Agenda Packet 10-15-18 Work Session

Home Browse Search

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES 1 I NT R O D u CT I O N AN D S u MM A R y | 10Existing Conditions and Choices ReportLane Transit District What choices does the system reflect? Transit Tomorrow is a unique opportunity to rethink the purpose of LTD’s transit system, and how it relates to other ways of getting around such as walking, cycling and driving. The amount and types of transit service available today reflect not only technical decisions, but also value judgements about what LTD should and should not provide. For example, a quick look at the network map in Figure 3 (see page 6) shows that the existing bus network provides some level of service within a half-mile of nearly all developed areas in Eugene and Springfield. As shown in Figure 7, over 90% of the metro area’s residents live within a half-mile of a bus stop. This is not necessarily a given: there are benefits and costs to decid- ing to serve the entire metro area. On the one hand, it ensures that nearly everyone is at least near a lifeline service to Downtown Eugene or Springfield. On the other hand, it means finding ways to operate in neighborhoods that were never designed with transit service in mind. Transit Tomorrow will re-examine some of these choices. We’ve summa- rized the most important trade-offs in this Choices Report, as Chapter 7: Key Choices, asking you to consider some of the choices LTD is facing: »How should we balance high ridership and extensive cover- age? Is it more important to provide frequent service for long hours in places that will attract the most riders, or to get a little bit of service as close as possible to every possible place? »How should we balance walking and waiting? Is it more impor- tant to have a bus stop very nearby, or to know that if you walk a little farther the bus will come sooner and move more quickly? »Does LTD’s network need small adjustments, or a major over- haul? Is it more important to make small improvements to the system we already have, or does it need to be redesigned com- pletely from a blank slate? None of these questions have “correct” answers: there are valid reasons to go either way, or to fall anywhere in between the two extremes. Figure 7: Percentage of the Eugene/Springfield metro within a half-mile of an LTD bus route. The network is designed to get some service within a half- mile of almost everyone. As a result, the percentage of the population near frequent service (in red) isn’t very high. This isn’t the only possible choice: if LTD served fewer places, more of its routes could run every 10 to 15 minutes. What is more valuable? Transit Tomorrow will examine what future LTD service could and should look like. Ridership vs. Coverage The most basic choice is the degree to which the transit system should be pursuing ridership or coverage. Pursuing high ridership or high cover- age leads to substantially different outcomes. Pursuing high ridership means focusing service on places where many people go, and designing service so the bus is always coming soon. Service focused primarily on ridership: •Expands the range of trips for which transit is a viable option. •Limits the amount of car traffic, congestion and pollution. •Reduces the amount of public subsidy required for transit. Pursuing high coverage means reaching as many places as possible with a basic level of service. Service focused primarily on coverage: •Ensures every neighborhood has access to the transit system. •Provides lifeline access to critical services for all. •Doesn’t provide a viable transportation option for most people. LTD can pursue high ridership and extensive coverage within the same budget, but not with the same dollar. The more it does of one, the less it does of the other. Walking vs. Waiting Another way to think about the question of ridership and coverage is to think specifically about how far a person should have to walk to reach a bus stop, and how long they should have to wait, on average, before the next bus comes. Walking and waiting are important to consider on their own, because both of these activities add time and inconvenience to any transit trip, and different people have a wide variety of preferences regarding each. A transit system designed to minimize how far people walk requires many routes near each other. This means most routes will be infrequent. Conversely, a transit system designed to minimize waits requires high frequencies. In that case, many people need to walk longer distances to reach service. Adjustments vs. Overhaul As a general rule, the more a transit system changes, the more disrup- tion it produces in existing riders’ lives. On the other hand, a bigger change can make it possible to achieve much greater benefits for the community as a whole. To date, LTD customers have experiences seasonal adjustments to routes and schedules, three times per year. Some of these changes, like the route changes and frequency improvements associated with EmX exten- sions, have been larger than others. Transit Tomorrow is an opportunity to consider whether the com- munity would generally prefer LTD to make improvements to the network in its current form, or to rethink the network from the ground up. October 15, 2018, Work Session – Item 2