MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION INFORMATION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Stephen Jahns, P.Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Engineering and Transportation Division DATE: July 28, 2011 SUBJECT: CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent This report is submitted for the information of Council. BACKGROUND Existing Services - Conventional CK Transit Chatham Conventional is a conventional public transit system operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham- Kent. CK Transit Chatham Conventional operates four (4) routes within the Community of Chatham on a 30 minute cycle Monday through Saturday from 06:15 through 19:15. These routes are aligned in a radial orientation with all buses travelling in a one-way, counterclockwise direction interlining at the Downtown Transit Terminal. Reference Appendix B for route maps and fare structure. Table 1: CK Transit – Chatham Conventional Transit – Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time Frequency Monday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Tuesday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Wednesday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Thursday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Friday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Saturday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Sunday n/a n/a n/a Existing Services - Interurban CK Transit Interurban is a conventional public transit system operated by P.J. Weaver Industries as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Municipality is serviced by three (3) primary routes within the Municipality of Chatham- Kent on a four trips per day cycle Monday through Saturday. Between the Victoria Day
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
INFORMATION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Stephen Jahns, P.Eng.
Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Engineering and Transportation Division
DATE: July 28, 2011 SUBJECT: CK Transit Service Review - 2011
Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent This report is submitted for the information of Council. BACKGROUND Existing Services - Conventional CK Transit Chatham Conventional is a conventional public transit system operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. CK Transit Chatham Conventional operates four (4) routes within the Community of Chatham on a 30 minute cycle Monday through Saturday from 06:15 through 19:15. These routes are aligned in a radial orientation with all buses travelling in a one-way, counterclockwise direction interlining at the Downtown Transit Terminal. Reference Appendix B for route maps and fare structure.
Table 1: CK Transit – Chatham Conventional Transit – Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time Frequency
Monday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Tuesday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Wednesday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Thursday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Friday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Saturday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Sunday n/a n/a n/a Existing Services - Interurban CK Transit Interurban is a conventional public transit system operated by P.J. Weaver Industries as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Municipality is serviced by three (3) primary routes within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent on a four trips per day cycle Monday through Saturday. Between the Victoria Day
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 2
Weekend and the Labour Day Weekend, CK Transit also operates Seasonal Route S1 which circulates between the Communities of Chatham, Erieau and Mitchell’s Bay. Reference Appendix C for route maps and fare structures. Existing Services – Chatham Accessible Transit CK Transit Chatham Accessible is a curb-to-curb accessible public transit system operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Community of Chatham is serviced by three (3) accessible transit vehicles of varying size which circulate within the approved service area of the Community of Chatham. Currently, there are over six hundred (600) individuals registered to use the service to improve their quality of life within the Community of Chatham.
Table 2: CK Transit – Chatham Accessible Transit - Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time
Monday 08:00 18:00 Tuesday 08:00 18:00 Wednesday 08:00 18:00 Thursday 08:00 18:00 Friday 08:00 23:00 Saturday 09:00 18:00 Sunday 09:00 17:00 The Municipality of Chatham-Kent has received requests to provide extended hours of service to 23:00 and additional bus resources to accommodate greater usage of the accessible service. Such a request is subject to budget deliberations and is allowed for in the existing contract with the service provider. Engineering and Transportation Division will provide a report for referral to the 2012 budget process. Existing Services – Wallaceburg Accessible Transit CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible is a curb-to-curb accessible public transit system operated by Cadillac Cabs Incorporated as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Community of Wallaceburg is serviced by two (2) accessible transit vans which circulate within the approved service area of the Community of Wallaceburg. Currently, there are over three hundred and fifty (350) individuals registered to use the service.
Table 3: CK Transit – Wallaceburg Accessible Transit - Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time
Monday - Friday 08:00 18:00 Saturday 09:00 17:00 Sunday 09:00 17:00 Service Review In December of 2010, HDR|iTrans was assigned the following tasks associated with the existing transit services in the Community of Chatham:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 3
a. development of a bus shelter and bench policy, b. operational analysis of existing transit routes, c. redesign of existing transit routes and services, d. integration of transit fares, e. assessment of transit vehicles.
This Report This report is submitted to Council for information and in response to the items mentioned above. A complete copy of the report authored by HDR | iTrans is attached as Appendix A. COMMENTS GENERAL Development of Bus Shelter and Bench Policy A detailed Information Report has been authored by Engineering and Transportation Division which outlines the policy to be followed for the evaluation of existing and new transit stops. Please reference Report to Council 3371 for the complete details and strategic direction surrounding this policy. CK TRANSIT CHATHAM CONVENTIONAL SERVICE Operational Analysis of Existing CK Transit Routes Annually, Engineering and Transportation Division staff conducts a ridership survey of the CK Transit Chatham Conventional routes. Analysis of existing 2010 ridership survey data has identified the following:
Table 4: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Summary of Data Analysis of 2010 Ridership Survey Results
Route Boardings per Hour
Total Boardings Transfers Percentage of
Transfers Percentage Revenue
Passengers Revenue
Passengers per Hour Route 1 30.5 397 113 28% 72% 22.0 Route 2 22.1 287 91 32% 68% 15.0 Route 3 17.8 231 56 24% 76% 13.5 Route 4 23.0 299 105 35% 65% 15.0 Overall 23.4 1,214 365 30% 70% 16.3 Several service issues and potential mitigation measures associated with the conventional system have been identified and are provided in the following table:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 4
Table 5: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Summary of Service Issues Identified and Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by Consultant
Service Issues Identified Potential Mitigation Measure Identified by Consultant The radial loop system subjects transit riders to unnecessary, out of direction travel.
• C: Eliminate the existing one-way loop system and adopt a two-way loop pairing as illustrated in Figure 1. Pair Route 1 with Route 3 and Route 2 with Route 4.
• C: Route 1 service to the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services could be eliminated and terminate at the YMCA. Alternately, service to the Courthouse could be limited to normal business hours. This would save 1 minute of travel time.
• C: Modify Route 2 Northeast to reduce the overall travel distance without compromising walking distances as illustrated in Figure 1.
• C: For the approximate 5:00PM Route 3 delays caused by railway crossings, CK Transit should provide free taxi service (on-call basis) for those riders who miss their connection.
Passengers travelling inbound and beyond the downtown must transfer to another route if travelling to another quadrant of Chatham. Route 1 Northwest travels into the Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services Complex and requires the longest travel time of all routes. Route 2 Northeast requires additional travel time due to the provision of service to the North Maple Mall. Route 3 scheduled time is well below the system average primarily due to the need to have extra time for the one trip per day where train delay is experienced. Route 3 Southeast is impacted by train crossings in the PM; transfers can be missed or unduly delayed to accommodate transfers.
Eliminate the existing one-way loop system and adopt a two-way loop pairing as illustrated in Figure 1. Pair Route 1 with Route 3 and Route 2 with Route 4.
C: Adoption of the two-way loop pairing route alignment as illustrated in Figure 1 will reduce but not eliminate the number of transfers between transit vehicles at the downtown terminal. S: A modification of this magnitude should only be made in consultation with all stakeholders. Such a consultation could be held prior to the transition to the next transit contract in January 2013. If appropriate, such a modification could then be adopted and written into the next transit contract. On the surface, this change does not appear to carry an associated cost as revenue vehicle hours appear to be the same pre- and post-modification. Adoption of the two-way loop pairing route alignment will not eliminate the delay issues experienced by Route 3 in the afternoon hours, rather it will reduce the impacts from all four routes down to only two routes.
Route 1 service to the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services could be eliminated and terminate at the YMCA. Alternately, service to the Courthouse could be limited to normal business hours.
C: This change would save 1 minute of travel time. S: Appendix A illustrates that the greatest number of boardings / alightings are made at the Courthouse stop. A portion of the riders who use this stop may actually patronize other services in this immediate area. As such, a portion of the ridership may not support or have the physical ability to sustain the additional walk required. A modification of this magnitude should only be made in consultation with all stakeholders. Such a consultation could be held prior to the transition to the next transit contract in January 2013. If appropriate, such a modification could then be adopted and written into the next transit contract. On the surface, this change does not appear to carry an associated cost as revenue vehicle hours appear to be the same pre- and post-modification.
Potential Mitigation Measure Discussion Points Modify Route 2 Northeast to reduce the overall travel distance without compromising walking distances as illustrated in Figure 1.
C: This modification will reduce the overall run time of the route. S: Agreed. This minor realignment could be implemented immediately by staff and accompanied with appropriate notices et cetera to convey this modification to the ridership.
For the approximate 5:00PM Route 3 delays caused by railway crossings, CK Transit should provide free taxi service (on-call basis) for those riders who miss their connection.
C: The associated financial impact is estimated to be in the range of $4,000 to $6,500 per year. These estimates are subject to the number of riders who require taxi shuttle service and the frequency of occasions per day / per week that the taxi shuttle service is required. S: Although the proposed taxi shuttle service deals with inconvenienced riders, it may not address the root of the issue. Perhaps the first step is to review the alignment of the route through the Community of Chatham and identify other areas which may be optimized to harvest additional time. A change in alignment immediately in the vicinity of the terminal (shift from Wellington Street over to King Street) would eliminate the need to cross two rail crossings on the outbound of every trip while maximizing right hand turns. Similarly, optimization of use of signalized intersections combined with minor realignments may improve times in the Queen Street and Park Avenue East areas. A modification of this magnitude should only be made in consultation with all stakeholders. Such a consultation could be held prior to the transition to the next transit contract in January 2013. If appropriate, such a modification could then be adopted and written into the next transit contract.
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 6
Although the HDR|iTrans report did not specifically address the impact that the above modifications may have on ridership levels, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will be greeted with improved ridership. Should a more conservative stance be chosen, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will maintain current ridership levels. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the operational analysis of the existing CK Transit Conventional routes:
1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on operational modifications to the existing routes and services in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013.
a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for the service while conducting a series of Public Information Centres to gather public opinion.
2. Investigate the truncation of Route 1 in the vicinity of the YMCA located on
Courthouse Lane. This shall include consultation with area stakeholders. Engineering and Transportation Division will return to Council with recommendations. Preliminary consultation has indicated a potential adverse impact to other entities offering services in this area.
3. Implement the modification to the alignment of Route 2 as identified in Table 6 above and as recommended by HDR|iTrans.
4. Investigate the possible realignment of Route 3 in the vicinity of the Downtown Terminal to reduce railway crossing events on outbound runs.
CK TRANSIT INTERURBAN SERVICE Operational Analysis of Existing CK Transit Routes The interurban transit service has not yet been fully implemented in Chatham-Kent. As illustrated in Appendix C, three (3) of the four (4) potential primary interurban routes have been rolled out. As part of the 2011 budget process, the final remaining route (suggested as serving the Communities of Chatham, Thamesville and Bothwell) was identified as supplemental pending this service review. Annually, Engineering and Transportation Division staff conducted a ridership survey of CK Transit Interurban Transit routes. 2010 Ridership data is provided in the following table:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 7
Table 7: CK Transit Interurban - Summary of 2010 Ridership Data Month Route A Route B Route C Route D Route S1 Comments January 374 - 100 267 - February 433 - 189 188 - March 546 - 287 258 - April 557 - 281 206 - No service on Good Friday May 469 - 238 211 - No service on Victoria Day (except S1) June 651 - 406 264 - July 691 - 314 250 372 No service on Canada Day (except S1) August 732 - 323 284 714 No service on Civic Holiday (except S1) September 715 - 303 271 54 No service on Labour Day (except S1) October 685 - 314 316 - No service on Thanksgiving November 667 - 326 273 - December 533 - 309 236 - No service on Christmas Total 7,053 -- 3,390 3,024 1,140 Note A: Route S1 was commenced July 1, 2010. In 2011, the route was commenced Victoria Day in May. Several service issues and potential mitigation measures associated with the interurban system have been identified and are provided in the following table:
Table 8: CK Transit Interurban Summary of Service Issues Identified and Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by Consultant
Service Issues Identified Potential Mitigation Measure Identified by Consultant Interurban transit riders are not allowed to be dropped off or picked up within Chatham except at selected stops such as the downtown bus terminal, Chatham-Kent Health Alliance Public General Campus, Riverview Gardens et cetera.
• C: Interurban buses and customers could be allowed to use existing bus stops in the Community of Chatham which are common to their current alignment.
• S: Fare integration is addressed later on in this report. Customers want to transfer between interurban transit
routes and conventional transit routes without paying an additional fare. C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment Although the HDR|iTrans report did not specifically address the impact that the above modifications may have on ridership levels, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will be greeted with improved ridership. Should a more conservative stance be chosen, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will maintain current ridership levels. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the operational analysis of the existing CK Transit Interurban routes:
1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on operational modifications to the existing routes and services in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013.
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 8
a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for the service while conducting a series of Public Information Centres to gather public opinion.
2. Implement a process whereby interurban transit runs may board and alight riders
at existing conventional transit stops common to interurban routes.
3. Conduct a Public Information Centre in the Community of Thamesville and the Community of Bothwell to gauge public opinion on the need for the provision of interurban transit to these communities and return the results of this consultation in a Report to Council in anticipation of the 2012 budget process.
CK TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE SERVICES By shifting some riders from specialized services to the conventional transit services, it enables some specialized transit riders to use conventional transit for some of their trips without having to reserve their ride. As the population ages, there will be an increasing reliance and need for accessible transportation services. Reliance will be critical since medical and shopping trips will be required to accommodate the very basic needs of these residents. The issue is even more pronounced in rural areas and communities without affordable transportation options. To provide lower cost accessible services, urban transit fleets and their bus infrastructure are becoming more accessible. Today’s standard transit fleets consist of low floor, wheelchair accessible buses. The review has identified the following items:
• “no show” rides need to be discouraged so as to make more efficient use of transit infrastructure,
• a travel training manual should be developed to encourage and educate appropriate use of the transit system,
• prior to implementing any additional resources for accessible transit, consultation needs to be undertaken to quantify the demand currently not being met by the accessible services,
• a central booking agency may prove beneficial in making efficient use of transit resources in that customers may be matched up with the appropriate mode of transportation (accessible, conventional or even available outside agency volunteers),
• evaluation of the need for accessible services in areas not currently receiving the benefit of such a service.
Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the operational analysis of the existing CK Transit Interurban routes:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 9
1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from
Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on accessible services in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013.
a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for the service while conducting a series of Public Information Centres to gather public opinion.
2. Conduct Public Information Centres in the urban communities currently not
receiving the benefit of an accessible service to gauge public opinion on the need for the provision such services and return the results of this consultation in a Report to Council in anticipation of the 2012 budget process.
It should be noted that a supplemental request regarding increased service hours was made as part of the 2011 budget process and deferred pending this service review. Engineering and Transportation Division will present this supplemental item again for consideration during the 2012 budget process. Should Council wish to direct the implementation upon receipt of this report, extended hours could be funded from the MTO Gas Tax funds (until exhausted) and the Transit Reserve. INTEGRATION OF TRANSIT FARES The various forms of public transportation require municipal investments to enhance the quality of life of all residents of Chatham-Kent while enabling the Municipality to be competitive in attracting businesses. Transit fares must be affordable and fare policies need to be conducive to promoting ridership all while balancing the level of service and the need for fiscal responsibility. Cost Per Revenue Passenger For the information of Council, the table below identifies the net cost per passenger carried (total less fare revenues received) during the 2009 service year.
Table 9: CK Transit System – Summary of Cost Per Revenue Passenger
Service Annual Net Operating Cost ( = Costs – Revenues)
Annual Revenue Passengers
Cost Per Revenue Passenger
CK Transit Chatham Conventional $559,540 257,853 $2.17
CK Transit Interurban $359,880 8,528 $42.20 CK Transit Chatham Accessible $281,140 18,919 $14.86
CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible $99,570 4,559 $21.84
The above table is provided to puts fares within the CK Transit system into perspective. Although the interurban service appears costly on a per passenger basis, the service frequency is minimal (four round trips per transit day) while providing residents affordable
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 10
access to goods and services within Chatham-Kent. Similarly, it can be seen that improvements to the accessibility of conventional transit vehicles may decrease costs as riders may migrate from use of the accessible service (at a cost of $14.86 per revenue passenger) to using the conventional service (at a cost of $2.17 per revenue passenger). Existing Fare Structure In 2009, the CK Transit Chatham Conventional service carried 257,853 urban passengers and collected $380,456 in fare. This translates into an average fare of $1.48 per passenger. Currently, CK Transit Chatham Conventional operates using the following fare structure.
Table 10: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Fare Structure
Adult $2.00 $35.00 $1.59 20% Senior $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30% High School Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30% Elementary School Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30%
Child (Under 5) $1.00 n/a n/a n/a St. Clair College n/a $120.00 $0.90 n/a The table below illustrates a summary of revenue passengers and annual revenues by fare media type.
Table 11: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Revenue Passengers and Annual Revenues by Fare Media Type
College Pass 22 2.8% 7,136 $6,422 1.5% Child Cash 42 5.3% 13,622 $13,622 3.3% Total 795 100.0% 257,853 $414,778 100.0% Adult fares account for nearly 68% of all fare revenue collected by CK Transit. Conversely, multi-ride pass tickets are relatively more popular with seniors and students. Free transfers are only permitted between CK Transit Conventional routes. Transfers may only be used to transfer onto another route at the Downtown Terminal. Transfers
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 11
may not be used for a return trip on the same route. Transfers account for approximately 30% of all riders boarding passengers of the conventional service per Table 1. The following issues have been identified regarding fares:
• System wide, no fare increases have been imposed since 2006 despite rising system costs,
• CK Transit Conventional transfers are valid only in one direction and must be used on the first transfer bus,
• Transfers between CK Transit Conventional and CK Transit Interurban are not permitted,
• Multi-ride passes require the transit vehicle operator to physically punch the pass adding unnecessary boarding time detracting from route efficiency,
• Chatham-Kent Council has requested an investigation of deep discount annual passes specifically for seniors.
New Fare Strategies There are two fare pricing strategies which will grow system ridership. These are:
• the introduction of time-based transfers, • the allowance of free transfers between CK Transit Interurban and CK Transit
Conventional. Time-based transfers allow customers to transfer to any bus and in any direction for a fixed period of time from the time of issuance. Time-based transfers are currently in place in other transit systems across Canada and are considered revenue neutral in that the resulting reduction in collected fares is offset by the collection of additional fares due to increased ridership upon implementation of a time-based transfer program. As a complementary strategy, there should be free transfers for riders moving from the interurban service to the conventional service. Riders moving from the conventional service to the interurban service could pay the fare premium (the difference between the interurban fare and the conventional fare) when boarding. All transfers should be valid for 60 minutes. Transit Fare Pricing Policies Fare policies should be designed so that the cost structure is easy to understand and enforce and pre-paid customers are rewarded. Concession Fares When recommending fare increases, there should be a common approach that staff can follow in developing the annual budget. As a starting point, the adult exact cash fare
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 12
(ECF) should be the basis of all concession transit fares. Discounted fares should be low enough to attract pre-paid discounts but not too low of a price point. Based on the consultant’s experience, pre-paid media should be charged at 80% of the ECF. Currently, prepaid media discounts are as follows:
Adult: $1.59 per ride versus $2.00 ECF = 20% discount Seniors: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount Students: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount
Deep Discount Annual Senior Pass There is no question that a deep discount annual senior pass (in this instance the request was made to have senior annual unlimited passes available for only $25) will prove popular. Under current conditions, it is simply a lost revenue opportunity which will reflect in the CK Transit budget variance. A preliminary investigation of the financial impacts associated with this request has been estimated to be in the range of $23,000 to $29,000 annually. Should Council wish to direct the implementation of deep discount passes for seniors, the associated revenue loss should be considered during the 2012 budget process and identified in the CK Transit budget as a “grant” extended by Chatham-Kent Council to ensure that this net reduction does not unfairly or negatively impact the net transit cost of service nor the Engineering and Transportation Division budget. It is critical for Council to recognize that the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) would likely result in the need to extend a similar deep discount to seniors travelling via the Chatham and Wallaceburg Accessible services. As the operational costs per rider are approximately $15 and $22 for these services, a passenger using a deep discount pass more than one or two times represents zero cost recovery to the system. Furthermore, some senior riders may shift their transit habits from the conventional system to the accessible system which may result in additional, unmet ride obligations and possibly additional operating cost requirements. Consultant’s Recommended Fare Structure There has been no increase to CK Transit’s schedule of fares since 2006. The consultant has identified the following Fare Pricing Policy:
• increases should be tied to the adult exact cash fare, • multi-pass discount for adults should be based on 22 trips at the exact cash fare, • multi-pass concession fare for seniors and students shall be based on a discount
of approximately 15% of the adult multi-pass cost, • annual fare increases should keep pace with inflation and be applied uniformly
across all fare categories, • children under age 5 who are accompanied by an adult ride free.
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 13
The consultant has identified the following Fare Increase Strategy:
• the suggested exact cash fare (for all CK Transit riders) should be increased to $2.25 on September 1, 2011,
• the suggested exact cash fare (for all CK Transit riders) should be increased to $2.50 on September 1, 2012,
• the cash fare for interurban service riders should be increased to $6.00 for all passengers except children under 5 years of age,
• the cash fare for children riding the interurban service should be set at $3.00. The consultant’s proposed fare schedule is summarized in the following table:
Table 12: Summary of Consultant’s Proposed Fare Schedule Conventional Existing Proposed
Child (U5) $2.50 N/A N/A $3.00 N/A N/A N/A The impact on revenue has been reviewed and a sensitivity analysis has been conducted by the consultant on each of the proposed fare increases. Please reference Appendix A. Adoption of any sort of change to the fare schedule warrants further coordination and investigation in the form of a business plan. Smart Card Technology In 2010, CK Transit carried 270,000 riders who paid a fare; whether exact cash or fare media. A “smart card” system could be implemented to replace all fare media save and except cash. Smart cards essentially act like an electronic purse which may be loaded by the transit rider and used in place of cash, passes and transfers.
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 14
Table 13: Benefits of Smart Card Technology Benefit to Riders Include: Benefit to Transit System Include: Benefits to Municipality Include: • eliminates the need
to carry cash, tickets or passes
• eliminates the need to obtain and carry paper transfers
• provides security against lost or stolen passes
• opportunity for more custom-designed fare discounts
• greater flexibility in implementing new fare structures
• reduces boarding times • potential increases in ridership due to
ease of payment • eliminates the need to print and distribute
passes • ease of tracking of revenue and ridership
data, including transfer tracking • reduces the cost of revenue handling • potential link to GPS-based technologies • eliminate underpayment of transit fares
• potential interactions with other municipal services equipped with smart card readers (parking facilities, recreational facilities, sports complexes, libraries, et cetera)
• reduction of cash handled by staff
Table 14: Components of Smart Card System
Fare Transaction Processor Electronic Purse Smart Card Sales Outlets / Kiosks Central System • located near
farebox in vehicle • interacts with the e-
purse smart card • provides an audible
signal to the bus operator that the fare has been paid
• proximity card of approximately the same size as a credit card
• interacts with the fare transfer processor on a proximity basis – no magnetic swipe required
• can be registered by users to track if lost or stolen
• can be located throughout the Municipality
• enable loading of smart cards
• all transactions are managed centrally and recorded in a central database
• capable of tracking ridership statistics
It is anticipated that a Smart Card System could be implemented within Chatham-Kent for at or below $100,000. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the integration of system fares:
1. Implement a time-based transfer system for the conventional and interurban routes. Transfers shall be valid for 60 minutes.
2. Implement a free transfer system for riders moving from the interurban transit system to the conventional transit system. Transfers shall be valid for 60 minutes.
3. Implement a fare premium transfer system for riders moving from the conventional transit system to the interurban transit system. Transfers shall be valid for 60 minutes.
4. An evaluation of fares be integrated into activities necessary to update the existing Transit Business Plan and that proposed plan be brought forward for the consideration of Council.
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 15
5. An investigation of available Smart Card technologies and costs be completed and the potential for integration with CK Transit and other municipal services be reported back to Council for consideration during the budget process.
ASSESSMENT OF TRANSIT VEHICLES Current Fleet A summary of the fleets operated by CK Transit is provided below: CK Transit Chatham Conventional – operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited
• Six (6) twenty-two (22) foot Ford diesel buses (4 routes + 2 backup vehicles) • Nineteen (19) passenger seat capacity • One (1) wheelchair list and tie-down position • Circa 2004 and need to be replaced at the end of the current contract 2012
CK Transit Interurban – operated by P.J. Weaver Industries
• Three (3) Champion buses circa 2000 (3 routes) • One (1) Ford diesel bus circa 1999 (backup vehicle) • Twenty (20) seat capacity • One (1) wheelchair list and tie-down position
CK Transit Chatham Accessible - operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited
• Three (3) Ford diesel buses (4 seats plus 4 wheelchair tie-down positions) • One (1) bus (5 seats plus 3 wheelchair tie-down positions) • One (1) accessible van (spare – 4 seats plus 1 wheelchair tie-down position) • One (1) bus circa 1999 owned by Chatham-Kent (currently needs to be replaced)
CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible – operated by Cadillac Cabs
• One (1) accessible van circa 2005 owned by Cadillac Cabs (3 seats plus 3 wheelchair tie-down positions)
• One (1) accessible van circa 2001 owned by Chatham-Kent (3 seats plus 3 wheelchair tie-down positions)
• Vehicles will need to be replaced at the end of the current contract 2012 Alternative Fleet Current municipal direction reflects a desire not to own transit vehicle infrastructure. It has been suggested that provincial and federal funding programs be monitored to assess whether ownership of transit vehicles may be of financial benefit to Chatham-Kent. Current transit industry standards for conventional fleets reflect usage of low floor buses to accommodate wheelchair accessibility. This type of vehicle also provides the following benefits to the transit system:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 16
• wheelchair accessible with no need for operation of a lift (time consuming and detracts from route efficiency),
• wheelchairs can be accommodated via a rear-facing position with little or no need for a tie-down,
• boarding times are reduced for all riders due to the elimination of steps at the bus entrance,
• may divert some accessible patrons to the conventional system (and recognize a lower operating cost per ride),
• easier access for parents with children. Due to vehicle load issues, a longer twenty-eight (28) foot to thirty (30) foot vehicle has been recommended. The floor plan of a sample low floor bus is shown in Appendix D. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the transit vehicle fleet:
1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on the proposed low floor transit vehicles in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013.
a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for such vehicles. COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations in this report support the following objectives and strategic directions: A. Health – We are a healthy community
A1: Provide sufficient capacity to sustain community health and economic growth B. Economy – We are a prosperous community
B3: Maintain and enhance new and existing infrastructure to support economic and smart growth opportunities
Desired Outcomes
• Provide safe, accessible, convenient and efficient public transportation • Support new infrastructure investments and modernize existing infrastructure
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 17
The recommendations will not adversely impact on the remainder of the Community Strategic Plan. CONSULTATION No public consultations were held related to the preparation of this report. Budget and Performance Services was also consulted regarding the content of this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implication associated with the preparation of the HDR | iTrans report is $20,900 + HST. The preparation of this report has been funded by the Engineering and Transportation Division budget (transit budget section) and includes funds encumbered from prior budget years. Prepared by: Reviewed by: ____________________________ _____________________________ Stephen Jahns, P.Eng. Gary Northcott, P. Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Director Engineering and Transportation Division Engineering and Transportation Infrastructure and Engineering Services Infrastructure and Engineering Services Reviewed by: ____________________________ Leo Denys, P. Eng. General Manager Infrastructure and Engineering Services Attachments: Appendix A CK Transit Service Review
authored by HDR | iTrans Appendix B CK Transit Chatham Conventional Route Maps Appendix C CK Transit Interurban Route Maps Appendix D Sample Low Floor Bus Layout Plan (RTC:\Infrastructure & Engineering\I&ES\2011\3358 – CK Transit Service Review – 2011.doc)
4.2.3 Impact of Proposed Changes on Ridership ................................................ 14 4.3 Transit Fares ........................................................................................................ 14
4.3.1 Existing Fare Structure ............................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Recommended New Fare Strategies .......................................................... 18
Table 4-3: Revenue Passengers by Fare Media Type ............................................................. 16
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 2 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Table 4-4: Annual Revenues by Fare Type ............................................................................ 16 Table 4-5: CKTransit Interurban Transit Fare Structure ........................................................ 17 Table 4-6: Proposed Fare Structure ........................................................................................ 21 Table 4-7: Annualized Revenues based on Proposed Fare Structures .................................... 21
The purpose of the comparison above is to put fares into perspective between the various
service providers. Although the interurban service is costly on a per passenger basis, the
service frequency provided is only minimal (i.e. every two hours) and it enables rural
residents to have affordable travel to access goods and services in Chatham-Kent, and it
enables Chatham residents to access goods and services elsewhere in the municipality.
Another point that can be considered is that as local urban buses become more accessible for
those with mobility aids, there is an opportunity to attract some Handi-Bus patrons to the
urban transit service at a much lower cost ($2.17 versus $14.86 per passenger).
HDR | iTRANS reviewed the current fare structure to assess improvements that can be made
based on best practices to achieve the following:
Increase ridership
Increase ridership revenues
Be considered fair
Enable bus fares to keep pace with inflation
4.3.1 Existing Fare Structure
In 2009, the CKTransit Chatham Conventional service carried 257,853 urban passengers and
collected $380,456 in fares, representing an average fare of $1.48 per passenger.
The CKTransit Chatham Conventional fare structure is summarized below in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: CKTransit Chatham Conventional Transit Fare Structure
Category Cash Fare Multi-Pass
Cost
Multi-Pass
Cost per
Trip
Multi-Pass
Discount
Adult $2.00 $35.00 $1.59 20%
Senior $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30%
H.S. Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30%
Elementary
Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30%
Child (U5) $1.00 N/A N/A N/A
St. Clair College N/A $120.00 $0.901 N/A
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 16 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
1Cost per trip obtained from CKTransit 2010 Conventional Service Survey
Based on ridership surveys conducted in November 2010, the percentage of revenue
passengers who utilize the different types of fare media can be calculated. This information is
illustrated in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3: Revenue Passengers by Fare Media Type
Category Fare
Media
Surveyed
Revenue
Passengers
% of Revenue
Passengers
Adult
Cash 244 30.7%
Ticket 0 0.0%
Multi-Pass 239 30.1%
Senior
Cash 30 3.8%
Ticket 0 0.0%
Multi-Pass 83 10.4%
H.S. Student
Cash 35 4.4%
Ticket 6 0.8%
Multi-Pass 66 8.3%
Elementary
Student
Cash 13 1.6%
Ticket 1 0.1%
Multi-Pass 14 1.8%
St. Clair College Pass 22 2.8%
Child Cash 42 5.3%
Total 795 100.0%
Along with 2009 CUTA ridership statistics, it is possible to forecast the total annual ridership
for each fare media type from the above summarized survey data.. The 2009 fare revenues
collected by customer classification and fare type are estimated in Table 4-4 below.
Table 4-4: Annual Revenues by Fare Type
Category Fare
Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of Annual
Revenues
Adult
Cash 79,140 $158,280 38.2%
Ticket - - 0.0%
Multi-Pass 77,518 $123,324 29.7%
Senior
Cash 9,730 $17,028 4.1%
Ticket - - 0.0%
Multi-Pass 26,921 $33,039 8.0%
H.S. Student
Cash 11,352 $19,866 4.8%
Ticket 1,946 $3,406 0.8%
Multi-Pass 21,407 $26,272 6.3%
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 17 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Category Fare
Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of Annual
Revenues
Elementary
Student
Cash 4,216 $7,379 1.8%
Ticket 324 $568 0.1%
Multi-Pass 4,541 $5,573 1.3%
St. Clair College Pass 7,136 $6,422 1.5%
Child Cash 13,622 $13,622 3.3%
Total 257,8531
$414,7782 100.0%
1Annual Revenue Passengers obtained from CKTransit‟s 2009 CUTA statistics 2Annual revenue generated is higher than value reported in CUTA statistics, the discrepancy is due to small survey sample
size to determine initial fare breakdown given in Table 4-3.
Adult fares account for nearly 68% of all fare revenue collected by CKTransit. Meanwhile,
Multi-Ride tickets are relatively more popular with seniors and students as they tend to be
more cost conscious.
Table 4-5 illustrates the fare structure for CKTransit‟s Interurban Services.
Table 4-5: CKTransit Interurban Transit Fare Structure
Category Cash Fare Multi-Pass
Cost
Multi-Pass
Cost per
Trip
Multi-Pass
Discount
Adult $5.00 $100.00 $4.55 9%
Senior $4.50 $90.00 $4.09 9%
H.S. Student $4.50 N/A N/A N/A
Elementary
Student $4.50 N/A N/A N/A
Child (U5) $2.50 N/A N/A N/A
Free transfers are provided between CKTransit local routes, accounting for about 30% of all
boarding passengers. Transfers are valid between local routes only, which meet at the
downtown terminal but cannot be used on the same route for a return trip (i.e. valid in one
direction only). Transfers are not valid between local and interurban buses.
Based on transit best practices and requests from CKTransit staff, the following issues have
been identified:
Although transit costs have increased, all public transit services – local, interurban and
Handi-Bus – have not seen a fare increase since 2006
Transfers are valid in one direction only and must be used on the first transfer bus
Multi-Pass cards require the bus operator to punch passes; this adds unnecessary boarding
time (i.e. assume 15 passengers per trip x 4 seconds more than a cash fare deposit = 60
seconds)
There is a request from Chatham-Kent council to investigate a deep discount annual pass
for seniors
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 18 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
4.3.2 Recommended New Fare Strategies
There are two fare pricing strategies to grow ridership – introducing time-based transfers –
and providing interurban customers with the ability to transfer free to CKTransit urban bus
routes.
4.3.2.1 Time-based Transfers
Timed-based transfers allow customers to transfer to any bus and in any direction for a fixed
period of time from the time of issuance. The policy will allow, for example, a parent to take
their pre-school child to a daycare centre by bus, then board the bus in the same direction to
continue their journey to work without paying an additional fare.
Time-based transfers are currently in place in other transit systems across Canada and are
considered revenue neutral. This means that any reduction in fares collected per trip from
passengers who would have had to pay an additional fare to make the return trip within a
fixed time period, is expected to be offset by the revenue increases from additional ridership
following the introduction of the time-based transfer.
In addition to increasing ridership, having a single colour transfer and design for all routes,
will significantly decrease fare disputes and the fare structure will be simplified for the
benefit of the customers. It should be noted that even if there is measurable loss of revenue
following the introduction of the time-based transfer, the loss can be offset by increasing
fares to compensate.
4.3.2.2 Free Transfers between Interurban and Conventional Bus Routes
As a complementary strategy to enabling interurban transit customers to board and alight at
local Chatham bus stops, fare integration between transit service providers can be
implemented. This is common place in the industry since it is considered a ridership growth
strategy.
Transfers should be free from interurban buses to CKTransit buses while customers
travelling from CKTransit to interurban transit could pay the fare premium when travelling
out of Chatham (interurban fare less the local fare paid). Transfers can be issues to interurban
customers upon alighting the bus in Chatham. It is suggested that the transfer be valid for 60
minutes.
4.3.3 Transit Fares Pricing Policies
Fare policies should be designed so that the cost structure is easy to understand and enforce
and pre-paid fare customers are rewarded at the expense of less frequent transit customers. In
addition, discounted fares, also known as concession fares, are provided in varying degrees
throughout Canada. The bottom line is that the municipality‟s cost to carry a passenger,
regardless of classification, is the same.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 19 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
4.3.3.1 Concession Fares
When recommending fare increases, there should be a common approach that CKTransit
staff can follow when developing the annual transit budget. Costs do go up and if it is
Council‟s expectation to off-set additional costs, fare increases will be needed. As mentioned
earlier, there has not been a fare increase since 2006.
As a starting point, the exact cash fare (ECF) for adult customers should be the basis of all
concession transit fares and as such, it will be the highest cost fare category. Discounted fares
should be low enough to attract pre-paid discounts but not too low a price point. Based on the
HDR | iTRANS work in the area of smart card technology and our own municipal experience
in setting fare policy, the pre-paid fare media should be at a price point that is 80% of the
exact cash fare.
The ECF for pre-school children (i.e. under 5 years old) is $1.00, which is 50% of the adult
cash fare. In many transit systems across Canada, pre-school children ride for free. In the
case of the local CKTransit service, it would make sense to follow suit. Combined with a 60-
minute free transfer policy, a parent can board with their child and make a return trip from
shopping for one adult fare. This strategy is customized for the single parent, who in many
cases, must be able to obtain as much value as possible given their limited monetary
resources.
Currently, the single ride discounts are as follows for the 22-ride Multi-Pass card:
Adult: $1.59 per ride versus $2.00 ECF = 20% discount
Seniors: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount
Students: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount
The current discount in the ECF for students and seniors relative to the adult fare is 12.5%
($1.75 vs. $2.00); however, the Multi-Pass discount is greater, at 22.9% ($27 vs. $35)
The 20% ECF discounts for those adults buying the Multi-Pass is considered reasonable; the
relatively high 30% discount for the Multi-Pass for seniors and students could be lowered to
about 10% to 15%, assuming the discount is to be universal (i.e. more consistency).
4.3.3.2 Deep Discount Annual Senior Pass
Another issue that was to be addressed at a high level is the request for a deep discount
annual senior pass, which very few transit systems across Canada have in place. There is no
question that the pass will prove popular; however, under current conditions it is simply a
lost revenue item that will be reflected in the CKTransit budget. It is ultimately a political
decision.
If a deep annual pass discount is offered to seniors, CK staff estimated the lost revenue at
$23,860 to $28,635 per year. If this is the case, the amount lost should be identified as a grant
provided by Chatham-Kent council in a CKTransit line budget item so that the reduction in
revenue does not unfairly or negatively impact the net transit cost of service. Another
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 20 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
consideration that is not reflected in the lost revenue estimate is the impact on costs and
revenues that could be incurred when the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians Disability Act
(AODA) legislation takes effect. A similar deep discounted senior pass would likely have to
be applied for seniors using specialized transit services. If a passenger takes the Handi-Bus
service a few times, there would be zero cost recovery for this user.
The net cost (total cost less total revenues) to carry a CKTransit customer is $2.13 per trip
while the net cost to carry a Handi-Bus customer is $14.86 per trip – a difference of $12.73
per trip. Encouraging eligible seniors to use Handi-Bus, instead of CKTransit for some trips
will likely result in more unmet requests for Handi-Bus, increasing the need to expand
service resource levels.
It should be noted that in Section 6: Transit Fleet Strategy, HDR | iTRANS recommends
that CKTransit purchase low-floor wheelchair accessible vehicles only. They are designed to
attract Handi-Bus customers without the need to reserve service to increase their mobility
and to increase conventional transit use.
4.3.3.3 Recommended Fare Structure
Given there has been no fare increase since 2006, a new fare strategy based on industry best
practices, is proposed. The following is a summary of the recommendations:
1. Fare Strategy Policies:
a. CKTransit local buses should have a time-based transfer that is valid for 60
minutes
b. Interurban customers should be allowed a free transfer to Chatham bus routes,
while local Chatham bus route customers can board interurban buses at a reduced
cost
c. The only cash fare that will be paid is the adult cash fare
2. Fare Pricing Policy:
a. All fare increases should be tied to the adult exact cash fare
b. The Multi-Pass discount for adults shall be based on 20 trips at the exact cash fare.
c. The Multi-Pass concession fare for seniors and students shall be based on a
discount of approximately 15% of the adult Multi-Pass cost
d. Annual fare increases should keep pace with inflation and be applied uniformly
across all fare categories
e. Children under 5 years of age accompanied by an adult shall ride free
3. Recommended Fare Increase:
a. The suggested exact cash fare (for all transit customers in the CKTransit service
within Chatham) should be increased to $2.25 on September 1, 2011 and $2.50 on
July 1, 2012
b. The cash fare for interurban service can be increased to $6.00 for all passengers,
except children under 5 years of age
c. Children under 5 years of age on the interurban service can pay a fare of $3.00
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 21 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
4.3.3.4 Impact of Proposed Fare Structure
The proposed fare scheme under the $0.25 cash fare increase and $0.50 cash fare increase,
along with the other proposed fare structure changes discussed in Section 4.3.3.3 is shown
below in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6: Proposed Fare Structure
Given the fact that fares have not increased since 2006, HDR | iTRANS has estimated the
ridership and revenue impacts using 2010 ridership statistics and by applying two
assumptions to provide a range.
Assumption 1 (Low Range): Apply the Simpson-Curtin Fare Elasticity Formula, which is
the fare elasticity formula used extensively by transit systems across Canada. Simpson-
Curtin‟s Formula estimates ridership changes based on various changes such as fares or level
of service. The formula theory points to a 3% decrease in ridership for every 10% increase in
fares. This principle was applied to all passenger classifications with the exception of the St.
Clair College Pass. Fare revenues have been forecasted for both cash fare increases ($0.25
and $0.50) and presented below in Table 4-7. Since the first proposed cash fare increase of
$0.25 is not an overall, across-the-board increase in that the concession ECFs have a
proportionally greater increase compared to the adult ECF, it is necessary to forecast the
decreases in ridership for each individual category before revenues can be re-calculated. The
detailed calculations are available in Appendix C.
Assumption 2 (High Range): This assumption assumes that ridership will remain constant.
Table 4-7: Annualized Revenues based on Proposed Fare Structures
Fare Structure Scenario Annualized Revenues
Existing 2010 Forecast $414,7781
$0.25 Fare Increase Assumption 1 - Low Range $441,826
Assumption 2 - High Range $467,019
$0.50 Fare Increase Assumption 1 - Low Range $474,076
1. Provide a “best practices” technical review that is intended to serve as a policy guide that
will aid the Municipality of Chatham-Kent (herein referred to as “Chatham-Kent”) in how
to manage, install and maintain existing and future bus stops associated with the transit
network.
2. Provide a high level overview of CKtransit‟s existing bus stop infrastructure including
aspects such as stop spacing, bus stop geometry and the provision of amenities such as
shelters, sign posts and benches.
It is intended that this document will be used by Chatham-Ken staff involved in
transportation and land use planning, transportation engineering, traffic operations and transit
operations within the municipality.
This document is organized in a manner that discusses each aspect of a “bus stop zone” (e.g.
spacing, positioning, components such as shelters and benches) one-by-one. This discussion
includes a brief description of the terminology, the options available and the associated
technical (physical and operational) requirements. These technical requirements have been
compiled on a review of best practices across the continent and summarized in a manner that
will allow for simple understanding and implementation. It should be noted that there is no
“set formula” when assessing the spacing, positioning or the amenity requirements for a bus
stop. It is a process that requires a “best fit” situational approach balancing the needs of the
passengers of CKTransit, traffic operations and any additional political considerations.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 ii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Where appropriate, each aspect of bus stop zones will be given in a local context specific to
Chatham-Kent. This includes describing existing conditions, compliance with this best
practices review and opportunities for improvement.
2. BUS STOP ZONE GUIDELINES
A “bus stop zone” – or, simply a “bus stop” – is the area designated exclusively for the
boarding and alighting of CKTransit customers. The definition of “bus stop zone” refers not
only to the actual point at which people board and alight, but also to the physical space
required for a bus to approach, align parallel to the curb and leave from a stopped position.
When buses are absent, other vehicles may treat this area as part of a travel lane but not as a
parking, standing or loading zone.
Bus stop guidelines will enable CKtransit to better serve passengers and function better in the
overall transportation system. Bus stop zones that are poorly integrated in the road network
reduce levels of service for all road users.
Transit accessibility improvements are undertaken to attract new riders, provide universal
accessibility to transit, and ultimately reduce dependency on the automobile. Full-
accessibility improvements include hard-surfaced (preferably concrete) pedestrian links to
sidewalks (bus stop pads), benches, shelters and, possibly, unique and highly visible bus stop
identification markers. Proposed legislation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act (AODA) will require all municipalities to meet bus stop design criteria
which allow all riders, regardless of mobility, access to transit services.
2.1 Location Factors
Typically, bus stop zones are located near intersections and any facilities that generate
significant transit trips. These facilities include malls and clinics, as well as others. This
practice seeks to minimize walk distance and potential traffic conflicts. Spacing of bus stops
should be based on a number of criteria, including safety considerations and to meet walk
distance guidelines from nearby developments to bus service.
The average distance between bus stops varies with land use, population density and
pedestrian access but is generally no less than 250 m in urban areas and 200 m in downtown
areas. Back-lotted arterial roads may dictate the need for longer spacing between bus stops.
Typical maximum stop spacing is roughly between 500 m and 600 m for a conventional bus
service, depending on the population or market segment it is intended to serve. Proper bus
stop spacing balances the needs of transit accessibility with transit operations and traffic
management.
Existing CKTransit practices support bus stops in Chatham-Kent have been placed in a
manner that ensures that a pedestrian located along the route has no more than a five minute
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
walk to a bus stop. In effect, this ensures that spaces are no more than 600 m apart, which is
within the recommended maximum stop spacing.
The location of a bus stop may be adjusted to minimize the impact on an adjacent residence
or business; however, safety, operation standards and accessiblity must take priority.
A variety of factors influence the feasibility of establishing a bus stop zone. In general, the
criteria set out in Attachment 1 can be used as a checklist guide to determine where bus stops
should be placed.
2.2 Guidelines for Positioning of Bus Stop Zones
Bus stop zone positions are defined by their relationship to intersecting streets. The three
possibilities are nearside, farside (in relation to the direction of travel), and midblock. The
most suitable position in any given case depends on many of the above-mentioned factors.
However, intersection geometry can constrain the placement of a bus stop to one type or
another. For example, near-side bus stops can interfere with the sight distance of approaching
traffic if a bus is present loading or unloading passengers. The advantages and disadvantages
of each position are described in Table 8.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iv
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Table 8: Comparison of Stop Positions
Advantages Disadvantages
Nearside
Facilitates transfers between routes
when combined with a farside bus
stop on an intersecting route
Less walk distance to/from some
destinations/origins
Transit customers served closer to the
intersection
Bus may stop for traffic signal &
passengers at the same time
Pedestrians may cross street in front of
a bus (dangerous if not signalized)
Stopped bus can obstruct visibility of
intersection and traffic controls
Farside
Least impact on intersection traffic
level of service
Pedestrians cross intersection behind
bus
Passengers encouraged to leave by
rear doors
Bus stop zone length minimized
Best accommodation of bus turning
movements
Buses get a re-entry gap in traffic flow
at signalized intersections
Limited space if more than one bus
uses it
Traffic approaching (straight or
turning onto) bus stop must wait
(possibly in intersection) or move
around bus
Midblock
Particular facilities served, if on-site
pedestrian corridor near bus stop
Convenient for passengers
Walk distance from intersecting streets
is increased
Bus manoeuvring is difficult if re-
entering traffic from a turn-out (bus
bay)
Greater linear curb space is needed,
taking away from street parking
availability
Street capacity reduced if no turn-out
provided
Encourages pedestrian crossings at
mid-block and may create warrant for
pedestrian cross-over
2.3 Bus Stop Zone Dimensions
A bus stop zone‟s length depends on its position. Nearside and midblock zones require the
greatest amount of curb space (35 linear metres). Farside zones need less (26 metres)
because the bus approaches in the curb lane then moves through the intersection without
having to manoeuvre past a parking lane. These dimensions are derived from current traffic
engineering practice and have been tested in several jurisdictions.
Exhibit 2 through Exhibit 4 shows typical stop placement applications.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 v
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2.3.1 On-Street Bus Turn-out (Bus Bay)
From the viewpoint of transportation systems management, bus turn-outs privilege occupants
in automobiles at the expense of those in buses. In many cases, transit operators do not
recommend bus turn-outs because of the difficulty of re-entering the traffic stream. This
situation has been improved since the Province of Ontario followed Quebec‟s lead and
implemented the changes to the Highway Traffic Act, that give priority to buses signalling to
exit a bus turn-out. The traditional warrant for establishing a bus turn-out is as follows:
There is no parking in the curb lane.
Traffic volume is less than 500 vehicles per hour in the curb travel lane
during peak periods.
Bus frequency is at least 10 per hour and/or dwell times normally exceed
10 seconds (not the case in Chatham-Kent).
Posted speed limit of 60 km/h or greater.
Bus turn-outs may be used for layover points such as a route terminus. An example of a bus
turn-out, or bus bay, is shown in Exhibit 5.
2.3.2 Bus “Curb-Out”
In addition to the above-noted bus stop locations, another style is sometimes used. It typically
would be found in a downtown or “new urbanism” development where parallel or angled
parking is provided. The curb-out is a reverse bus bay – instead of an area whereby the bus
moves out of the travel lane, the curb projects out past parking areas and the bus stops in the
travel lane. Curb-outs are advantageous as:
Less parking area needs to be removed to allow the bus to have adequate space to serve
passengers.
the bus will not get trapped in a bay by heavy traffic congestion
Regular bays are often unavailable for buses due to automobiles and couriers using them
illegally for parking.
A curb-out style of stop is often promoted as a method of traffic calming. By using a curb-out
when a stop is needed, the roadway at the intersection can be narrowed in order to slow
movement and improve safety. An example of a bus “curb-out” stop arrangement is shown in
Exhibit 6.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 vi
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 2: Typical Nearside Stop Arrangement
Exhibit 8: Typical Farside Stop Arrangement
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 vii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 4: Typical Midblock Stop Arrangement
Exhibit 5: Typical Bus Turn-Out (Bus Pad)
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 viii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 6: Typical "Curb-Out" Bus Stop
Exhibit 12: Typical “Fully-Accessible” Bus Stop
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 ix
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2.4 Bus Stop Components
Exhibit 12 illustrates elements that should be included in a fully-developed accessible bus
stop. The fixtures and furniture included at a stop will depend on the amount of use, the
space availability and traffic safety considerations. The addition of special features should be
done in a manner that does not interfere with passengers boarding, alighting, waiting, snow
clearing operations and visibility of passengers waiting at the stop (specifically, when an
advertising shelter is installed). They should enhance the stop, not clutter it.
Amenities such as shelters, benches, garbage containers, newspaper vending boxes and
landscaping must remain clear of the boarding and alighting areas.
2.4.1 Bus Stop Zone Identification and Related Traffic Signage
Bus stop zones are marked by a sign bearing the route number. This sign denotes the point of
boarding, which the operator will align the front doors of the bus.
As shown in Exhibit 12, the stop marker should be mounted so the bottom is between 2 and
3 metres (7 and 10 feet) from the ground. When mounted on a wide pole (such as a hydro
pole or light standard) it should be mounted on the side of the pole with a bracket so that it
visible from both directions along the street and pedestrians can easily see the closest bus
stop. Mounting should be away from the road whenever possible to avoid it being hit by a
bus or other vehicle‟s mirror.
Exhibit 13: Existing Bus Stop on Grand Avenue West
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 x
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Bus stops in Chatham-Kent are usually marked with signs that have their own posts or they
are attached to light standards or hydro poles depending on availability and approval from the
appropriate bodies. Exhibit 13 illustrates an existing bus stop in Chatham as found on Grand
Avenue West. Although the stop marker sign is posted on a light standard, it is placed at an
acceptable height from the sidewalk and it is far enough back from the roadway to avoid
being clipped by traffic. More importantly, the sign is positioned in a manner so that a
pedestrian approaching from either side can see the stop marker.
Where parking demand is heavy and there is the potential for parked vehicles to encroach on
the bus stop zone, supplementary bus stop zone NO PARKING signs may be installed to
mark the zone boundaries. Municipalities typically include provision in their traffic and
parking by-law prohibiting parking within 30 metres either side of a bus stop. By-law
enforcement of No Parking areas is generally provided by the area municipality.
2.4.2 Landing Pads
When there is no curb-face sidewalk, a concrete pad (“landing pad”) should ultimately be
built at all stops as they ensure safe and convenient waiting and alighting at stops. They also
facilitate snow clearing procedures and improve the aesthetics of bus stop zones. The pads
should be 9 m long to accommodate both the front and rear doors of a conventional 12.2
metre bus. Although CKTransit does not operate 12.2 m conventional transit vehicles,
provision should be made to all for future potential and to avoid the costly need to retrofit.
The boulevard width and the likelihood of a shelter being located at that stop will determine
the width of the pad. Exhibit 14 illustrates the basic configuration of the pad.
In the Community of Chatham, landing pads are only available for stops that have bus
shelters. This corresponds to only 28 of the 245 system wide bus stops possessing their own
sidewalk lead-ins. However, many stops are located along curb-face sidewalks, which serve
in and of themselves as the concrete landing pads.
The priority for adding new pads should be based on factors such as:
Safety (i.e. sightlines)
Activity at the stop
Accessibility and AODA
Condition of boulevard
If a curb is already in place
Road reconstruction schedule (make use of opportunities to tie in stop
improvements with other public works activities)
Permanence of routing (i.e. is route intended to remain as is for a reasonable
length of time
In the fullness of time, all stops should have concrete pads included in their design. The
factors above simply outline how to best allocate limited resources to the construction of
pads.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xi
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 14: Bus Stop Landing Pad
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2.4.3 Shelters
The location of transit shelters are determined on the basis of:
Boarding volumes (generally heavier on the inbound direction)
Adjacent land use (e.g. seniors‟ centres, institutional buildings, etc.)
Average wait times
Exposure of bus stop to inclement weather conditions
Whether or not a shelter can be accommodated physically
Political requests
All shelter installations must be approved by the appropriate authorities to ensure traffic
sightline issues are not created by the shelter. Where necessary, encroachment agreements
will need to be sought with adjacent landowners. This will occur when a shelter is warranted,
but there is insufficient room to safely place a shelter on the public right-of-way.
Unless there is a very wide boulevard, shelters should be placed behind the sidewalk as this
improves safety and visibility. Two openings in the shelter, when feasible, reduce entrapment
areas although it can reduce weather protection. Openings preferably face the sidewalk,
especially if the shelter is between the road and the sidewalk. This reduces road splash and
snow clearing problems.
Advertising shelters should be located in such a position as to avoid waiting passengers being
blocked from view of the bus operator by the ad panel.
Chatham-Kent has a total of 28 bus shelters. Half of which these shelters have advertising
panels as illustrated in Exhibit 15. Save and except for one, all of Chatham‟s shelters are
located within the municipal road allowance, which ensures that modifications or
maintenance procedures can occur without any impedance. All of Chatham-Kent‟s shelters
are behind the sidewalks with their openings facing the sidewalk to allow for efficient and
safe boarding. The bus shelter the openings must meet the minimum AODA requirements to
accommodate wheelchair mobility devices.
A bus shelter inventory, as provided by municipal staff, is located in Attachment 2.
2.4.4 Benches
Benches are a component which improves the environment for transit customers waiting for
a bus. Some shelters include benches inside them. At other stops, benches may be added
where there is a warrant for them. Often they will be used at stops that do not warrant a
shelter but do warrant extra services. Both benches and shelters may be installed at busy
stops, assuming there is adequate room and sightlines are not restricted. As much as
possible, benches should be placed so that the passenger will face or have a clear view in the
direction of the approaching bus.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xiii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 15: Typical Bus Shelter in Chatham-Kent
In order to maintain clear paths for pedestrian travel and adequate space for queuing, benches
should be placed as follows:
1. With the exception of benches placed in the border area (which is the area between
the sidewalk and the abutting property line – see point 2 below) benches should be
kept:
At least 1.5 metres from the border edge of the sidewalk or bus stop
pad
At least 1.5 metres from the curb edge of the sidewalk or bus stop pad
2.0 metres (plus or minus 0.25 metres) measured as a linear projection
along the length of the bus stop zone from the bus stop identification sign
2. Benches placed in the border area between the sidewalk and abutting property, or
benches placed in an area with no sidewalk, should be kept 1.5 metres from the curb
edge (or vehicular roadside where no curb exists) and 2.0 metres measured as a
linear projection along the length of the bus stop zone from the bus stop
identification sign.
3. Benches may be placed at an angle, in order to face traffic, only if the above-noted
conditions are met.
Chatham-Kent does not currently maintain any bench within its inventory of stops.
2.5 Bus Stop Planning Procedures
2.5.1 Existing Bus Stops
Bus stop zone changes occur in response to service improvements, land redevelopment,
traffic conflicts, public suggestions, and geometric design or traffic control problems
reported by bus operators. CKtransit staff should perform an initial review of requests or
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xiv
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
suggestions for any bus stop zone changes, followed by the necessary internal and municipal
approval process.
2.5.2 Future Bus Stops
It is also recommended that bus stops be identified on all subdivision lot plans where service
will be warranted to ensure future residents are aware ahead of time of potential bus stop
locations and can make a lot purchase decision accordingly. This should minimize future
complaints when bus stops are established.
2.6 Bus Stop Zone Inventory
A comprehensive database should be compiled to list all appropriate information about each
stop. With the advent of GPS-based technologies, CKtransit should consider a digitized
database that can provide all the necessary data about a bus zone, which would be inserted as
a layer in the Municipality‟s GIS database (e.g. latitude, longitude, etc.). It is possible that up
to 30 data fields may be needed as determined by CKtransit. It is also recommended that the
database consist of a link to digital photographs of the bus stop zone that could have up to
four pictures, as follows:
Approach to the bus stop from a bus operator‟s perspective
View from downstream towards the bus stop
The view from the bus stop zone to the area across the street
The view from across the street to the bus stop zone
The bus stop zone attributes, measurements and photos taken could be used for future
accidents investigations or they could eventually be viewed online by the transit customer to
determine whether or not the bus stop is accessible or whether or not the bus stop is linked
closely to nearby destinations. As changes occur to the bus stop, the database can be easily
updated.
2.7 Current State of Accessibility and the
Accesibility for Ontarians with Disbalities Act
(AODA)
Since low-floor wheelchair accessible buses were first introduced in Canada and North
America in 1994, more seniors and those requiring mobility aids were more often able to
travel by conventional bus. It is also recognized that, as the population ages, the need for
accessibility will become more pronounced. As the population ages and the transit fleet
becomes more accessible with the introduction of low floor buses, there is a need to ensure
that those with mobility problems can physically use conventional transit vehicles by being
able to access bus stops. A number of strategies are available.
They include:
Retrofitting, where practical, all existing bus stop areas for wheelchair accessibility
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xv
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Ensuring that all new bus stops are fully accessible
Conducting a bus stop accessibility audit in the CKtransit service area, which includes
photos of the bus stops so that they can eventually be linked to the audit database for use
on the customer website (i.e. bus stop inventory)
Expansion of bus stop accessibility audits to include the identification of accessibility
requirements beyond the bus stop area
The need to inform landowners of accessibility requirements within their site (e.g. from
bus stops to main building entrances)
That bus stop area retrofit priorities reflect a combination of bus stop customer demand
and safety rather than bus stop demand only
That the costs associated with improving accessibility infrastructure should be identified
in a line budget item(s) in order to quantify the Chatham-Kent‟s commitment to
accessibility
The bus stop retrofit program funding should reflect financial strategies that enable more
stops be retrofitted earlier rather than later (i.e. debenture financing rather than capital
from current)
Ensure snow clearing priority and enforcement is given to bus stops and
sidewalks/walkways leading to bus stops
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requirements relative to transit
accessibility will have to be met. By recognizing and addressing the issue early with respect
to the retrofit of new bus stops or the installation of new stops, CKtransit will have taken due
diligence by setting up and implementing a bus stop area retrofit program once the bus stop
inventory has been undertaken.
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, there are a number of different parameters and guidelines that need to be
incorporated when planning and constructing a bus stop. There are traffic, passenger
accessibility, transit vehicle operation and spatial components that must be considered. It is a
trade-off between these components in order to come up with the “best fit” for a particular
location or route. However there are underlying themes associated with this aspect of transit
service and they are summarized below:
With respect to stop spacing along the route, the planning agency must understand that
there is a trade-off between in vehicle travel time and access (walking) time for the
customer.
The decision on whether a stop is will be built as “near side,” “far side,” or “midblock”
stop is a function of adjacent land uses, meeting transit walk distance guidelines (i.e.
ensuring 90% residents are no more than 400 metres from a bus stop), intersection
geometry, and traffic flow conditions. Special attention should be paid to sight distances
for intersection approach volumes.
Bus turn-out pads (or bus bays) favour automobile traffic instead of transit vehicles since it
is difficult to re-enter the flow of traffic. However The Province of Ontario has amended
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xvi
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
the Highway Traffic Act to enable municipalities to give transit vehicles the right of way
in order to merge to improve this situation.
Bus stop signage must be legible and visible for all pedestrians and vehicles. It should also
be positioned in a manner that will ensure that it will not get damaged by passing traffic.
No Parking signs may be required in bus stop zones to ensure that parked cars do not
block the movements of transit vehicles. The signs should be installed on an as needed
basis based on local observations and experience.
Landing pads should be constructed where a grass boulevard separates the roadway and
sidewalk. This will ensure that passengers will know where to wait and that their
boardings and alightings can occur safely.
Bus shelters and benches located at bus stops can greatly improve the customer‟s
experience, and in turn, their satisfaction with the transit service. However they must be
placed in a manner that does not interfere with pedestrian circulation.
The instalment of a bus shelter is based on many factors such as average waiting times, the
number of boardings and surrounding land uses
Accessibility requirements and the AODA‟s transit requirements foresee the usage of low
floor transit vehicles across the Province. An important aspect is that bus stops will need to
be retrofitted to ensure that the new vehicles will be able serve passengers in a safe
manner.
With respect to these conclusions, it is worthwhile and prudent to put forth some
recommendations or next steps for CKtransit to enact in the near future:
The existing policy of “No more than a 5 minute walk” to a bus stop demonstrates clearly
that CKtransit staff understands the industry standard principles. The existing policy
results in an average stop spacing of 600m, which should continue when more service is
planned.
CKtransit and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent should construct landing pads, where
necessary (i.e. where there is a grass boulevard, if there is space, etc.)
Utilizing this guideline document as a basis, customize a shelter and bench warrant
program (i.e. a checklist) for Chatham-Kent to deal with future requests for shelters and
benches at certain bus stops. Essentially the warrant program will serve as an approval
mechanism so that the municipality can record and track requests made and more
importantly, the decisions relating to them and the municipality‟s reasoning.
CKTransit should implement a bus stop inventory program. This will include a database
and photo(s) that tracks all of the features and components of each bus stop and their
conditions. The inventory will assist in whether or not certain bus stop candidates for any
accessibility-related retrofitting required.
Att. Attachment 1 Bus Stop Location Factor Checklist
Attachment 2 Bus Shelter Inventory
Attachment 1
Bus Stop Location Factor Checklist
FACTOR GUIDELINE CHECKED
Adjacent Land Use Preference is to place adjacent to major trip generators
Sidewalks Preference is where sidewalks exist
Walkways Improves service coverage
Pedestrian Crossings Controlled, supervised or assisted
Driveways Bus should not block driveways
Streetlights Should be adequate illumination at the stop
Transfers between routes Minimize road crossings for transferring
passengers
Route Configuration Consider bus turning movements
Suitability for a shelter Room available; minimize sightline
impacts
Traffic Control Hardware
& Utility poles
Should not block bus doors or visibility
Traffic Controls Signalized intersection
Stop Signs
Landscaping & other
street furniture
Planters & street trees should not block bus
doors
Roadway
alignment/geometry
Maximize sightlines for operators,
motorists and pedestrians
Intersections Minimize impact on sightlines; impact of
slip off lanes
Gradients
Avoid locating stops on upgrades or
downgrades when possible due to noise of
acceleration & slipping in winter
Street Parking All stops are No Parking zones (30 metres)
Traffic Volumes Which locations can minimize impact from
or on motorists
Attachment 2
Bus Shelter Inventory
ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS
Intersection SIDE Location
1. Grand Avenue East North East of Vanier Drive (at Flamingo Motel)
2. Grand Avenue West North At Ursuline College
3. Grand Avenue West East In front of Skate Park (beside Crabby Joe's)
4. Grand Avenue West North In front of Thames Lea Plaza (at Staples)
5. Grand Avenue West North In front of Thames Lea Plaza (at Zellers)
6. Grand Avenue West North West of Keil Drive (at Chatham Tower Apt Bldg)
7. Keil Drive South West Opposite Wheels Plaza (at Minacs)
8. McNaughton Avenue West North West of Galbraith Street (at McNaughton Ave Apts)
9. Park Avenue West South East of Bloomfield Road (at Parkfield/Community Living)
10. Richmond Street North Opposite YA Canada (at 715 Richmond)
11. Sandys Street West North of Grand Avenue West (at Access Fire & Safety)
12. St. Clair Street East North of Gregory Drive (at Apple Auto Glass)
13. St. Clair Street West North of Paxton Drive (at Clairvue Townhouses)
14. St. Clair Street West In front of Nortown Centre (at Shopper's Drug Mart)
NON-ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS
Intersection SIDE Location
1. Centre Street East At Transfer Terminal
2. Centre Street East At Transfer Terminal
3. Emma Street South At Chatham-Kent Heatlh Alliance
4. Grand Avenue West North East of Campus Parkway (at Medical Bldg)
5. Grand Avenue West* North At Provincial Court Facility
6. McFarlane Avenue South West of Melrose Drive (at Linden Towers)
7. Park Avenue West South At 340 Park Avenue West (Housing Project)
8. Park Avenue East North At Sass Road (O.P.P. Station)
9. Pine Street East Corner of Elm Street
10. Pine Street East North of Eugenie Street (at Maple Court Apts)
11. Riverview Drive North At Orchard Heights Boulevard
12. Riverview Drive* North West of Merritt Drive (at Riverbend Apts)
13. William Street North West North of Stanley Street (at Cultural Centre)
14. Fergie Jenkins Parkway* East At College/Day Care
i
Appendix C
Detailed Analysis and Calculations
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
1. ROUTE LOAD PROFILES
This section will demonstrate the route passenger load profiles based on location. The
average passenger load for four periods, which are listed as below, is given along with a daily
average load. This data is based on CKTransit‟s November 2010 ridership survey.
Early morning: 6:15 AM to 9:15 AM,
Late morning: 9:15 AM to 12:15 PM
Early Afternoon: 12:15 PM to 3:15 PM
Late Afternoon/Early Evening: 3:15 PM to 7:15 PM
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 1-1: Route 1 Passenger Load Profile
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iv HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 1-2: Route 2: Passenger Load Profile
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 v HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 1-3: Route 3 Passenger Load Profile
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 vi HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 1-4: Route 4 Passenger Load Profile
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 vii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2. ROUTE TRAVEL TIME AND SPEED
PROFILES
This section will demonstrate the route travel time and speed profiles based on the time of
day. This data is based on CKTransit‟s November 2010 ridership survey.
Exhibit 2-1: Route 1 Average Speed Analysis
Exhibit 2-2: Route 2 Travel Time Analysis
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 viii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 2-3: Route 2 Average Speed Analysis
Exhibit 2-4: Route 2 Travel Time Analysis
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 ix HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 2-5: Route 3 Average Speed Analysis
Exhibit 2-6: Route 3 Travel Time Analysis
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 x HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 2-7: Route 4 Average Speed Analysis
Exhibit 2-8: Route 4 Travel Time Analysis
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xi HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
3. FARE INCREASE SENSITIVITY
CALCULATIONS
This section presents the calculations performed in order to calculate the annualized revenues
for the proposed fare increases and other associated fare structure changes presented in
Section 4.3.3.3. For each fare increase, a low range and high range is given. The low range
calculations are based on the Simpson-Curtin Fare Elasticity formula, while the high range
assumes no decrease in ridership. These calculations are presented below in Table
Table 3-1: Annualized Revenues for $0.25 Fare Increase: Low Range (Simpson-Curtin
Formula)
Category Fare
Media
% Fare
Increase
%
Ridership
Increase /
Decrease
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
%
Adult Cash 12.5% -3.8% 76,172 $171,387 38.8% 8.3%
Multi-
Pass 15.7% -4.7% 73,864 $135,976 30.8% 10.3%
Senior Cash 28.6% -8.6% 8,896 $20,017 4.5% 17.6%
Multi-
Pass 27.8% -8.3% 24,677 $38,698 8.8% 17.1%
H.S.
Student
Cash 28.6% -8.6% 10,379 $23,353 5.3% 17.6%
Multi-
Pass 27.8% -8.3% 19,623 $30,772 7.0% 17.1%
Elementary
Student
Cash 28.6% -8.6% 3,855 $ 8,674 2.0% 17.6%
Multi-
Pass 27.8% -8.3% 4,162 6,527 1.5% 17.1%
St. Clair
College Pass 0.0% 0.0% 7,136 $6,422 1.5% 0.0%
Child Cash -100.0% 30.0% 17,709 $ 0.0% -100.0%
Total 246,473 $441,826 100.0% 6.5%
Ticket sales are included as Multi-Pass fares for this exercise
Table 3-2: Annualized Revenues for $0.25 Fare Increase: High Range
Category Fare Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
from
Existing %
Adult Cash 79,140 $178,065 38.1% 12.5%
Multi-Pass 77,518 $142,704 30.6% 15.7%
Senior Cash 9,730 $21,893 4.7% 28.6%
Multi-Pass 26,921 $42,216 9.0% 27.8%
H.S. Student Cash 11,352 $25,542 5.5% 28.6%
Multi-Pass 21,407 $33,570 7.2% 27.8%
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Category Fare Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
from
Existing %
Elementary Student Cash 4,216 $9,487 2.0% 28.6%
Multi-Pass 4,541 $7,121 1.5% 27.8%
St. Clair College Pass 7,136 $6,422 1.4% 0.0%
Child Cash 13,622 - 0.0% -100.0%
Total 255,583 $467,019 100.0% 12.6%
Table 3-3: Annualized Revenues for $0.50 Fare Increase: Low Range (Simpson-Curtin
Formula)
Category Fare
Media
% Fare
Increase
%
Ridership
Increase /
Decrease
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
%
Adult Cash 11.1% -3.3% 73,633 $184,082 38.8% 7.4%
Multi-
Pass 11.0% -3.3% 71,423 $146,092 30.8% 7.4%
Senior Cash 11.1% -3.3% 8,600 $21,499 4.5% 7.4%
Multi-
Pass 11.0% -3.3% 23,862 $41,541 8.8% 7.3%
H.S.
Student
Cash 11.1% -3.3% 10,033 $25,083 5.3% 7.4%
Multi-
Pass 11.0% -3.3% 18,974 $33,033 7.0% 7.3%
Elementary
Student
Cash 11.1% -3.3% 3,727 $9,316 2.0% 7.4%
Multi-
Pass 11.0% -3.3% 4,025 $7,007 1.5% 7.3%
St. Clair
College Pass 0.0% -3.3% 7,136 $6,422 1.5% 0.0%
Child Cash 0.0% 0.0% 23,022 - 0.0% 0.0%
Total 244,434 $474,076 100.0% 7.3%
Ticket sales are included as Multi-Pass fares for this exercise
Table 3-4: Annualized Revenues for $0.50 Fare Increase: High Range
Category Fare Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
from
Existing%
Adult Cash 79,140 $197,849 38.2% 25.0%
Multi-Pass 77,518 $158,560 30.6% 28.6%
Senior Cash 9,730 $24,326 4.7% 42.9%
Multi-Pass 26,921 $46,866 9.0% 41.9%
H.S. Student Cash 11,352 $ 28,380 5.5% 42.9%
Multi-Pass 21,407 $37,267 7.2% 41.9%
Elementary Student Cash 4,216 $ 10,541 2.0% 42.9%
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xiii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Category Fare Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
from
Existing%
Multi-Pass 4,541 $7,905 1.5% 41.9%
St. Clair College Pass 7,136 $ 6,422 1.2% 0.0%
Child Cash 13,622 - 0.0% -100.0%
Total 255,583 $518,116 100.0% 100.0%
PARK AV E
PARK AV W
ST CLAIR ST
GRAND AV E
BALDOO
N RD
GRAND AV W
RICHMOND S
T
LACROIX ST
QUEEN ST
KEIL DR S
COLBORNE ST
GREGORY DR W
VICTORIA AV
KING S
T W
MCNAUGHTON AV E
INDIA
N CREEK R
D E
PARK ST MCNAUGHTON AV W
BLOO
MFIELD RD
RIVERVIEW DR
OXLEY DR
GIVEN RD
INDIA
N CREEK R
D W
BEAR LINE RD
SANDYS ST
PIONEER LI
NE
ENGLISH LI
NE
MERRITT AV
CREEK RD
KEIL DR N
RIV
ER
LIN
E
CHARING CRO
SS RD
TWEEDSMUIR
AV W
EASTLAWN RD
COM
MUNICATIO
N RD
QUEENS LINE
KING ST E
HARVEY ST
FOREST ST
CECILE A
V
WO
ODS ST
CREEK RD
TAYLOR AV
MERCER ST LORNE A
V
INSHES AV
SELKIRK S
T
GREGORY DR E
MICHENER RD
JOHN ST
HOW
ARD RD
ELIZABETH ST
RALEIGH ST
DELAWARE AV
MAPLE LEAF DR
GLENW
OO
D DR
SASS RD
JOSEPH ST
WILLIA
M S
T S
SEVENTH LINE E
IRWIN ST
ELLIS S
T
MURRAY ST
FAUBERT DR
LARK S
T
ONEIL ST
TH
AM
ES
ST
PARK LANE
WELLINGTON ST E
RIVER VIEW LINE
TWEEDSMUIR
AV E
SHELDON AV
CHURCHILL ST
COVERDALE ST
WE
LLIN
GT
ON
ST
W
PAXTON DR
GLENMAR AV
BYNG AV
SYLVESTER A
V
WILLIA
M S
T NBALMORAL R
D
VALLEY R
D
JASPER A
V
TISSIM
AN AV
GARNET DR
CANTERBURY ST
JOPLYN ST
PRINCE ALBERT RD
ALLEN ST
CAMPUS PKW
Y
VANIER DR
PARRY DR
BRIAR HILL RD
EUGENIE S
T
OBRIEN D
R
WILL
OWMAC A
V
FIF
TH
ST
SEMENYN AV
PETER ST
HOLLAND A
V
TAYLOR TRAIL
BEDFORD ST
STAN
LEY
AV
MCFARLANE A
V
STEWART ST
MARY ST
LOW
E ST
NORTHLAND DR
CURRIE ST K
EN
T S
T
DEVON RD
VISCOUNT R
D
CRERAR DR
HICKEY DR
FINCH AV
LYNNWO
OD AV
AD
ELA
IDE
ST
SB
AX
TE
R S
T
WYANDOTT ST
BRIARDENE ST
LONDON DR
DE
GG
E S
T
PIT
T S
T
DAHLIA D
R EMMA ST
TECUMSEH RD
PHILLIP S
T
SIEMENS DR
LEESON DR
IVAN ST
Disclaimer: The Municipality of Chatham-Kent takes every precaution to put up-to-date and correct information on all maps published by the Centre for GIS. However, it does not expressly warranty that the information contained in the map is accurate on the date of publication. All users may use this information at their own risk. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent will not entertain any claims arising out of the use of this map or information.This map was produced by the Centre for GIS. If you have any questions or comments regarding the information displayed on this map, or you require more information please contact us at: [email protected]
Terminal (northwest side) >Wellington > Fifth > Thames >Victoria > Barthe > Grand (Pines,Courthouse, TVL & Thames Lea Plaza) > St. Clair College > McNaughton > Baldoon > Oxley > Timmins > McFarlane > St. Clair > McNaughton > Sheldon >Poplar > Sandys > Grand (Hospital) >Third > Wellington > Centre > Terminal.
ST CLAIR ST
GRAND AV E
VICTORIA AV
BALDOON RD
MCNAUGHTON AV E
PARK ST
GREGORY DR W
GRAND AV W
OXLEY D
R
MCNAUGHTON AV W
GIVEN RD
SANDYS ST K
ING
ST
W
COLBORNE ST
PARK AV E
GREGORY DR E
KING ST E
PIONEER LIN
E
FOREST ST
WOODS ST
TAYLOR AV
LARK S
T
SELKIRK S
T
MICHENER RD
ELIZABETH ST
DELAWARE AV
GLENWO
OD DR
JOSEPH ST
QUEEN ST ELLIS
ST
MURRAY ST
HARVEY ST
LACROIX ST
TH
AM
ES
ST
WELLINGTON ST E
SHELDON AV
CHURCHILL ST
COVERDALE ST
WE
LLIN
GT
ON
ST
W
POPLAR S
T
PAXTON DR
WILLIA
M S
T S
WILLIA
M S
T N
BALMORAL RD
VALLEY R
D
PARK LANE
CANTERBURY ST
VANIER DR
FLORENCE ST
PARRY DR
WILT
SHIRE D
R
CROSS ST
SASS RD
DOVER ST
FIF
TH
ST
SEMENYN AV
KEIL TRAIL
ARNOLD ST
MARYKNOLL RD
TAYLOR TRAIL
BEDFORD ST
AD
ELA
IDE
ST
N
CENTRE ST
STAN
LEY
AV
MCFARLANE A
V
STEWART ST
DU
KE
ST
MARY ST
LOW
E ST
NORTHLAND DR
DEVON RD
BARTHE ST
CRERAR DR
DUNKIRK D
R
AD
ELA
IDE
ST
S
GARDEN PATH
BA
XT
ER
ST
BRIARDENE ST
CROYDON ST
LANCEFIE
LD P
LACE
LONDON DR
CRAVEN DR
ALPINE A
V HENRY O W
AY
EMM
A ST
LAWSON DR
STONE AV
ROSEDALE DR
IVAN ST
SUDBURY DR
SE
VE
NT
H S
T
FOU
RTH
ST
MAPLE S
T
WEBB ST
DU
KE
ST
Terminal (northeast side) > Wellington >Fifth > King > Third > St. Clair > North Maple Mall > St. Clair > Jackson > Victoria >McNaughton > Delaware (CKSS) > Forest >Taylor > McNaughton (CKSS) > Michener >Grand > Thames > Fifth > Centre > Terminal.
PARK AV E
PARK AV W
KEIL DR S
LACROIX ST
QUEEN ST
KING S
T W
RICHMOND S
T
ENGLISH LI
NE
INDIA
N CREEK R
D E
PARK ST
CO
LBO
RN
E ST
GRAND AV E
CREEK RD
ST CLAIR ST
GRAND AV W
MERRITT AV
CREEK RD
TWEEDSMUIR
AV W
SANDYS ST
VICTORIA AV
INDIA
N CREEK R
D W
EASTLAWN RD
KING ST E
HARVEY ST
FOREST ST
CECILE A
V
WOODS ST
CHARING CROSS RD
MERCER ST
FAIRVIE
W L
INE
LORNE A
V INSHES AV
SELKIRK S
T
JOHN ST
ELIZABETH ST
RALEIGH ST
MAPLE LEAF DR
SASS RD
JOSEPH ST
WILLIA
M S
T S
GRAY ST
MURRAY ST
FAUBERT DR
ONEIL ST
TH
AM
ES
ST
PARK LANE
WELLINGTON ST E
TWEEDSMUIR
AV E
SHELDON AV
CHURCHILL ST
PINE ST
EDGAR ST
POPLAR S
T
GLENMAR A
V OXLE
Y DR
MCNAUGHTON AV W
BYNG AV
SYLVESTER AV
BERRY ST W
ILLIAM
ST N
TAYLOR AV
JASPER A
V
TISSIM
AN AV
DELAWARE AV
CANTERBURY ST
JOPLYN ST
ALLEY
TRAVELLED R
D
ALLEN ST
HOWARD RD
CHIPPEW
A DR
BRIAR HILL RD
EUGENIE S
T
SUNNYSIDE A
V
CROSS ST
ALEXANDRA AV
OBRIEN D
R
WILL
OWMAC A
V
FIFT
H S
T
SEMENYN AV
UNNAMED 11 RD
PETER ST
HOLLAND A
V
KERR AV
CENTRE ST
WEDGEW
OOD AV
STAN
LEY
AV
MCFARLANE A
V
MARIO
N AV
MARY ST
LOW
E ST
CURRIE ST K
EN
T S
T
DEVON RD
LLYDICAN AV
HICKEY DR
LYNNWOO
D AV
HOUSTON ST A
DE
LAID
E S
T S
BA
XT
ER
ST
CROYDON ST
GR
AN
T S
T
DE
GG
E S
T
WATER ST
TH
IRD
ST
EMMA ST
TECUMSEH RD
PHILLIP
ST
WILKINSO
N ST
SIEMENS DR
LEESON DR
HILLCREST AV
STONE AV
ROSEDALE DR
IVAN ST
FIRST ST
UNNAMED 7 RD
UNNAMED 8 RD
EARL DR
EMM
A ST
Terminal (southeast side) > Centre >Harvey > Wellington > William(Cinema 6, Victoria Park, Cultural Centre) > Stanley (Victoria Residence) > Prince >Murray >Princess > Colborne (Wish Centre) >Sass (P.A.B.C. & Call centre) > Park Ave. >Park Lane > Tweedsmuir > John > Tissiman > Queen > Cecile > Lacroix > Indian Creek (John McGregor) > St. Michael > Sylvester >Tweedsmuir > Foreman > Pine > Park Ave. > St. George > Park St. > William > Wellington >Terminal.
PARK A
V W
KEIL
DR S
GRAND A
V W
RIC
HM
ON
D S
T
LACRO
IX S
T
QUEEN S
T
KIN
G S
T W
BLO
OM
FIE
LD R
D
PARK ST
RIVERVIE
W D
R
INDIA
N C
REEK R
D W
MERRIT
T A
V
TW
EEDSM
UIR
AV W
KEIL
DR N
QUEENS L
INE
PARK A
V E
MCNAUG
HTO
N A
V W
BEAR L
INE R
D
KING ST E
HARVEY S
T
BALDO
ON R
D
HO
WARD R
D
CECIL
E A
V
LO
RN
E A
V IN
SHES A
V
COLBORNE ST
RALEIG
H S
T
WO
ODS S
T
WIL
LIA
M S
T S
IRW
IN S
T
GRAY S
T
MURRAY ST
SAND
YS S
T
FAUBERT D
R
LARK S
T
ONEIL
ST
WELLINGTON ST E
CHURCHIL
L S
T
PIN
E S
T
BRISTOL D
R
ED
GAR S
T
WELLINGTON ST W
GRANDE RIV
ER LIN
E
MERCER S
T
BYNG
AV
SYLVESTER A
V
BERR
Y S
T
GARNET D
R
BALM
OR
AL R
D
HIT
CHCO
CK R
D
MCG
UIG
AN A
V
CANTERBURY S
T
ALLEY
TRAVELLED R
D
CAM
PUS P
KW
Y
MAN
NIN
G D
R
WIL
LIA
M S
T N
WIL
CO
X S
T
RIVER V
IEW
LIN
E
EU
GENIE
ST
TW
EED
SM
UIR
AV E
CRO
SS S
T
DOVER ST
FIF
TH
ST
SEM
ENYN A
V
BO
THW
ELL S
T
KEIL
TRAIL
UNNAM
ED 1
1 R
D
PETER S
T
HO
LLAND A
V
CENTRE S
T
WEDGEW
OOD A
V
DU
KE
ST
MARIO
N A
V
MARY S
T
SPENCER A
V
CURRIE
ST
DEVO
N R
D
BARTHE ST
HO
USTO
N S
T
AD
EL
AID
E S
T S
GARDEN P
ATH
BA
XT
ER
ST
W
YAND
OTT S
T
CRAVEN
DR
DUNN A
V
UNIV
ERSIT
Y D
R
EM
MA S
T
SO
URIQ
UO
IS S
T
TECUMSEH RD
NATIO
NAL R
D
HY
SL
OP
ST
PH
ILLIP
ST
LEESO
N D
R
FIRST ST
UNNAM
ED 7
RD
UNNAM
ED 8
RD
EARL D
R
TRAVELLED R
D
Terminal (southwest side) > Centre >
Wellington > King (St. Joe�s) >
Merritt (Maple City Centre) > Riverview
(Community Living, Bingo) > Heritage >
Keil > Richmond (call centre) > Bloomfield >
Park Ave. (Community Living) >
Lacroix (call centre) > Richmond >
Queen (Library) > School > Centre >
Wellington > Terminal.
Farmington Estates
O’BrienSubdivision
WilsonwoodSubdivision
LynnwoodSubdivision
Estates
RiversideMobile Home
Park
St. Clair
TO AND FROMWALLACEBURG
HS
H
COMMUNITY OF CHATHAM
T
HS
BUS TERMINAL
HIGH SCHOOL
H HOSPITAL
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT ROUTE (AND DIRECTION)
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT STOP
ROAD NETWORK
T
Municipality of Chatham-Kent General Disclaimer: The Municipality of Chatham-Kent makes no representation what so ever about the suitability or accuracy of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this document for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent hereby disclaims all representations and warranties. The documents and related graphics published on this document may include inaccuracies and/or errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent may make updates and/or changes in the information described herein at any time.
All fares as "per ride". No transfers will be issued foruse on other CK Transit services.
Fares − effective October 1, 2007:
Please note that riders will be required to presentexact change!
INQUIRIES: 519.354.7433
ROUTE SCHEDULE: A
CK Inter−Urban Route
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT STOP (DEPARTURE TIME SPECIFIED)REFER TO ROUTE SCHEDULE
MORNING BUSESChatham TerminalChatham HospitalChatham TerminalChatham HospitalChatham Terminal End
6:15 AM8:35 AM8:45 AM
11:05 AM11:15 AM
AFTERNOON BUSESChatham TerminalChatham HospitalChatham TerminalChatham HospitalChatham Terminal End
4:15 PM6:35 PM6:45 PM9:05 PM9:15 PM
FREQUENCY: Monday Through Saturday
NOTE: Buses will not depart from the above stoplocations before the times as noted.
Inter−Urban Transit Stop Daparture Times
TO AND FROMCHATHAM
TO AND FROMDRESDEN
TO AND FROMWALLACEBURG
HS
ES
SC
A
CO
L
HIGH SCHOOL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SERVICE CENTRE
CASINO
ARENA
LIBRARY
RT RACE TRACKP PARK
HS
CC
SC
A
C
H
M
HS
ES
SC
A
CO
L
RT
P
CC
C
H
CALL CENTRE
COLLEGE
HOSPITAL
M MALL
COMMUNITY OF WALLACEBURG
COMMUNITY OF DRESDENINTER−URBAN TRANSIT ROUTE (AND DIRECTION)
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT STOP
CK Inter−Urban Route
ROAD NETWORK
Riders are encouraged to consult the Revenue Canadawebsite for information regarding available tax credits forpublic transportation riders (www.fin.gc.ca).
Ridership Tip !
NOTE: Buses will not depart from the above stoplocations before the times as noted.
ROUTE SCHEDULE: A
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT STOP (DEPARTURE TIME SPECIFIED)REFER TO ROUTE SCHEDULE
MORNING BUSES
Inter−Urban Transit Stop Departure Times
INQUIRIES: 519.354.7433
FREQUENCY: Monday Through Saturday
6:15
AM
4:15
PM
6:45
PM
8:45
AM
6:45 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM7:50 AM8:05 AM8:45 AM9:15 AM9:30 AM