Pembroke Transit Feasibility Study

Phase 1 Public Consultation

August 2021

Why is this study taking place? Pembroke currently has no local

transit The City’s 2019-2022 Strategic

Plan identifies transportation and transit as a specific priority

What will this study do? Determine an optimal transit

solution (if any) for Pembroke’s residents, businesses, and visitors.

Set the stage for a potential Phase 2 study examining implementation

What does this public consultation material do? Provide information on the transit

solutions analyzed Present draft recommendations on

the optimal transit solution Invite input from the public on the

findings and recommendations

Introduction

TRAVEL DEMAND MARKET ANALYSIS

Transit needs to serve people’s travel needs Six fundamental questions:

Transit provides a means for people to travel. Effective transit service is aligned with people’s travel habits.The answers to the six fundamental questions about people’s travel in Pembroke will be used to inform the type and scope of a potential transit service in the city.

MARKET ANALYSIS – The Six Questions

WHEREare people travelling?

NorthSouthEastWest

…

WHOare the people

travelling?

AgeIncome

Languages…

WHATare people travelling

to?

HomeWorkplace

SchoolMedical facility

Shops…

WHYare people travelling?

LeisureEducation

Work…

WHENare people travelling?

Time of day

HOWare people travelling?

Car driverCar passenger

BikeWalk

…

As the economic centre, the city attracts workers both from within Pembroke and beyond. In the long-term, the large number of cross-boundary trips provides an excellent opportunity for mutually beneficial partnerships between the City of Pembroke and the communities in the surrounding area. Algonquin College students without access to a vehicle must live within walking distance.

MARKET ANALYSIS – Where…?

Work Trips

Source: 2016 Census. Catalogue Number 98-400-X2016325

Majority of Pembroke residents commute within city Significant proportion of jobs in city filled by residents Algonquin College commuting destination for students

Photo: Cwmartin8. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Algonquin College

As the region’s economic centre, Pembroke has a wide range of amenities to serve its residents, visitors, and people from the communities in the surrounding area.

MARKET ANALYSIS – What…?

31%

8%

45%

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Home to/fromworkplace

Home to/fromeducation

Home to/fromother

Not home-based

Prop

ortio

n of

Trip

s

Trip Purpose

Port PerryOrilliaOrangeville

Similar communities show that trips to/from places other than work or education are most common

Commutes to/from places of work and education provide reliable market for transit

The split between trip purposes is fairly consistent between communities of a similar size and economic status. The communities in the graph have been chosen for their similarity to Pembroke

MARKET ANALYSIS – Why…?

Trip Purpose in Similar Communities

Source: Transportation Tomorrow Survey (2016)

Pembroke’s population skews older Personal income levels are lower than for Ontario Over a third (36%) of Pembroke’s residents have

moved here within past five years

NB: All references to “Renfrew” refer to the Census District, which includes both Renfrew County and the City of Pembroke.

MARKET ANALYSIS – Who…?

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

0 to

45

to 9

10 to

14

15 to

19

20 to

24

25 to

29

30 to

34

35 to

39

40 to

44

45 to

49

50 to

54

55 to

59

60 to

64

65 to

69

70 to

74

75 to

79

80 to

84

85 to

89

90 to

94

95 to

99

> 1

00

Perc

ent o

f Res

iden

ts

Age Range (Years)

Pembroke

Renfrew

Ontario

Age of Population Annual Personal Income

Source for all charts: 2016 Census. Catalogue Number 98-316-X2016001

Residence Five Years Ago

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

with

out t

otal

inco

me

< $1

0k

$10k

to $

20k

$20k

to $

30k

$30k

to $

40k

$40k

to $

50k

$50k

to $

60k

$60k

to $

70k

$70k

to $

80k

$80k

to $

90k

$90k

to $

100k

> $1

00k

Perc

ent o

f Res

iden

ts

Annual Personal Income

Pembroke

Renfrew

Ontario

Commutes split evenly between under and over 15 mins Roughly half of commutes start between 7am and 9am Census data shows most trips to/from work involve a car Strong proportion by active modes (walking and cycling)

Longer trips are an easier target for transit.The dominance of car-related travel is to be expected given the choices currently available to residents. A similar situation is expected for other types of trips within the city.Transit trips generally begin and end with a walk to/from a bus stop. This means that Pembroke’s strong walkability will help any transit service.

MARKET ANALYSIS – When…? How…?

Commute Start Time

Commute start time and duration sources: 2016 Census. Catalogue Number 98-316-X2016001Commute mode source: 2016 Census. Catalogue Number 98-400-X2016329

Commute Duration Commute Mode

Car driver81%

Car passenger

9%

Activemodes10%

MARKET ANALYSIS – Implications for Transit in Pembroke (1)

Finding Implication for transit

Where? High proportion of home / work trips are within the city

Commuting within Pembroke can provide a reliable source of transit demand. There are long-term opportunities for inter-municipal partnerships to serve cross-boundary trips.

Algonquin College students limited in where they can live

Transit service would broaden the number of places students can live in the city, potentially allowing the College to serve a greater number of students.

What? Rich in amenities and employment sites Transit should provide service to destinations across the city, not just specific areas.

Why? Places not work or education attract the most trips.

Opportunity to serve variety of trips throughout the day, not just peak period commutes to work.

Who? Population skews older Seniors more likely to not use a car for medical or financial reasons; key market for transit

Personal income levels are lower than average

Expect greater proportion of people without access to car; reinforces the need for and benefits of transit service

High proportion of new residents Opportunity to promote transit to new residents, creating long-term riders.

MARKET ANALYSIS – Implications for Transit in Pembroke (2)

Finding Implication for transit

When? Commutes split evenly between under/over 15 mins

Pembroke’s compact size means transit journey times must be short to be competitive with other modes. Longer trips within city are a good target for transit

Half of commutes start between 7am and 9am

Will inform the decisions regarding when service is provided in Phase 2 of the study

How? 90% of residents use car to commute

Transit can provide new ways for people to access jobs and other things they need

Strong proportion by active modes

Demonstrates Pembroke has good walkability – important for people walking to/from transit stops.

Transit service in Pembroke would have the opportunity to serve a wide variety of destinations and trip types across the city.

These findings informed the analysis of transit options.

TRANSIT SUPPLY OPTIONS

All the aspects examined in this study will consider the needs for both conventional and specialized transit.The term “specialized transit” is used to refer to transit service for people with disabilities who cannot otherwise use transit service.The term “conventional transit” refers to transit intended for use by the general population.

Transit options

What the service looks like to the user, such as fixed-route or demand-responsive

SERVICE DELIVERY

Who runs the service, such as the municipality or a private contractor

OPERATOR

How the service is operated, such as the size and fuel type of the vehicle

VEHICLE

Where and whenservice is provided, such as whether a route serves a particular community.

This will be covered in Phase 2 of the study, subject to funding.

SERVICE

The options for providing transit in Pembroke depend on four areas, each covering a different aspect:

Access: how do passengers access transit services? Routing: how is the transit vehicle’s route decided? Journey time: how much certainty does the model

provide? Sharing: how often do passengers share the vehicle

with other passengers? Cost basis: what drives the operating costs? Vehicle size: how large are the typical vehicles? Productivity: how many boardings per hour can the

model expect to accommodate? Goals: what overarching goals does the model best

serve?

There is a range of possible service delivery models. Each has its own distinctive attributes that provide different answers the questions shown on the left.There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer to each question – different models work in different circumstances.

SERVICE DELIVERY – Key Questions

Model Fixed Route

Deviated Route

Scheduled Demand-

Responsive Connector

Demand-Responsive Connector

Point-to-Point

Door-to-Door

Taxi / Rideshare Vouchers

Walk to / from transit stops

Fixed

Fixed

Most of the time

Per vehicle

Access

Routing

Journey time

Sharing

Cost base

Curbside pick-up / drop-off

DynamicSemi-dynamic

Individual

Dependable Variable Individual

NoSometimes

Per passenger

Largest (40-foot buses) Smallest (sedan)

Highest Lowest

Predictable / efficient Personal / flexible

Vehicle size

Productivity

Service goal

FIXED FLEXIBLE DEMAND RESPONSIVE

Scheduled start/end times at one or more points, but otherwise demand-responsive service

The diagram shows the wide range of possible service delivery models, each with its own distinctive attributes. None are better or worse than the other. Rather, the right model depends on local conditions.

SERVICE DELIVERY – Models

Like fixed-route, but potentially detours to a different route in response to customer needs

Demand-responsive service between a transit hub and people’s start / end points in a pre-set area

Passengers are picked up/dropped off at pre-set points (that is, transit stops), with the routing set on the fly

Vehicle picks up passengers from outside their origin point, and drops them off at their destination

Uses taxis or ride-share (such as Lyft), with the City paying some form of subsidy for each trip

Operates along a pre-set route, following a schedule of when to serve each stop.

Definition

Fixed route service and point-to-point demand responsive are both suitable models for conventional transit in Pembroke.Door-to-door demand responsive service is only a suitable model for specialized transit in Pembroke.

SERVICE DELIVERY – Assessment

Model Fixed Route

Deviated Route

Scheduled Demand-

Responsive Connector

Demand-Responsive Connector

Point-to-Point

Door-to-Door

Taxi / Rideshare Vouchers

FIXED FLEXIBLE DEMAND RESPONSIVE

AssessmentPembroke doesn’t have separate areas to deviate a route to

Pembroke could be served by a single one-way loop

Inter-city service has only one trip/day each way

Commercial areas and amenities are not clustered in a single location

Population density not low enough to justify for most trips.

Pembroke is an urban community, with good pedestrian connectivity.

Shared models will offer better productivity (and hence lower costs per rider)

SUITABLE

Conventionalonly

NOT SUITABLE

NOT SUITABLE

NOT SUITABLE

SUITABLE

Conventional only

SUITABLE

Specialized only

NOT SUITABLE

Definition

Suitability

Scheduled start/end times at one or more points, but otherwise demand-responsive service

Like fixed-route, but potentially detours to a different route in response to customer needs

Demand-responsive service between a transit hub and people’s start/ed points pre-set area

Passengers are picked up/dropped off at pre-set points (that is, transit stops), with the routing set on the fly

Vehicle picks up passengers from outside their origin point, and drops them off at their destination

Uses taxis or ride-share (such as Lyft), with the City paying some form of subsidy for each trip

Operates along a pre-set route, following a schedule of when to serve each stop.

A transit operator’s responsibilities include employing and training drivers and maintenance staff, ensuring vehicles operate on-time, and refueling and cleaning vehicles.The three options presented here are all used by municipalities with transit service in Ontario and elsewhere.

OPERATOR – Models

• City employs all the people to manage, operate and maintain the transit vehicles

• City also procures and own the vehicles and associated facilities.

• Typical for larger systems (30+ vehicles)

• Demand-response systems will contract out software aspects, even with in-house vehicle operations done

IN-HOUSE OPERATION

• City pays a private contractor, who in turn employs all the people to manage, operate and maintain the transit vehicles.

• Fixed-route service: planning / scheduling / customer information still done by the City

• Demand-responsive service: contractor does (dynamic) routing / scheduling / customer information

PRIVATE CONTRACTOR

• City contracts with a government agency (which may be another municipality) that operates transit to provide services.

• Service model and operating hours typically controlled by other government agency

• Easier to integrate cross-boundary services

OTHER GOVERNMENT

Each of the three options have their advantages and disadvantages. The ability to directly control any aspect of transit brings with it the need for appropriate expertise to manage that aspect.

OPERATOR – Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:• Full control of customer

experience and transit assets

• No contract oversight required

IN-HOUSE OPERATION

Advantages:• Quick start-up with low

up-front costs• Can draw on external

management expertise• City retains control over

service levels

PRIVATE CONTRACTOR

Advantages:• Quick start-up with low

up-front costs• Can draw on external

management expertise

Disadvantages:• Full capital cost

required to start services

• Requires internal management experience

Disadvantages:• Can only adjust service

within parameters of contract

• Contract oversight required

• Indirect control of customer experience

Disadvantages:• Service levels typically

controlled by third party

• Contract oversight required

• Indirect control of customer experience.

OTHER GOVERNMENT

Vehicle ownership• The City could own the transit vehicles but contract out

operations. This allows the City to take advantage of third-party grants for vehicle purchases. Also provide the City with full control over the type of vehicle and on-board amenities.

Maintenance facilities• Given Pembroke’s distance from any other local transit system, it

would probably save money for a private contractor to use City facilities for storing / maintaining transit vehicles.

• This avoids the need to drive vehicles a large distance to/from an out-of-town facility each day at the start/end of service.

Promotion and marketing• City has the strongest incentive to increase transit use, so this

role would default to them.• If using transit requires an app, app creator could provide training

to potential users, or those who help potential transit users

A successful transit system is about more than day-to-day running of the service. The City has opportunities to be involved with other aspects of transit service provision, regardless of whether a contracted operator is involved.

OPERATOR – Non-operational Aspects

Key factors• Pembroke’s low population means the transit fleet will be small• City is starting a new service, so no in-house expertise• No opportunities for contracting with another government agency

Draft recommendations:• Use private contractor for operations• City owns the transit vehicles if possible• Consider providing space at City-owned facility for maintenance• Conduct promotion and marketing jointly with operator

OPERATOR – Assessment and Recommendations

Type Standard bus Passenger van Minivan Sedan

Example Nova Bus LFS Ford Transit Passenger Van Honda Odyssey Toyota Corolla

Capacity 30 to 60 12 to 18 4 to 7 1 to 4Lifespan 10 to 12 years 10 to 12 years 6 to 8 years 6 to 8 years

Price $500-600k $50-100k $35-75k $20-75k

Suitable for… Fixed-routePTPDR *

Fixed-routePTPDR

SpecializedPTPDR

Specialized SpecializedAvailable fuel options

DieselHybridElectric

GasolineDiesel

GasolineDieselHybrid

GasolineDieselHybridElectric

There are a wide variety of vehicles that can be used for transit services. This section identifies the broad types of vehicles used for transit, the service delivery models they are suitable for, and the required fleet size. It then recommends the vehicle type and discusses the potential for using electric vehicles for transit service.

VEHICLE – Types Available

* PTPDR = point-to-point demand-responsive

Assessment considered:• Fleet size required for a Pembroke-specific service• Reasonable service levels and passenger usage per vehicle• Lifecycle costs (capital costs plus lifespan operating costs)

Draft recommendation for fixed-route service: standard buses• Lowest lifecycle costs (High cost per vehicle, but higher capacity

means fewer vehicles required, lowering operating costs)• Wheelchair-accessible minivans would be used for any parallel

specialized service. Draft recommendation for demand responsive

service: passenger vans• Lowest capital, operating and lifecycle costs• Same vehicles would provide (door-to-door) specialized service.

VEHICLE – Assessment

Availability• Electric standard buses available; no

issue with Pembroke summers / winters• Electric passenger vans not

commercially available Costs

• Capital cost of electric buses is substantially higher (50-100% more)

• Third party grants available vehicle purchases

• Operating costs are lower (savings on fuel and maintenance)

• Lifecycle costs seem to be roughly similar, but real-world assessment is still ongoing

Charging• Given the likely service models and

number of vehicles, charging would be entirely at the maintenance facility

Draft recommendations:• If suitable electric vehicles available for

selected service delivery model, then City should take advantage of any third-party grants to reduce their operational costs

• If third party grants not available, then City should consider its desired cashflow profile.

VEHICLE – Electric Vehicles

Fixed-route Operates along a pre-set route,

following a schedule of when to serve each stop.

Buses pick up/drop-off passengers at stops along the route

Passengers consult schedule (possibly through an app)

Journey time known in advance

Point-to-point demand responsive Passengers are picked up/dropped

off at pre-set points (that is, transit stops), with the routing between set on the fly

Passengers book trips through app, website or phone line

Journey time depends on trips made by other passengers

Suitable Service Delivery Options for Analysis

This is not intended to be the final set of stop locations the City should use, but to illustrate a plausible way this service model would function in Pembroke.Stop locations were chosen to limit walking distance to 400m, or about five minutes walk. Additional stops were placed at key trip generators (hospital, malls, seniors’ homes and Algonquin College).

Point-to-Point Demand Responsive Service: Illustrative Example

This is not intended to be the final route the City should use, but to illustrate a plausible way this service model would function in Pembroke.The route would operate as one-way loop. The routing minimizes walk access distance, while limiting the time a transit vehicle takes to cycle through the route to one hour. Stops would be regularly spaced along the route.

Fixed-Route Service: Illustrative Example

Factor Point-to-point demand responsive service

Fixed-routeService

Stop locations Anywhere needed Limited to locations on the route

Walk to stop Max 400m (5 minutes walk)Could be less

Max 650m (7.5 minutes walk)Hard to change

Wait time 5-15 minutes (typical average for this type of service)

30 minutes with service running every 60 minutes10 minutes with service running every 20 minutes

In-vehicle time

10-15 minutes (typical average, given Pembroke’s size)

30 minutes with one-way service15 minutes with two-way service

Typical total journey time + 5 minutes walk to stop

+ 15 minutes wait time+ 15 minutes in-vehicle time+ 5 minutes walk to stop= 35 minutes

One-way loop, every 60 minutes:+ 7.5 minutes walk to stop+ 30 minutes wait time+ 30 minutes in-vehicle time+ 7.5 minutes walk to stop= 75 minutesA two-way loop every 20 minutes reduces this to 40 minutes.

The assessment of the potential operator models and vehicle types showed that suitable options are available for both suitable service delivery models.The slide and the next summarize their relative merits across various factors to identify the preferred approach

Preferred Service Delivery Approach (1)

Factor Point-to-point demand responsive service

Fixed-routeService

Specialized service

Can use same vehicle fleet and software platform as conventional transit service.Easier start-up and lower operational complexity.

Requires separate vehicle fleet plus bespoke booking platform.Start-up and operations more difficult

Operator model

Private contractor a viable option. Private contractor a viable option.

Vehicle type Viable options are available.Electric vehicles not commercially available

Viable options are available.Electric vehicles available, but their use could delay implementation.

Preferred model

With the exception of electric vehicle availability, point-to-point demand responsive service is either superior or the same as fixed-route service across all factors.

Preferred Service Delivery Approach (2)

Draft recommendations:• Use point-to-point demand responsive service for conventional

transit service• Use door-to-door demand responsive service for specialized

service, with same vehicle fleet as conventional

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Potential partners for the City in delivering a successful transit service could include: Other municipalities

• Long-term potential for cross-boundary services • Coordination with other potential municipal transit services

Major trip attractors• Includes shopping malls and other common destinations• Transit vehicle access to site to optimize stop location

Educational institutions• Additional travel option for high school students• Broadens potential living areas for post-secondary students

Seniors’ residences• Staff can help residents with booking process• Transit would supplement existing transport options

The City has the potential to partner with various organizations. These partnerships would help transit by supporting transit use, as well delivering benefits to the partners.

Discussions with potential partners are currently at a preliminary stage, with positive feedback so far.

Partnership Opportunities

Key Findings There are wide range of people

who would benefit from transit provision within the city

Transit could serve a wide variety of travel markets and trip types

There are feasible options for transit service in Pembroke that fulfil these needs

Partnership opportunities exist with multiple organizations in and around Pembroke

Draft Recommendations Service delivery

• Conventional: point-to-point demand responsive service

• Specialized: door-to-door demand responsive service

Vehicles• Passenger vans; shared fleet for

conventional and specialized service• Assess electric vehicles when available

Operator:• Private contractor for operations; City

owns the transit vehicles if possible• Joint promotion and marketing

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Thank-you for your participation Please take the online survey Please send any comments to:

Next steps for the study:• Incorporate comments from public and other engagement• Report to Council on Phase I recommendations • Process with Phase II (subject to Council approval), covering

detailed implementation issues

Conclusion

Elijah McKeownTourism and Digital Media Officer

City of Pembroke(613) 735-6821 ext. 1515emckeown@pembroke.ca

Tom WillisSenior Project Manager

Paradigm Transportation Solutions(416) 479 9684 ext. 503

twillis@ptsl.com

www.ptsl.com Connect with usParadigm Transportation Solutions Limited