7:00 a.m.
• Schedules and hours -run earlier on Saturday; later during the week.
• Service on Sunday, at least every 2 hours on each run.
• Service on Sundays and run after 5.
• Service should be provided 7 days a week with more day and night shifts.
• Stay on 24 hours. Closed on Sundays.
• Sunday Routes :)
• Sunday service.
• Sunday service and extended pass; 5 pm daily.
• Sunday service and some weekend evening service
• Sunday service and until at least 10 p.m. Monday-Saturday.
• Sunday service, later routes.
• The bus needs to run later because it's hard to take care of business. I don't
have a car. I can't work any extra hours at work because I have no other means
of transportation. Also, the buses should run more frequently because when I
get off the bus to take care of minor things, I have to wait about an hour for the
bus again.
• There needs to be Sunday service and longer service hours.
• There should be night service because that's when people need the bus more.
• They need the stopping time or pick-up time listed on the bus stop.
• To wait a little longer at stops, main stops, like stores, doctor, other places. And
some drivers to be more friendly. Be more on time and punctual.
• Would like Sunday service to Mall, Hy Vee, downtown. Pick up at Medical
Towers apts.
• Would ride 24 hrs. 7 days a week if service was provided. I really need hours
extended at least until 8pm to allow for both shopping and work. Buses need
bike racks. Telephone office should be manned all the time.
Stops (2 percent)
• At blood plasma center (by Med. Assoc. West) need a shelter or bus to go to
plasma center. In cold weather, cold at corner with no protection.
• Have more inside shelters at bus stops.
-5-
15. How long have you been riding the Mini-bus?
^ This is my first time ^ One year
^ One week ^ Two years
^ One month ^ More than two years
16. How did you first learn about the Mini-bus and KeyLine Transit?
^ Bus stop sign ^ Advertisement
^ Saw bus ^ Saw bus guide
^ Friend/coworker ^ Other
17. Where do you live?
^ Downtown District ^ Southend District
^ College Grandview District ^ Eagle Point District
^ Westend District
22. What are your suggestions to improve KeyLine orMini-bus service?
18. If employed, where do you work?
Name of Business:
19. Are you able to use KeyLine's fixed routes for any of your transportation
needs?
^ Yes ^ No
20. If so, how often each week do you use fixed routes?
^ One day ^ Four days ^ Less than once a month
^ Two days ^ Five days ^ One -three days/month
^ Three days ^ Six/seven days ^ This is my first time
21. Does the existing service operate late enough?
THANK YOU!!
^ Yes ^ No
Appendix D
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 far 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 very 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 ofyou 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? 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 meds (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-