System Reimagining August Board Meeting (Plan Revisions)

SYSTEM REIMAGININGDiscussion on Proposed Changes to

the Draft System Reimagining Plan

August 2014Special Board Meeting

Today’s Discussion

Review of project outreach and feedback Review of process to refine Draft System

Reimagining Plan• Public Input• Operational Assessment

Discuss recommended plan revisions based on community feedback and identified operational issues for development of Final Plan

2

Meetings, Events, and BriefingsCommunity Outreach 18 Public Community

Meetings

13 Transit Center events connecting with riders

65+ Community, Neighborhood and Organization Briefings

Website Interactive Map3

Project Website

23,000+ Interactive Network Map Views

4,700+ Reimagining Presentation Views

1,100+ Feedback Comments

4

System Reimagining Project TimelineAnalysis of Existing Conditions

Defining Goals

Developing Draft Plan

Public Outreach on the Plan

Implement Plan

We Are HereJuly – August 2014

CompletedSummer 2014

Completed Spring 2014

CompletedFall 2013

Completed Summer 2013

June 2015

Planned Board Presentation September 2014 – Final Plan

presented for Board Approval

Refine andFinalize Plan

5

Summary of Feedback Survey & Meeting Responses from May 5 – August 4

Total number of responses: 1,109

Comments received from 120 zip codes

Three hotspots of strongly negative feedback related to specific proposals for new service:

• Weslayan/West University Place (21%)

• Jones Road/Jersey Village (3%)

• Louetta Road/Vintage Lakes (3%)Weslayan

21% Jones/Jersey Village

3%

Louetta / Vintage Lakes

3%Other73%

Survey Responses: 3 Major Segment Issues(percent of 1,109 comments)

6

Where We Received Feedback

Responses By Zip Code 7

Summary of Feedback

35%33%

36%

28%

36%

12%16%

12% 11% 11%

53% 51% 52%

61%

53%

Better for Me Better for my friends andfamily

Better for myneighborhood

Better for the Houstonregion

Likely to help me ridetransit for more trips

Survey Responses - Excluding 3 Segment Issues (~810)Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree or Strongly Agree

Excluding Weslayan, Jones Road/Jersey Village, and Louetta/Vintage Lakes Comments

8

Summary of Feedback

89% 88% 90%

73%

89%

3% 5% 2%

14%

4%7% 7% 7%13%

7%





Survey Responses - 3 Segment Issues Only (~305)Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree or Strongly Agree

Weslayan, Jones Road/Jersey Village, and Louetta/Vintage Lakes) Comments Only

9

51% 48%51%

40%

51%

9%13%

9%12%

9%

40% 38% 40%

48%

40%





All Responses (1109)Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree or Strongly Agree

Summary of Feedback - Overall

10

Feedback & Refinement Process Summarize: Feedback grouped into general comments

and specific, actionable feedback on the plan • General Positive (“I like this plan!”, etc.)

• General Negative (“I don’t like this plan!” etc.)

• Specific Suggestion about routing, frequencies, and spans (“Consider moving/changing this route like this,” “Don’t change this route/don’t run service on this street,” etc.)

• Neutral/not network design issue (“METRO needs to get new buses,” “Build more rail”)

• Implementation Detail - Implementation items (e.g. stop locations) to be cataloged and resolved in implementation phase

11

Does the proposed change improve or worsen the plan’s ability to meet the goal of maximum ridership?

• Links major centers of activity• High density along route• Maximize high-frequency service (every 15 minutes or better all day)• Route is simple and straight• Parallel frequent routes are well spaced (1/2 mile or more apart)

Does the proposed change improve or worsen the level of basic access to the transit system (coverage goal) including to areas of social-service concern?

• Does the change provide coverage to more people and/or jobs?• Does the change address walking distances for mobility-impaired

persons (seniors and physically disabled)?• Does the change provide better access to a destination of interest to

disadvantaged persons, such as social services, clinics, etc.?

Assessment Process for Specific FeedbackRidership Service

Coverage Service

12

Propose Recommended Revision to the Draft Plan Comments were put into one of three groups:

• Consider: The comment or suggestion may improve the plan

• Defer: The comment is a high-cost item that could be a priority in the future, but should not be considered within current plan budget

• No: Comment or suggestion does not improve the plan and should not be pursued

• Proposed plan recommendations have also been made to address identified operational and facility capacity issues

13

Why Reimagine? Draft Reimagining Plan The community has asked

for improvements to the local bus system

Simpler, more frequent, 7-days a week service connecting more people to more places with faster trips

Ridership has declined on the local bus system

Projected to drive local bus ridership increase of 20+% after 2 years

To create an integrated network of bus and rail service

Stronger connections between the bus and rail network allowing for more seamless operations

Establishes a strong foundation and clear tools to continue to improve the system as resources allow

Need to provide a strong foundation for future growth

The transit system has not evolved with the growing Houston region

A much better match with where and when people live, work, play and learn

Why Reimagine the Transit Network?

14

Plan DevelopmentPlan and recommended changes reflect Board direction:

80% Maximum Ridership 20% Maximum Coverage

Simple, straight routes arriving frequently focused on places where

transit can be most productive

Particular focus on maintaining service for existing riders

Projected at 80% Ridership/20% Coverage no more than 0.5% of existing boardings would occur more than ½ mile

from proposed service; Draft Plan delivered at 0.04%15

Local Service Types

Red (Frequent)

Blue(Ridership)

Green(Coverage)

Orange(Peak Only)

Base Headway(14-16 hours, 7 days)

(includes weekday peaks)

10 to15 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes no service

Peak Headway(2-3 hours in weekday AM

and PM peak travel periods)

7 to 15 minutes

12, 15 or 20 minutes 30 minutes 15 minutes

Late EveningHeadway

(Last 3-4 hours of service)

20 or 30 minutes 30 minutes no service no service

Overall DailySpan of Service

18 to 20hours

18 to 20hours

14hours

WeekdayAM & PM

peaks

14 hours represents reduction in span on some coverage routes

16

Discussion Areas for Potential Changes to the Draft Plan

Northwest Transit Center Katy Freeway/Memorial

Corridor Hiram Clarke/Southwest Far Northwest Weslayan/Buffalo

Speedway Far Northeast Span on Coverage Routes Other individual route

revisions

Where possible related changes have been grouped together For each group we will present

• Public feedback and operational issues leading to consideration of change

• Draft Plan Map• Map showing recommended

changes• Impacts of the change

For several areas we have also provided additional alternatives for discussion

17

Northwest Transit Center Northwest TC Operational Issues:

• 12 existing bus bays at Northwest TC• Draft Plan included 17 local routes plus Park & Rides• Expansion of Northwest Transit Center will be a multi-

year project; interim solution necessary for June 2015

Other Operational Issues• Northbound IH 610 frontage road will not be completed

by June 2015• Anticipated loads on 16 White Oak Quitman in Draft

Plan require 40 foot bus which cannot be operated through Cottage Grove neighborhood streets

18

Northwest TCDraft Network Plan and Impacted Routes

19

Northwest TCRecommended Option (Part 1)

Develops Hempstead Mini Terminal (MT) at Hempstead/Post Oak

18 Long Point combined with 20 Cavalcade, as crosstown 20 Long Point Cavalcade

Route split at Kashmere TC to create 63 MLK Lockwood

46 Antoine combined with 14 Washington to create 46 Antoine Washington

47 Post Oak extended to Hempstead MT

20

Northwest TCRecommended Option (Part 2)

16 White Oak Quitman and 89 Dacomaterminated at Hempstead MT

16 White Oak Quitman rerouted via 11th, TC Jester, and IH 10 frontage roads

88 Cottage Grove added as small bus route

21

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Required to allow operations on target implementation

timeline for 2015; can be revised after NWTC improvements completed

+ Provides direct connection to Red Line LRT on 20 Long Point at Cavalcade Station

+ Improves Frequent Network connections at Kashmere TC− 16 White Oak Quitman, 89 Dacoma, and new 88 Cottage

Grove connected to Hempstead Mini Terminal instead of Northwest TC

Estimated Cost Impact: $400,000 per year (0.2% of local budget)

Northwest TCProposed Network Revisions

22

Katy Freeway/Memorial Corridor Public Feedback:

• Midday and evening service to Downtown from outer Memorial Drive should be maintained

• Draft Plan service in Katy Freeway/Memorial corridor is confusing

• Access to existing retail at Beltway 8 & Westview is important

Ridership Consideration:• Frequent link between Memorial City, Northwest TC, and

Downtown has high ridership potential

Operational Issues:• Routing in Town & Country/City Centre not feasible • Park Row extension not complete until 2016

23

Katy Freeway/Memorial CorridorDraft Network Plan and Impacted Routes

24

Katy Freeway/Memorial CorridorRecommended Option (Part 1)

160s Memorial City Flyer composed of trips on: 161 Wilcrest Flyer (30 base/20 peak) 162 Memorial Flyer (60 base/20 peak), 160 Memorial City Flyer (60 base) All 160s stop at Northwest TC

25

Katy Freeway/Memorial CorridorRecommended Option (Part 2)

85 Memorial Villages and 87 Westviewrerouted and coordinated to provide higher frequency to retail at Beltway 8

86 Katy Freeway renamed, simplified, and rerouted to cover Sherwood Forest

33 Dairy Ashford truncated south of IH 10 until Park Row completed

26

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Adds frequent service between Memorial City, Northwest

TC, and Downtown and expansion over Draft Plan+ Adds increased frequency along Westview between

Gessner and Brittmoore serving retail destinations+ Straightens and simplifies routes with consistent, seven-

day pattern on outer Memorial

Cost Impact: saves $325,000 per year (0.2% of local budget)

Katy Freeway/Memorial CorridorRecommended Option

27

Hiram Clarke / Southwest Public Feedback:

• Connection to Post Oak/Chimney Rock is preferred by Ridgemont neighborhood

• Proposed 82 route in Draft Plan viewed as confusing

Ridership Consideration:• Opportunity to better match proposed service levels

to ridership and travel demand

28

Hiram Clarke / SouthwestDraft Network Plan and Impacted Routes

29

Hiram Clarke / SouthwestRecommended Option

45 Chimney Rock long line rerouted to Ridgemont loop

Terminus of 41 Fondrenmoved to Missouri City P&R

Remaining segments create 82 Briargate and 83 West Airport, better matching ridership demand

30

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Better matches service to existing ridership patterns+ Straightens and simplifies routes reinforcing network grid+ Addresses areas with shorter span in Draft Network than

existing

Cost Impact: even

Hiram Clarke / SouthwestRecommended Option

31

Far Northwest Public Feedback:

• Strong opposition to routes running on Jones and Louetta with little support

• Acres Homes community requested maintaining number 44 on Acres Homes/Montgomery route

Budget Consideration:• Extension of routes to West Little York Park &

Ride makes less sense without connecting local route to the north

32

Far NorthwestDraft Network Plan and Impacted Routes

33

Far NorthwestRecommended Option

95 Jones removed from plan 94 Acres Homes Montgomery

renumbered to 44 and extended to University Park via modified route

Connection of 25 Tidwell West, 28 W Little York Irvington, and 40 Gessner moved to Tidwell & Fairbanks N Houston

34

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Increases service to University Park area (retail,

hospital, office, college) with direct connection from 44 Acres Homes Montgomery bus

+ Route numbering change meets community request− Eliminates direct connection between FM 1960 and

Gessner corridors

Cost Impact: saves $435,000 per year (0.2% of local budget)

Far NorthwestRecommended Option

35

Weslayan / Buffalo Speedway Public Feedback:

• Most residents do not consider Weslayan Street suitable for bus traffic

• Proposed 48 Weslayan route does not serve the heart of Greenway Plaza along Richmond

• 10 Kirby should extend further south down Kirby Drive to connect to more destinations

36

Weslayan/Buffalo SpeedwayDraft Network Plan and Impacted Routes

37

Weslayan / Buffalo SpeedwayRecommended Option

48 Weslayan becomes 48 Buffalo Speedway to TMC TC via University

10 Kirby extended down Kirby to South Main

81 Willowbend rerouted via Stella Link

38

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ 48 serves Greenway Plaza on Richmond+ Connects Northwest TC and Greenway Plaza

directly to TMC+ Extends service further south on Kirby Drive+ Better serves Rice Village area− Eliminates simple, straight route connecting West

Loop TC to Greenway Plaza area− Reduces service on Stella Link below existing levels


Weslayan / Buffalo SpeedwayRecommended Option

39

Weslayan / Buffalo SpeedwayDraft Network Plan and Impacted Route

40

Weslayan / Buffalo SpeedwayAlternative Option

48 Weslayan deviated to Buffalo Speedway between Bellaire and Richmond

41

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ 48 serves Greenway Plaza on Richmond+ Maintains service level on Stella Link justified by ridership− Introduces deviation between West Loop TC and

Greenway area− Does not connect Northwest TC and Greenway Plaza

directly to TMC− Does not extend service further south on Kirby Drive− Does not better serve Rice Village


Weslayan / Buffalo SpeedwayAlternative Option

42

Far Northeast Public Feedback:

• Flex zone anchor at Mesa TC does not allow good connections to Downtown

• Mixed support and opposition to flex service concept with some desire to maintain existing service

Ridership Consideration:• Ridership at stops along Mesa Drive north of Mesa TC

justifies fixed route

Operational Issue:• No layover locations available near Little York & Eastex

Freeway

43

Far NortheastDraft Network Plan and Impacted Routes

44

Far NortheastRecommended Option

78 Collingsworth and 79 Ley combined into 78 Collingworth Ley and extended north of Mesa TC

Flex Routes 377 and 378 revised to balance uncovered fixed route boardings and zone size

Fixed route segments of 377 and 378 moved to Lockwood

61 Jensen short line layover and 398 Jensen Flexconnection point moved to Jensen & Tidwell

45

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Simplifies and straightens routes− Smaller area covered by flex zones; though no reduction

in coverage of existing boardings

Operations Impact:+ Balances existing boardings within flex zones and

reduces size of zones which will improve reliability+ Moves 377 zone closer to hub at Kashmere


Far NortheastRecommended Option

46


47

Far NortheastFixed Route Option 1 –Cost Neutral

Hourly fixed routes within ½ mile of all current boarding locations

76 Wayside (2 buses) 79 Hirsch (1 bus) Rerouted 15 Lyons

long line

48

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Closer to existing service that riders are used to− Does not provide coverage and walk distance benefits

of flexible service

− Leaves stops with 386 daily boardings outside 1/4 mile (no stops in the areas outside ½ mile of fixed route)

Estimated Cost Impact: even• Assumes small buses; longer routes may require 40

foot buses which would add cost

Far NortheastFixed Route Option 1 –Cost Neutral

49


50

Far NortheastFixed Route Option 2 –Coverage Neutral

Fixed routes (30 minute peak headway, 60 base) serve nearly all existing stop locations

61 Jensen branch, 76 Wayside, 79 Laura Koppe Rerouted 15 Lyons long

line

51

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Closer to existing service that riders are used to+ No existing boardings in the area outside 1/4 mile of

fixed route− Does not provide coverage and walk distance benefits

of flexible service


Far NortheastFixed Route Option 2 –Coverage Neutral

52

Span of Service on Coverage Routes Public Feedback:

• 14 hour span on some coverage routes is not sufficient• Early morning/late evening service is necessary to allow people

to access jobs

Coverage and Ridership Considerations:• 1,018 boardings + alightings after 8pm in areas with shorter

proposed spans (0.25% of daily total)• 664 of those are over 1 mile from proposed late evening service• Ridership on many existing late evening trips in the affected

areas is extremely low Note: Span on all ridership-oriented routes is 18 hours or

matched to existing, whichever is greater

53

Span on Coverage RoutesDraft Network Plan and 14 Hour Routes

54

Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Exceeding 14 hours would likely decrease system level

ridership by allocating more service toward coverage+ Most closely aligns service levels with ridership demand+ Requirements to add additional span of service can be

determined by service standards (e.g., if average load on first or last trip exceeds a certain percentage of seated capacity)

Coverage Impacts:− Reduction in late evening coverage versus existing service

Cost Impact: No change from Draft Plan

Span on Coverage RoutesRecommended Option

55

Span on Coverage RoutesOption 1 –Maintain Existing Span on All Coverage Routes

56

Coverage and Ridership Impacts:+ Provides service in all areas at all times it is currently

provided− Allocates high level of resources to very low ridership

services Estimated Cost Impact: $5,050,000 per year (2.7% of

local budget)

Span on Coverage RoutesOption 1 –Maintain Existing Span on All Coverage Routes

57

Span on Coverage RoutesDraft Network Plan and 14 Hour Routes

58

Span on Coverage RoutesOption 2 –Additional Span on Targeted Coverage Routes

Goal of this scenario is to leave no late evening boardings or alightings more than 1 mile from late evening service Span on highlighted

routes would match existing span

59

Coverage and Ridership Impacts:+ Provides service in most areas at most times it is

currently provided (938 of 1,018 boardings + alightings after 8pm in areas with shorter span in Draft Plan)

+ Leaves no existing late evening boardings or alightings outside 1 mile of late evening service

− Allocates resources to very low ridership services Estimated Cost Impact: $2,512,000 per year (1.4% of

local budget)

Span on Coverage RoutesOption 2 –Additional Span on Targeted Coverage Routes

60

Other Recommended Changes Minor adjustments to individual routes with minimal cost

impacts Examples:

• Adjust routing on 77 Market Pleasantville within Pleasantville neighborhood to serve additional existing bus stops

• Move TMC-Eastwood frequent segment from 2 Brays Bayou to 4 Beechnut to simplify patterns and legibility to customers

• Adjust routing on 47 Post Oak and 12 Memorial to better connect through Uptown/Galleria Area

• Move short line terminus of 46 Antoine Washington from Victory Drive to SH 249, expanding access to frequent network

61

534,000

643,000

1,126,000

998,000

1,160,000

1,000,000

FrequentAccess

FrequentAccess

Peop

le W

ithin

1/2

Mile

Jo

bs W

ithin

1/2

Mile

Draft

Existing

The Reimagined Network Plan connects a million people to a million jobs on the frequent network

+117% Increase

Existing

Source: 2010 US Census Data; American Community Survey

+56% Increase

Recommended

Draft

Recommended

Impact of Recommended Changes on Frequent Access

62

Population and Jobs Total METRO Service Area Population: 3.5 Million Employment: 1.8 Million


1,631,000

1,219,000

2,112,000

1,451,000

1,665,000

1,270,000

2,175,000

1,500,000

1,651,000

1,258,000

2,112,000

1,480,000

Population

Jobs

Population

Jobs

With

in1/

4 M

ile

With

in

1/2

Mile

Existing

+1%

0%

+3%

+2%

Impact of Recommended Changes on Total Coverage

DraftRecommended

ExistingDraftRecommended



63

1,066

84

1,093

81

WeekdayBoardings

WeekdayBoardings

Out

side

1/4

Mile

O

utsi

de1/

2 M

ile

Typical weekday Local Boardings: 207,000

0.5% of Daily Boardings


Recommended

Recommended Changes have Minimal Impact on Uncovered Boardings

94% of existing customers can board the bus at the same location as today versus 93% in the Draft Plan

0.04% of Daily Boardings

Draft

Recommended

Draft

Recommended

64

Frequent Network - Existing

65

Frequent Network – Draft Plan

66

Frequent Network - Recommended

67

Overall Cost Adjustment Levers Plan will be implemented within existing bus service

budget

Operating costs of plan are estimated using sophisticated tool but include assumptions on speed, layover, span, etc.

Actual costs will be refined after scheduling of the new routes is completed

Final revisions will be made through scheduling process to hit target budget

68

Overall Cost Adjustment Levers “Levers” for adjusting cost to align with budget:

• Frequency changes within service color type, e.g., 15 peak to 20 peak on blue routes

• Temporarily changing route color (e.g., red to blue, blue to green) until additional resources are available

• Deferring routes providing new coverage

• Adjusting spans of frequency

• Adjusting Sunday and holiday service levels

• Identifying additional utilization of alternative service (e.g., smaller buses)

69

Deferred Changes Desirable Ridership or Coverage benefits but

significant added cost beyond likely scope of the budget; potential to implement as resources allow

Examples:• Additional span of service (e.g., 24-hour service on

key routes)• Additional frequent service (e.g., Kirby)• Service expansion into areas not currently covered• New grid routes (e.g., north-south route in Spring

Branch area)• Additional Quickline services (e.g., Richmond,

Westheimer)

70

Changes Not Recommended Specific comments which do not effectively serve either

the ridership or coverage goal, or which are substantially at odds with the overall nature of Reimagining; may have considerable cost

• Maintain service on closely-spaced streets (e.g., Navigation, Alabama)

• Maintain service which largely duplicates other routes (e.g., 53 Briar Forest)

• Maintain existing deviations (e.g., Chiswick on 98 Briargate)• Maintain existing underperforming fixed routes (e.g., 59 Aldine

Mail Route)• Maintain recommended replacement of select, low-performing

Park & Ride routes where proposed local service provides comparable service (e.g., 261, 274, 285)

71

Summary and Next Steps Feedback received from board will be incorporated

in the Final System Reimagining Plan

Final plan to be presented for Board adoption in September

Adoption of plan will kick off implementation phase to target a June 2015 implementation

72

Presentations & Public Speaking

System Reimagining August Board Meeting (Plan Revisions)