ck transit service review 2011

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:


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:


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.

C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment

Figure 1 – CK Transit Chatham Conventional - Recommended Service Change


Discussion points related to each potential mitigation measure are presented in the table below:

Table 6: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Discussion Points Regarding Potential Mitigation Measures

Potential Mitigation Measure Discussion Points

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.


Table 6 (continued): CK Transit Chatham Conventional Discussion Points Regarding Potential Mitigation Measures

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.



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:


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.



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:


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.


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


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

Category Cash Fares Multi-Ride Pass Cost Multi-Ride Pass Cost per Trip

Multi-Ride Pass Discount

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

Category Fare Media Surveyed Revenue

Passengers

Percentage of Revenue Passengers

Annual Revenue

Passengers

Annual Revenue

Generated

Percentage of Annual Revenues

Adult Cash 244 30.7% 79,140 $158,280 38.2% Ticket 0 0.0% - - 0.0% Multi-Pass 239 30.1% 77,518 $123,324 29.7%

Senior Cash 30 3.8% 9,730 $17,028 4.1% Ticket 0 0.0% - - 0.0% Multi-Pass 83 10.4% 26,921 $33,039 8.0%

Highschool Student

Cash 35 4.4% 11,352 $19,866 4.8% Ticket 6 0.8% 1,946 $3,406 0.8% Multi-Pass 66 8.3% 21,407 $26,272 6.3%

Elementary Student

Cash 13 1.6% 4,216 $7,379 1.8% Ticket 1 0.1% 324 $568 0.1% Multi-Pass 14 1.8% 4,541 $5,573 1.3%

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


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


(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.


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

Category Cash Fare Multi-pass Multi-pass Cost per

Trip Cash Fare Multi-pass

Multi-pass Cost per

Trip

Multi-pass Discount

Adult $2.00 $35.00 $1.59 $2.25 $40.50 $1.84 18% Senior $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30%

HS Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30% Elementary

Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30%

Child (U5) $1.00 N/A N/A Free N/A N/A N/A St. Clair College N/A $120.00 $0.90 N/A $120.00 $0.90 N/A

Interurban Existing Proposed

Category Cash Fare Multi-pass Multi-pass Cost per

Trip Cash Fare Multi-pass

Multi-pass Cost per

Trip

Multi-pass Discount

Adult $5.00 $100 $4.55 $6.00 $108.25 $4.92 18% Senior $4.50 $90 $4.10 $6.00 $92.40 $4.20 30%

HS Student $4.50 $90 $4.10 $6.00 $92.40 $4.20 30% Elementary

Student $4.50 $90 $4.10 $6.00 $92.40 $4.20 30%

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.


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.


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:


• 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


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)

Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Infrastructure and Engineering

Services

CKTransit Service Review

Final Report (Revised)

Chatham, ON

July 27, 2011

Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Infrastructure and Engineering

Services

CKTransit Service Review

Final Report (Revised)

Chatham, ON

July 27, 2011

HDR | iTRANS 100 York Blvd., Suite 300

Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 Tel: (905) 882-4100

Fax: (905) 882-1557 www.hdrinc.com

www.itransconsulting.com

Project # 6479

http://www.hdrinc.com/

http://www.itransconsulting.com/

Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review

July 2011 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479

Client Project Team

Project Manager Stephen Jahns, P.Eng

HDR | iTRANS Project Team

Principal Wally Beck, C.E.T.

Project Manager Wally Beck, C.E.T.

Technical Team Conor Adami, B. A.Sc.

Advisors

Quality Control


July 2011 i HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 2. C-Ktransit Chatham Conventional Service ................................................................ 4

2.1 Route Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4

3. CKTransit Interurban service ................................................................................... 10 4. Proposed Service Changes .......................................................................................... 12

4.1 Service Issues and Potential Mitigation Measures .............................................. 12 4.1.1 Route Design and Schedule Adherence ..................................................... 12

4.2 Integration of Interurban and Chatham Conventional Transit Services .............. 14 4.2.1 Issues .......................................................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 14

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

4.3.3 Transit Fares Pricing Policies..................................................................... 18 4.3.4 Smart Card Technology Overview and Benefits ....................................... 22

5. Specialized Transit Overview ..................................................................................... 25 5.1 Service Description .............................................................................................. 25

5.1.1 Handi-Bus .................................................................................................. 25 5.1.2 Wallaceburg Accessible ............................................................................. 25

5.2 General Comments and Observations ................................................................. 26

6. Transit Fleet Strategy ................................................................................................. 28 6.1 Existing Fleet ....................................................................................................... 28

6.2 Alternative CKTransit Conventional Fleet .......................................................... 28

7. Next Steps ..................................................................................................................... 30

Appendices

A. Project Initiation Memorandum

B. Bus Stop, Shelter and Bench Guideline Memorandum

C. Detailed Analysis and Calculations

Tables

Table 2-1: Boardings per Hour ................................................................................................. 9 Table 2-2: Ridership Breakdown .............................................................................................. 9 Table 2-3: Revenue Passengers per Hour ................................................................................. 9

Table 3-1: CKTransit Interurban Services Monthly Ridership............................................... 10 Table 4-1: Cost per Revenue Passenger .................................................................................. 15 Table 4-2: CKTransit Chatham Conventional Transit Fare Structure .................................... 15

Table 4-3: Revenue Passengers by Fare Media Type ............................................................. 16


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

Exhibits

Exhibit 2-2: Route 1 Operations Summary ............................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2-3: Route 2 Operations Summary ............................................................................... 6 Exhibit 2-4: Route 3 Operations Summary ............................................................................... 7

Exhibit 2-5: Route 4 Operations Summary ............................................................................... 8

Exhibit 4-1: Conventional Transit Recommended Service Changes ...................................... 13



1. INTRODUCTION

In November 27, 2010 HDR | iTRANS met with Chatham-Kent staff to prioritize a number

of tasks related to improving schedule reliability, bus stop design policies, potential

integration of urban and interurban services, transit fare policies, and fleet design.

On January 27, 2011 a notice to proceed was given to undertake the following assignments:

Assignment 1: Project Initiation and Review of Documentation (completed)

Assignment 2: Bus Shelter and Bench Policy (completed)

Assignment 4: Route Operating Analysis

Assignment 5: Route and Service Redesign

Assignment 6: Transit Fare Integration

Assignment 7: Vehicle Assessments

Assignments 4 through 7 are addressed in this report while Assignments 1 and 2 were

completed and summarized in separate technical memorandums for staff reference purposes.

Assignments 1 and 2 can be found in this document under Appendix A and Appendix B

respectively.

Upon completion of the tasks, a review of the existing business model relative to the

respective roles of the municipal and private sectors would be undertaken in advance of the

expiry of the existing service provider contracts with Aboutown and WindRide.

To address the tasks and expedite the time lines, best practices were brought to the study. The

report is designed to be presented to Council for consideration and, upon approval in

principle, be presented to public stakeholders for input.



2. C-KTRANSIT CHATHAM CONVENTIONAL

SERVICE

The CKTransit Chatham conventional service has four routes offering 30 minute all day

service from 6:15am to 7:15pm Monday through Saturday, excluding statutory holidays.

CKTransit operates a radial route network with all buses travelling in a one-way, clockwise

direction (i.e. loop service), meeting at the downtown terminal at half-hour intervals to

enable timed transfers.

Route 1 Northwest

Route 2 Northeast

Route 3 Southeast

Route 4 Southwest

The urban C-K Transit routes are illustrated in Exhibit 2-1.

Exhibit 2-1: Existing CKTransit Chatham Conventional Routes

2.1 Route Analysis

Each autumn (November), transit boarding/ alighting (on/off) and travel time data are

documented by means of a one day transit survey. HDR | iTRANS obtained the 2010

operating statistics which are summarized in Exhibit 2-2 through Exhibit 2-5.

NM

CK

CC

V

CC

JM

CL

CC

L

T

P

CL

C

TVL

TL

SC

NP

HCH

MC

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Term

inal

Fift

h a

t K

ing

Stre

et

Wes

t

Vic

tori

a at

Bar

the

Stre

et

Bar

the

at C

alva

ry C

hu

rch

Bar

the

at K

ent

Stre

et

Bar

the

at D

eno

my'

s A

ud

io

Gra

nd

at

St. C

lair

Gra

nd

wes

t o

f M

cKeo

ugh

Par

k

Gra

nd

at

the

Pin

es (

shel

ter)

Gra

nd

at

155

Gra

nd

Ave

Eas

t

Gra

nd

at

Wo

od

s St

ree

t

Gra

nd

at

St. A

gnes

Ch

urc

h

Gra

nd

at

Luck

y In

n

Gra

nd

at

Skat

epar

k (s

hel

ter)

Gra

nd

at

Co

urt

ho

use

(sh

elte

r)

Gra

nd

at

form

er T

VL

Gra

nd

at

Bu

rger

Kin

g

Gra

nd

at

Stap

les

(sh

elte

r)

Gra

nd

at

Tham

es L

ea P

laza

Gra

nd

at

Zelle

rs (

shel

ter)

Gra

nd

at

805

Riv

ervi

ew D

rive

Ap

ts (

shel

ter)

Gra

nd

at

Pro

fess

ion

al B

uild

ing

(sh

elte

r)

Gra

nd

at

Riv

er R

ow

Ap

ts

Ferg

ie J

enki

ns

at K

ids

Stu

ff D

ayca

re

Ferg

ie J

enki

ns

at C

olle

ge d

rive

way

(sh

elte

r)

Ferg

ie J

enki

ns

at s

occ

er f

ield

McN

augh

ton

at

Un

iver

sity

Dri

ve

McN

augh

ton

at

Kei

l Dri

ve

McN

augh

ton

eas

t o

f K

eil D

rive

McN

augh

ton

at

Cra

ne

Dri

ve

McN

augh

ton

at

Luth

eran

Ch

urc

h

McN

augh

ton

at

Pla

za

Bal

do

on

at

Pla

za (

sid

e en

tran

ce)

Bal

do

on

at

Par

ry D

rive

Bal

do

on

at

Bal

mo

ral R

oad

Bal

do

on

no

rth

of

Bal

mo

ral R

oad

Oxl

ey a

t A

nd

rea

Dri

ve

Oxl

ey a

t Jo

ann

e St

ree

t

Oxl

ey

at P

arry

Str

ee

t

Oxl

ey

at N

ort

hla

nd

Dri

ve

Oxl

ey a

t Th

orn

hill

Cre

scen

t

Oxl

ey a

t Sa

nd

ys S

tree

t

Tim

mo

ns

Cre

scen

t at

Oxl

ey

McF

arla

ne

at 1

00 M

cFar

lan

ce (

shel

ter)

McF

arla

ne

wes

t o

f Ti

mo

thy

Cre

scen

t

McF

arla

ne

east

of

Tim

oth

y C

resc

ent

St. C

lair

at

No

rth

tow

n P

laza

-CIB

C (

shel

ter)

McN

augh

ton

at

Blo

ckb

ust

er V

ideo

McN

augh

ton

at

99 M

cNau

ghto

n (

shel

ter)

Shel

do

n a

t Em

mu

al B

apti

st C

hu

rch

Shel

do

n a

t B

rock

Str

eet

She

ldo

n a

t D

eG

rae

ve D

rive

Shel

do

n a

t C

orn

hill

Str

eet

Shel

do

n a

t P

op

lar

Stre

et

Po

pla

r at

Haz

el S

tree

t

Po

pla

r at

Mea

do

w P

ark

Nu

rsin

g H

om

e

San

dys

at

Acc

ess

Fire

& S

afet

y (s

hel

ter)

Gra

nd

at

Ho

spit

al P

arki

ng

Lot

(sh

elte

r)

Gra

nd

at

Urs

ulin

e A

ven

ue

St. C

lair

at

7Ele

ven

Thir

d a

t P

olic

e St

atio

n

Wel

lingt

on

at

St. J

oe'

s C

hu

rch

Term

inal

Total Daily Boardings Total Daily Alightings Average Weekday Passenger Load

Route Distance 12.7 km

Travel Time

Scheduled 30 min

Actual 28.3 min

Average Travel Speed

Scheduled 25.4 km/h

Actual 26.9 km/h

100

200163

134

Exhibit 2-2: Route 1 Operations Summary

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Term

inal

Kin

g at

Fo

urt

h S

tree

tK

ing

at T

hir

d S

tree

t

St. C

lair

at

Gra

nd

Ave

nu

eSt

. Cla

ir a

t Se

lkir

k St

ree

tSt

. Cla

ir a

t H

& R

Blo

ck

St. C

lair

at

Stan

's F

low

er M

arke

tSt

. Cla

ir a

t P

op

lar

Stre

et

St. C

lair

at

Co

rnh

ill S

tree

tSt

. Cla

ir a

t M

aple

Str

eet

St. C

lair

at

McN

augh

ton

Ave

nu

e

St. C

lair

at

McD

on

ald

'sSt

. Cla

ir a

t W

iltsh

ire

Dri

veSt

. Cla

ir a

t H

akim

Op

tica

l

St. C

lair

at

Jack

son

Dri

veSt

. Cla

ir a

t P

axto

n D

rive

(sh

elte

r)

St. C

lair

at

Cre

rar

Dri

veSt

. Cla

ir a

t G

rego

ry D

rive

St

. Cla

ir a

t A

pp

le A

uto

Gla

ss (

shel

ter)

St. C

lair

at

St. C

lair

Est

ates

St. C

lair

at

TSC

Sto

re

St. C

lair

at

Wal

mar

t/Su

per

Sto

reSt

. Cla

ir a

t M

aryk

no

ll R

oad

St. C

lair

at

Ellis

Str

ee

t

St. C

lair

so

uth

of

Gre

gory

Dri

veSt

. Cla

ir a

t M

aple

Art

Gal

lery

St. C

lair

at

Pax

ton

Dri

ve (

shel

ter)

Jack

son

at

Gle

nw

oo

d D

rive

Jack

son

at

Vic

tori

a A

ven

ue

Vic

tori

a n

ort

h o

f H

enry

O'W

ayV

icto

ria

at H

enry

O'W

ayV

icto

ria

at M

cNau

ghto

n A

ven

ue

McN

augh

ton

at

Eliz

abet

h S

tree

tM

cNau

ghto

n a

t C

edar

wo

od

s C

resc

ent

Del

awar

e at

McN

augh

ton

Ave

nu

eD

elaw

are

at C

ox

Ave

nu

eD

elaw

are

at G

lad

sto

ne

Ave

nu

e

Del

awar

e at

Ter

ra V

ista

Ap

tsD

elaw

are

at 4

0 D

elaw

are

Ave

nu

e A

pts

Del

awar

e at

Fo

rest

Ave

nu

eFo

rest

at

Bed

ford

Str

eet

Fore

st a

t C

ove

rdal

e St

ree

t

Fore

st a

t Ta

ylo

r A

ven

ue

Tayl

or

at T

aylo

r C

ou

rt A

pts

Tayl

or

at n

ort

h o

f Ta

ylo

r C

ou

rt A

pts

Tayl

or

at 8

3 Ta

ylo

r A

ven

ue

Tayl

or

at M

cNau

ghto

n A

ven

ue

McN

augh

ton

at

Car

olin

ian

Pla

ceM

cNau

ghto

n a

t C

SX T

rack

sM

cNau

ghto

n a

t M

on

arch

Dri

ve

McN

augh

ton

at

Mic

hen

er R

oad

Mic

hen

er a

t V

alle

y R

oad

Mic

hen

er s

ou

th o

f V

isco

un

tM

ich

ener

at

Val

ley

Ro

adM

ich

ener

at

Van

ier

Dri

ve

Mic

hen

er a

t A

ber

dee

n S

tree

tM

ich

ener

at

Mea

do

wb

roo

k P

laza

Gra

nd

at

Van

ier

Dri

ve (

shel

ter)

Gra

nd

at

Kin

sway

Ave

nu

eG

ran

d a

t G

ran

dvi

ew A

pts

.

Gra

nd

at

Tayl

or

Ave

nu

eG

ran

d a

t V

an A

llen

Ave

nu

e

Tham

es a

t Sa

lter

Str

eet

Tham

es a

t C

hat

ham

Str

eet

Tham

es a

t V

icto

ria

Ave

nu

e

Fift

h a

t K

ing

Stre

et

Wes

tFi

fth

at

H &

R B

lock

Term

inal



Travel Time

Scheduled 30 min

Actual 26.2 min


Scheduled 28.3 km/h

Actual 32.3 km/h

100

200

143

84


55

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Term

inal

Wel

lingt

on

at

Bu

ns

Mas

ter

Will

iam

at

Jud

y La

Mar

sh B

uild

ing

Will

iam

at

Kin

g an

d W

illia

m S

qu

are

Will

iam

at

Gra

nit

e C

lub

Will

iam

at

Cu

ltu

ral C

entr

e (s

hel

ter)

Stan

ley

at W

illia

m S

tree

tSt

anle

y at

Ad

elai

de

Stre

et

Stan

ley

at S

even

th S

tree

tSt

anle

y at

Pri

nce

Str

ee

t N

ort

hP

rin

ce a

t El

lwo

od

Ave

nu

eM

urr

ay a

t Fo

rmer

CC

I dri

vew

ayM

urr

ay a

t P

rin

cess

Str

ee N

ort

hP

rin

cess

at

Co

lbo

rne

Stre

et

Co

lbo

rne

at C

SX T

rack

sC

olb

orn

e at

Hen

ry H

eyn

ick

Sass

at

Co

lbo

rne

Stre

et

Sass

at

Po

lly S

tree

tSa

ss a

t O

PP

Sta

tio

n (

shel

ter)

Par

k A

ven

ue

at L

eno

vers

Par

k A

ven

ue

at P

ark

Stre

et

Par

k A

ven

ue

at W

ilken

son

Str

eet

Par

k La

ne

at S

t. A

nth

on

y St

ree

tP

ark

Lan

e at

Mo

cca

Co

ncr

ete

Par

k La

ne

at S

ou

then

d C

resc

ent

Par

k La

ne

at T

wee

dsm

uir

Ave

nu

e Ea

stTw

eed

smu

ir a

t B

urt

on

Ave

nu

eTw

eed

smu

ir a

t Jo

hn

Str

eet

Joh

n a

t M

erce

r St

ree

tJo

hn

at

Jasp

er A

ven

ue

Joh

n a

t Fr

eela

nd

Ave

nu

eTi

ssim

an a

t P

avey

Str

eet

Tiss

iman

at

Alle

n S

tree

tTi

ssim

an w

est

of

Alle

n S

tree

tTi

ssim

an a

t Q

uee

n S

tree

tC

ecile

at

Ch

ipp

ewa

Dri

veC

ecile

wes

t o

f M

oh

awk

Co

urt

Cec

ile a

t W

yan

do

tt S

tree

tC

eci

le a

t La

cro

ix S

tre

et

Lacr

oix

at

Ind

ian

Cre

ek R

oad

Wes

tIn

dia

n C

reek

at

Fau

ber

t D

rive

Ind

ian

Cre

ek a

t M

cGre

gor

Hig

h S

cho

ol

Ind

ian

Cre

ek w

est

of

McG

rego

r H

igh

Sch

oo

lSt

. Mic

hae

l at

Ind

ian

Cre

ek R

oad

Wes

tSt

. Mic

hae

l at

Ho

llan

d D

rive

St. M

ich

ael a

t Sy

lves

ter

Ave

nu

eSy

lves

ter

at V

and

erp

ark

Dri

veSy

lves

ter

at D

alev

iew

Cre

scen

tSy

lves

ter

no

rth

of

Dal

evie

w C

resc

ent

Sylv

este

r at

Reg

al P

lace

Sylv

este

r at

Tw

eed

smu

ir A

ven

ue

Twee

dsm

uir

at

Fau

ber

t D

rive

Twee

dsm

uir

wes

t o

f La

cro

ix S

tree

tTw

eed

smu

ir a

t K

insm

en A

ud

ito

riu

mTw

eed

smu

ir a

t R

ota

ry P

ark

Twee

dsm

uir

at

Qu

een

Str

eet

Fore

man

at

McG

eorg

e A

ven

ue

Pin

e b

ehin

d K

FCP

ine

at M

aple

Co

urt

Ap

ts (

shel

ter)

Pin

e at

Elm

Str

eet

(min

i sh

elte

r)P

ark

at C

oca

Co

la B

uild

ing

St. G

eorg

e at

Mer

rito

rSt

. Geo

rge

at W

hit

e K

nig

ht

Au

to G

lazi

ng

St. G

eo

rge

at P

ark

Stre

et

Par

k St

ree

t at

Bax

tor

Stre

et

Par

k St

ree

t at

Ad

elai

de

Stre

et

Sou

thW

illia

m a

t Li

qu

idat

ion

Wo

rld

We

llin

gto

n a

t D

ow

nto

wn

Ch

ath

am C

en

tre

Term

inal



Travel Time

Scheduled 30 min

Actual 25.3 min


Scheduled 25.8 km/h

Actual 30.7 km/h

100

200

84 7848


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Term

inal

Wel

lingt

on

at

Fors

yth

Seco

nd

at

Po

lice

Lot

Kin

g at

YM

CA

Kin

g at

Lac

roix

Kin

g at

Riv

ervi

ew

Gar

de

ns

Kin

g w

est

of

Ph

yllis

Ave

nu

e

Kin

g at

Ph

yllis

Ave

nu

e

Kin

g at

Win

sto

n C

hu

rch

ill S

cho

ol

Kin

g at

Mer

ritt

Mer

ritt

at

Earl

Str

eet

Mer

ritt

at

Riv

ervi

ew D

rive

Mer

ritt

at

Sen

ior'

s C

entr

e

Mer

ritt

at

Mea

do

w P

ark

Ap

ts

Riv

ervi

ew a

t R

iver

ben

d T

ow

ers

(sh

elte

r)

Riv

ervi

ew a

t R

iver

way

Co

urt

Riv

ervi

ew a

t R

egal

To

wer

s (s

hel

ter)

Riv

ervi

ew a

t K

eil D

rive

Riv

ervi

ew a

t Ti

m H

ort

on

s/C

ar W

ash

Riv

ervi

ew a

t Ir

win

Str

eet

Riv

ervi

ew a

t R

iver

view

Bin

go

Riv

ervi

ew a

t C

om

mu

nit

y Li

vin

g

Her

itag

e at

Pla

za (

op

po

site

Riv

ervi

ew B

ingo

)

He

rita

ge a

t K

eil

Dri

ve

Kei

l at

Ric

e an

d N

oo

dle

Res

tura

nt

Kei

l at

180

Kei

l Dri

ve (

shel

ter)

Ric

hm

on

d a

t fo

rmer

Map

le C

ity

Tire

Ric

hm

on

d a

t P

inn

acle

Fin

ish

ing

(sh

elte

r)

Ric

hm

on

d a

t Ir

win

Str

eet

Sou

th

Ric

hm

on

d a

cro

ss f

rom

Jak

e's

Bea

rin

gs

Ric

hm

on

d a

t Fr

ankl

in S

qu

are

Blo

om

fiel

d a

t C

om

fort

Inn

/Car

Was

h

Blo

om

fiel

d a

t O

rio

le P

arkw

ay

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t at

Par

kfie

ld (

shel

ter)

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t at

Ho

war

d D

rive

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t at

Art

ic Ic

e

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t w

est

of

Kei

l Dri

ve

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t ea

st o

f K

eil D

rive

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t at

DaS

ilva

Bak

ery

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t at

St.

Pau

l's C

hu

rch

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t at

Wed

gew

oo

d A

ven

ue

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t at

Bak

er S

tree

t (s

hel

ter)

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t at

Ber

ry S

tree

t

Par

k A

ven

ue

Wes

t at

Ho

ust

on

Ave

nu

e

Lacr

oix

at

stai

rs a

t Ed

gar

Stre

et

Lacr

oix

at

Spen

sor

Stre

et

Lacr

oix

at

Gra

y St

ree

t

Lacr

oix

at

Lorn

e St

ree

t

Ric

hm

on

d a

t D

om

ino

's P

izza

Ric

hm

on

d a

t R

alei

gh S

tre

et

Qu

een

at

Har

vey

Stre

et

Term

inal



Travel Time

Scheduled 30 min

Actual 26.5 min


Scheduled 28.9 km/h

Actual 32.7 km/h

100

200148

109




The average travel time and passenger load is calculated for the 25 trips each route makes

during the course of the day. The average actual (surveyed) travel speed is calculated by

dividing the total route distance by the average actual (surveyed) travel time. The scheduled

average travel speed utilizes the scheduled travel of time of the route (30 minutes) rather than

the surveyed travel time. A “by time of day” and “by location” detailed analysis of the same

statistics are provided in Appendix C.

Table 2-1 summarizes the boardings per hour for all four routes. Route 3 is the least utilized

route with 17.8 boardings per hour. Route 1, which serves St. Clair College, is the most

utilized route with 30.5 boardings per hour.

Table 2-1: Boardings per Hour

Route Boardings per Hour

Route 1 30.5

Route 2 22.1

Route 3 17.8

Route 4 23.0

CKTransit Overall 23.4

As shown in Table 2-2, about 30% of CKTransit‟s boardings represent passengers

transferring between two routes. The data shows that the total boardings for all four routes

are composed of comparable levels of transfers and revenue passengers. The timed transfer

system where all buses connect downtown is appropriate given the radial route design typical

of small to medium-sized transit systems.

Table 2-2: Ridership Breakdown

Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Total

Total Boardings 397 287 231 299 1,214

Transfers 113 91 56 105 365

% Transfers 28% 32% 24% 35% 30%

% Revenue Passengers 72% 68% 76% 65% 70%

From the above passenger ridership breakdown, it is possible to determine the number of

revenue passengers each route generates. This information is presented in Table 2-3. The

number of revenue passengers per hour ranges from 13.5 (Route 3) to 22.0 (Route 1), with an

overall average value of 16.3 for CKTransit.

Table 2-3: Revenue Passengers per Hour

Route Revenue Passengers per Hour

Route 1 22.0

Route 2 15.0

Route 3 13.5

Route 4 15.0

CKTransit Overall 16.3



3. CKTRANSIT INTERURBAN SERVICE

CKTransit also provides service for three interurban transit routes linking the community of

Chatham with its surrounding outlying rural communities. These routes are operated by

WindRide. Due to the rural-urban blend of the service area, the demand generated along

these routes is lower compared to the conventional service in the Community of Chatham.

All three routes provide two round trips in the morning (6:15 AM to 11:15 AM) and two

round trips in the afternoon (4:15 PM to 9:15PM), Monday to Saturday. The three routes are:

Route A Chatham/Wallaceburg/Dresden

Route C Chatham/Blenheim/Ridgetown

Route D Chatham/Tilbury/Wheatley

The monthly ridership by route is given below in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: CKTransit Interurban Services Monthly Ridership

There is an additional seasonal route, Route S1, which operates May to September,

connecting the communities of Mitchell Bay, Grande Point, Pain Court, Blenheim, and

Erieau with Chatham. Similar to the year-round routes described above, four round trips per

day are provided. In 2010, Route S1 carried a total of 1,095 passengers. Weekly ridership

ranged from 33 to 107 passengers with the exception of the week of the July 30 when 610

passengers were carried. This was attributed to free weekend service approved by Council.

The routes are operated by WindRide which owns, maintains and operates the three 20-seat

compressed natural gas vehicles, along with a smaller, spare vehicle in order to provide the

service for the municipality.

The communities of Thamesville and Bothwell, situated northeast of Chatham, currently

have no service and have been identified by staff as potential communities where service

could be expanded based on feedback received during CKTransit staff public consultation.



While the interurban service is offered by CKTransit, the $5 cash fare for these services is

higher than that compared to the conventional, and it does not currently offer a transfer to the

conventional routes in Chatham. Riders originating from the interurban services are required

to pay the full fare for CKTransit‟s Chatham Conventional services.



4. PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES

Based on HDR | iTRANS‟ analysis and observations, and input from municipal, Aboutown

and WindRide staff, a number of issues have been identified. Foregoing actions may be taken

to mitigate these issues, which are summarized in this section.

4.1 Service Issues and Potential Mitigation

Measures

A summary of the issues identified, and the proposed mitigation measures described at a high

level has been compiled below.

4.1.1 Route Design and Schedule Adherence

4.1.1.1 Issues

Route 2 Northeast requires additional travel time due to the provision of service to North

Maple Mall.

Route 3 Southeast is impacted by train crossings in the PM; transfers can be missed or

buses unduly delayed to accommodate transfers.

The radial loop system subjects transit riders to unnecessary, out of direction travel

Passengers travelling inbound and beyond the downtown must transfer to another route if

traveling to another quadrant in Chatham.

The Route 3 scheduled time is well below the system average primarily due to the need to

have extra time for the one trip of the day after 5:00pm to accommodate train delays. If

this was not the case then the route can be extended to serve other areas without adding

additional contract costs.

Route 1 Northwest travels into the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for

Community Services complex. This complex is open weekdays from 8:30am-5:00pm.

Route 1 requires the longest travel time of all routes (28.3 minutes average, leaving only

1.7 minutes for layover)

4.1.1.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures

The current one-way loop system where each route terminates downtown can be

improved upon by interlining all routes into two “figure 8” two-way loop pairings as

illustrated in Exhibit 4-1.

The following pairings may be made:

o Route 1 with Route 3

o Route 2 with Route 4

Route 2 Northeast can be modified to reduce the overall travel distance without

compromising reasonable walk distances. (see Exhibit 4-1).

For the approximate 5:00pm Route 3 delays caused at railway crossings, CKTransit

should provide for taxis to be on call (see Note* below) at the downtown to transport

customers who miss the timed connection at the downtown terminal.



Route 1 service to the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community

Services complex can be eliminated and terminate at the new YMCA. Alternatively,

service to the Courthouse could be limited to normal business hours. This will save about

one minute in travel time.

Note*: It is suggested that CKTransit enter into discussions with taxi operators to standby

at the downtown terminal during the time that trains cause delays for Route 3 Southeast

when the bus would not be able to connect with Routes 2 and 4. The unique issue with

Route 3 is one that cannot be fixed unless at-grade crossings were eliminated, which is

not likely. When Route 3 experiences a long train delay, buses waiting for the train will

compromise their schedule integrity and delay passengers on their bus. If the buses depart

on time, those route 3 passengers needing to transfer must wait for the next bus. In either

situation, passengers are inconvenienced. One option to consider is to enter into

discussions with the taxi industry to accept delayed transfer passengers from the Route 3

bus and take them to the nearest bus stop to their destination. The agreement with the

taxis could be for a flat fee of, for example, $15-$25 per occurrence or per day. This

would cost about $4,000 to $6,500 per year based on 260 weekday occurrences per year

and is considered nominal..

Exhibit 4-1: Conventional Transit Recommended Service Changes

These mitigation steps will:

Reduce the travel time for those that are near the downtown by eliminating out-of-

direction travel for some of the customers

Reduce the amount of customers transferring between routes



Eliminate buses that are held up by Route 3 train crossing delays (i.e. two buses are

impacted rather than three buses since Route 3 would be interlined with Route 1)

4.2 Integration of Interurban and Chatham

Conventional Transit Services

4.2.1 Issues

Interurban transit customers are not allowed to be dropped off or picked up within

Chatham except at select stops such as the downtown bus terminal, the hospital and the

Riverview Gardens retirement home

Customers want to transfer between interurban and conventional buses without paying an

additional fare

4.2.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures

Interurban buses and customers could be allowed to use existing bus stops along the

Chatham urban area

The issue of free transfers between local and interurban services are addressed in Section

4.3: Transit Fares.

.

4.2.3 Impact of Proposed Changes on Ridership

The study did not specifically address ridership levels since other recommendations in this

report that will impact ridership demand were addressed. It can be hypothesized that the

proposed service changes are positive and that there would be no lost ridership as a result of

the changes recommended. As such, assuming existing ridership would remain at existing

levels is a conservative approach.

4.3 Transit Fares

When dealing with the issue of setting transit fares, the decision is ultimately political.

Recognizing that most transit users are captive and have little or no access to an automobile,

transit fares must be affordable and fare policies should be conducive to promoting ridership.

Generally, trade-offs will be needed to balance the service provided with the need for fiscal

responsibility. Transit management needs a fare policy to provide guidance to

recommendations during the budget process so that it is perceived to be fair and fiscally

responsible.

The various forms of public transportation require municipal investments to enhance the

quality of life of residents in both the urban and rural communities and, in particular, to

enable the urban area of Chatham to be competitive in attracting businesses. To this end, the

investments made have been summarized on a net cost per passenger carried by the various

forms of transportation:



The 2009 net cost per passenger carried (total cost less fare revenues) has been provided for

comparison purposes in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Cost per Revenue Passenger

Service

Annual Net

Operating Cost

(Costs – Revenues)

Annual

Revenue

Passengers

Cost per

revenue

passenger

CKTransit Chatham Conventional* $559,540 257,853 $2.17

CK Transit Interurban $359,880 8,528 $42.20

Chatham Handi-Bus $281,140 18,919 $14.86

Wallaceburg Accessibile $99,570 4,559 $21.84

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



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%



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



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.



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



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



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

Assumption 2 - High Range $518,116

$0.25 Fare Increase $0.50 Fare Increase

Category Cash

Fare

Multi-

Pass Cost

Multi-

Pass

Cost

per

Trip

Multi-

Pass

Discount

Cash

Fare

Multi-

Pass

Cost

Multi-

Pass

Cost

per

Trip

Multi-

Pass

Discount

Adult $2.25 $40.50 $1.84 18% $2.50 $45.00 $2.05 18%

Senior $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30% $2.50 $38.30 $1.74 30%

H.S. Student $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30% $2.50 $38.30 $1.74 30%

Elementary

Student $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30% $2.50 $38.30 $1.74 30%

Child (U5) Free N/A N/A N/A Free N/A N/A N/A

St. Clair

College N/A $120.00 $0.90 N/A N/A $120.00 $0.90 N/A



1Obtained from section 4.3.1, this value shall be used to be consistent with calculated forecasted revenues associated with

fare increases.

The proposed fare structure under a $0.25 cash fare increase is estimated to increase the

annualized revenues by 6.5% to 12.6%. A $0.50 cash fare increase will rise about 7% from

levels generated by the $0.25 increase, or a 14% to 25% increase in revenues compared to the

existing fares structure and policy.

4.3.4 Smart Card Technology Overview and Benefits

In 2010, CKTransit carried in the area of 270,000 passengers that paid a transit fare – exact

cash fare or Multi-Pass cards - upon boarding and, if required, they obtain a transfer to board

second bus. A fare card, known as „smart card‟, could replace all fare mediums except cash

and paper transfers for cash-paying customers. The smart card would essentially act like an

electronic purse (e-purse) that would be loaded with value by the transit customer and used in

place of cash, passes and transfers.

4.3.4.1 Benefits to Transit Customers

Benefits to the smart card user include:

Eliminates the need to carry exact cash fare, tickets or passes.

Eliminates the need to obtain and carry paper transfers.

Provides increased security against lost or stolen passes.

Opportunity for more custom-designed fare discounts (e.g. “loyalty” card).

4.3.4.2 Benefits to Transit System

A successful smart card implementation will positively change the way business is conducted

and provide numerous transit system benefits that can be realized immediately or over a

period of time:

Greater flexibility in implementing new fare structures such as,

o one-cent multiples rather than 5-cent

o fare by distance for interurban travel

o automatically apply fare integration between urban and interurban services

Reduces bus boarding times.

Increased ridership and revenues (i.e. ridership growth strategy) 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 (can be reduced to one day per week from five)

Potential link to GPS-based technologies (to see where customers get on and off buses)

Eliminates the „underpayment‟ of bus fares

4.3.4.3 Other Municipal Benefits

The ability to use the smart card for applications at other municipal services equipped with

smart card readers is possible, such as payment at parking facilities, recreational facilities /

sports complexes, municipal libraries, etc.



4.3.4.4 Smart Card Components

The primary components of smart card solutions are outlined below.

Fare Transaction Processor (FTP), which would be located near the existing farebox, is the

unit that interacts with the e-purse smart card. The FTP is modular with no moving parts and

has solid-state construction, requiring little or no maintenance. If the unit is malfunctioning

(rare), it can simply be replaced en-route. As the person boards, the FTP can signal both

visually and audibly whether or not a discount fare is being deducted (e.g. student).

Electronic Purse Smart Card (i.e. e-purse) can come in the form of a proximity smart card

similar in size and thickness of a credit card or a lower cost “e-ticket”. The e-purse smart

card will have a microprocessor embedded to store data. As the customer boards the bus with

their smart card, the proper fare is deducted from the smart card as it is passed by in close

„proximity‟ to the FTP. The smart card-FTP transaction takes less than a second, which

contrasts in comparison to the „magnetic‟ swipe card, most commonly used by the public

(e.g. debit cards, etc.).

Smart cards could be registered or unregistered. If registered, a smart card that is reported as

lost or stolen by the smart card user can have the remaining value loaded onto a replacement

card the next day. In contrast, an unregistered smart card that is lost or stolen cannot be

replaced, which is similar to losing monthly passes or multi-passes.

Point of Sales Outlets / Kiosks – Sales outlets located throughout the region would have

point of sales terminals that enable smart card users to conveniently load value on their smart

card. There are other methods of paying adding value to smart cards such as “auto reload”

whereby a registered user can have value automatically loaded onto their smart card when the

value of the smart card reaches a threshold as determined by the user.

Central System – The smart card transactions must be managed centrally and automatically.

The financial and transit user transactions inherent to the smart card system will be recorded

in a central database system. This provides CKTransit with detailed ridership information by

time of day and route. Ridership can be tracked by card. Also, not unlike the sales of monthly

passes and tickets, when a smart card is loaded with value, the money is transferred to

CKTransit automatically. This would mean that the region would have additional income

from the Transit rider since cash passengers that adopt the smart card will provide an

additional pre-paid revenue source for short-term investment opportunities.

4.3.4.5 Smart Card System Costs

The cost of the smart card technology has been decreasing over the last 10 years and it is

becoming a better understood and accepted method of payment. Although cash will continue

as a form of fare payment, the use of smart card technology industry-wide will become the



transit norm, primarily because it is customer-focused, reduces the cost of revenue

management, and it provides an incentive to increase an individual‟s use of transit.

Subject to a more detailed assessment, a conservative estimate for a smart card system

implementation of CKTransit‟s Chatham Conventional and Interurban services only would

probably be less than $100,000.



5. SPECIALIZED TRANSIT OVERVIEW

Chatham-Kent provides wheelchair accessible transit to eligible residents that reside and

travel within Chatham and Wallaceburg. The Chatham service – Handi-Bus - is provided by

Aboutown while the Wallaceburg service – Wallaceburg Accessible – is provided by

Cadillac Cab.

The focus of the HDR | iTRANS assignment was on the local and interurban transit services,

however specialized transit is now becoming more tied to regular transit service across the

country as conventional transit is more affordable and less costly per passenger. By shifting

some riders from specialized services to the conventional transit service, it enables some

specialized transit customers to use conventional transit for some of their trips without

having to reserve their ride. A high-level overview was undertaken of the specialized transit

service to identify issues that may be addressed in the near future.

5.1 Service Description

5.1.1 Handi-Bus

The following provides a summary of the Handi-Bus service:

The existing agreement between Chatham-Kent and Abouttown states that service is

provided to accommodate trips originating and terminating within Chatham only

For destinations outside Chatham, Aboutown charges a minimum 2-hour charter rate of

$123 plus $62.50 per hour thereafter (this is outside of the existing agreement with

Chatham-Kent)

Service is provided curb to curb only

One-way fare of $3.00 ($1.00 higher than the local CKTransit adult fare)

1,454 passengers were carried in 2010

544 passengers using mobility devices (wheelchair, scooters)

387 ambulatory

523 attendants (free)

Service is provided:

Monday – Saturday 8:00 am - 6:00 pm (Note: service sometimes commences

at 7am to accommodate requests)

Friday Evening 6:00 pm - 11:00 pm

Sunday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm

Priority is given to eligible residents (i.e. those that cannot access or use CKTransit

service) travelling for work, school, medical trip purposes while those travelling for

shopping and socio-recreational purposes are accommodated, when possible

48 hours advanced booking is required

5.1.2 Wallaceburg Accessible

Cadillac Cab operates the Wallaceburg service with one para-transit van. The service can be

described as follows:



The existing agreement between Chatham-Kent and Cadillac Cabs states that service is

provided to accommodate trips originating and terminating within Wallaceburg only

Service is provided curb to curb only

For destinations outside Wallaceburg, a $2.00 per kilometre rate is charged by Cadillac

Cab to the passenger (this is outside of the existing agreement with Chatham-Kent)

One-way fare of $3.00 ($1.00 higher than the local CKTransit adult fare)

Service is provided

Monday – Friday 8:00 am - 6:00 pm

Saturday-Sunday, excluding holidays 9:00am – 5:00pm

584 passengers were carried in 2010

144 passengers using mobility devices (wheelchair, scooters)

273 ambulatory

167 attendants (free)

Priority is given to eligible residents (i.e. those that cannot access or use CKTransit

service) travelling for work, school, medical trip purposes while those travelling for

shopping and socio-recreational purposes are accommodated, when possible

48 hours advanced booking is required

5.2 General Comments and Observations

As the population ages, there will be an increasing reliance on accessible transportation

services as those that age will not, at some point, be able to drive or have access to personal

transportation. Yet their reliance will be critical since medical and shopping trips will be

required just to accommodate their very basic needs. The issue becomes more pronounced in

the rural areas and communities without affordable accessible transit.

The desire to „age-in-place‟ will continue but without access to transportation or volunteers,

residents could be forced to move. This theme is not uncommon and the problem will

accentuate over time.

To provide lower cost accessible services, urban transit fleets and the bus infrastructures are

becoming more accessible. Today‟s standard urban fleet now consists of low-floor

wheelchair accessible buses.

Discussions with the CK staff and Handi-Bus staff revealed the following:

There are no-shows whereby an eligible customer does not cancel a Handi-Bus trip. This

should be discouraged and the bus fare should be charged to the customer.

Getting seniors to know what public transportation is available to them and knowing how

to use it would be a big step to using CKTransit services. In this regard, a travel training

manual would be beneficial

There is a need to both identify and quantify the demand that is not being met,

particularly in the more rural areas and communities. This can start off by undertaking

surveys of the more than 6,000 members of the seniors centres where transportation is

very key

A central booking agency would go a long way to matching a customer up with the

appropriate transportation available to them (e.g. volunteers, etc)



There needs to a better coordination of transportation services to prevent overlap due to

the many operating silos that exist; this approach recognizes there is only one taxpayer

who should not pay for duplicated services.

In other rural municipalities, consideration is being given to the provision of service on select

days, perhaps one or two days a week, in order to accommodate medical and shopping trips

for both physically disabled and on disabled residents.

It can be surmised that more work would be needed in the area of expanding access to public

transportation services and addressing the latent demand in more detail.



6. TRANSIT FLEET STRATEGY

6.1 Existing Fleet

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent does not desire to own or maintain its CKTransit urban,

interurban or specialized transit fleets (Handi-Bus and Wallaceburg Accessible).

A summary of the fleets operated are provided as follows:

CKTransit local service operated by About Town:

Six 22-foot Ford diesel buses (4 in service + 2 spares)

19-seat capacity + wheelchair lift and one tie-down position

2004 model, needing to be replaced at the end of the contract (December 2012)

CKTransit interurban service operated by WindRide:

Three 1999 Champion buses in revenue service

One 2000 Ford F450 spare bus

20-seat capacity

Wheelchair lift + one tie-down position

Handi-Bus provided by About Town:

Three vehicles with 4 seats plus 4 wheelchair tie-down positions

One vehicle with 5 seats plus 3wheelchair positions

One spare vehicle (van) with 4 seats plus 1wheelchair tie-down positions

2004 model, needing to be replaced at the end of the contract (December 2012)

Wallaceburg Accessible operated by Cadillac Cab:

One 2005 Chevy Express owned by Cadillac Cab

One 2001 Dodge Van spare owned by Chatham-Kent

Each accommodates 3 wheelchair plus 3 seated passengers

Both vehicles will need to be replaced at the end of the contract (December 2012)

6.2 Alternative CKTransit Conventional Fleet

The capital cost in purchasing the transit fleet rolling stock (buses and vans) is reflected in

the transit operating agreements. It can be assumed that with ownership vested with the

operator, the preventative maintenance undertaken is designed to maximize the life of each

vehicle. Although the risk associated with ownership of the rolling stock is avoided, the cost

is reflected in the transit operating agreements. With municipal ownership, there would likely

be savings, particularly if external provincial or federal funding is provided.

For the purpose of this assignment, it will be assumed that the current fleet ownership policy

will not change, although it should be explored further.



The current transit industry standard for conventional transit fleets is to have low floor buses

with wheelchair accessibility. This is a customer-focussed design that also benefits transit as

follows:

Wheelchair accessible without the need for a time consuming lift

Wheelchairs can be accommodated through a rear-facing wheelchair position (i.e. little or

no tie-down required)

Boarding times are reduced for all customers since there are no steps

Enables some Handi-Bus customers to use conventional transit without the need to

reserve ahead (i.e. dynamic trip making)

Reduced cost per passenger to the municipality for Handi-Bus customers

Easier access for parents with strollers and the ambulatory disabled

The following is a cost summary for each vehicle option that can be considered for the local

CKTransit urban service, the manufacturer‟s design life:

22‟ (6.7 metre) existing community bus with steps and wheelchair lift

o $90,000 capital cost per vehicle

o Life cycle of 5 years or more (equates to $18,000 per year over 5 years)

o Seating capacity of 15 - 20, with up to 10 standees (assumes 50% of seated

capacity)

30‟ (9.1 metre) low floor community bus

o $185,000 capital cost per vehicle


o Seating capacity of 25 - 30, with up to 15 standees (assumes 50% of seated

capacity)

40‟ (12.2 metre) heavy duty transit vehicle

o $540,000


o Seating capacity of 40 , with up to 20+ standees (assumes 50% of seated capacity)

The life cycle of all buses can be extended through rebuilds or by increasing the spare ratio

to reduce the average mileage travelled by buses.

A larger low floor local transit vehicle will better accommodate existing customers, meet the

needs of an aging community, attract some Handi-Bus customers, and accommodate a larger

bus load. Although the cost is double that of the current vehicles that will need to be

replaced, the design life is greater; this minimizes the financial impact.

Given the aforementioned, it is recommended that the Municipality of Chatham-Kent specify

as a minimum, the larger (i.e. 28-30‟) low floor bus be supplied by the successful bidder. In

doing so, the contract should be longer than the standard 5-year contracts in order to reduce

the risk for the successful bidder. Alternatively, the Municipality of Chatham-Kent could

purchase the vehicles.



7. NEXT STEPS

The CKTransit Service Review is a high-level document that provides specific

recommendations relative the transit route design concepts, a way to address the problem of

missed connections due to rail crossing delays, the integration of urban and rural transit

services, the need for larger low-floor community buses, and a new fare pricing policy and

complementary fare strategies,

As a next step, it is proposed that the recommendations of the report be discussed in their

entirety with the transit service providers for their input and then presented to the public at an

open house in Chatham.

There are other tasks that need to be addressed, namely:

The expansion of some service to the rural area and communities not currently being

served.

A review of the current public transportation business model and transit agreements in

place.

A review of AODA requirements and its impacts on transit related infrastructure and

transit services.

The recommendations of this report were not intended to increase transit services and as

such, if service expansion is to be considered, enhanced community input to obtain service

priorities could be obtained and incorporated.

Appendix A

Project Initiation and Documentation

Review

HDR | iTRANS 100 York Blvd. Suite 300




File: 2.0

Project # 6479

Memorandum -

To: Jan Metcalfe, Engineering Technologist, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Cc: Gary Northcott, Director of Engineering and Transportation

Stephen Jahns, Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Jerry Corso, Engineering Technologist

From: Wally Beck, HDR | iTRANS

Date: March 22, 2011

Re: Transit Assignment #1

Project Initiation and Documentation Review

1. BACKGROUND

HDR | iTRANS met with the Municipality of Chatham-Kent staff on November 27, 2010 to

prioritize our assistance relative to various traffic, transportation and transit assignments.

On January 27, 2011 notice to proceed was given to undertake the following assignments:

Assignment 1: Project Initiation and Review of Documentation

Assignment 2: Bus Shelter and Bench Policy




Assignment 7: Vehicle Assessments

The objective of this assignment is to provide a high level overview of the public

transportation services provided within the Community of Chatham and services that link

other communities within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent to Chatham

2. OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT SERVICES

A review of the services provided was summarized based on consultations conducted with Chatham-Kent staff and the transit service providers.


July 2011 ii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479

2.1 Local C-Ktransit Service

The local CKtransit system has four routes offering 30 minute all day service from 6:15am to

7:15pm on weekdays and Saturdays, excluding statutory holidays:

Route 1 Northwest

Route 2 Northeast

Route 3 Southeast

Route 4 Southwest

CKtransit operates a radial route network with all buses travelling in a one-way, clockwise

direction (i.e. loop service), meeting at the downtown terminal at half-hour intervals to

enable timed transfers.

A summary of the discussions and issues identified by C-K staff and About Town (service

provider) are provided as follows:

Route travel times are varied by time of day for each route

Route 1 serves the college while Route 2 serves Walmart; they are the longest and busiest

routes

Route 2 has the most difficulty in meeting scheduled times all day due to its length

Route 3 is the shortest route and requires the least travel time except in the late afternoon

when trains are passing through town. Route 3 must traverse railway crossings at 9

locations and as such, this has the following implications:

Route 3 is delayed by about 7-8 minutes, missing the timed transfer downtown

All other routes may need to wait if passengers are needing to transfer to their bus;

bus operators call ahead to let other operators know if customers need to transfer to

their bus

Although Route 3 has the most difficulty meeting scheduled times when trains pass

through Chatham, it has the easiest time catching up on the next run. The train delay

on Route 3 has the greatest impact on Route 1 and 2; since these runs are the longest

distance they have the hardest time making up for the added delay. This degrades

system reliability and customer service for the balance of the day.

Transit Signal Priority is provided to help buses meet schedules (an additional assignment

is underway to address this component)

There is no fare integration between the rural community bus service and C-K Transit;

passengers wishing to transfer between local and rural buses must pay the full fare for

each service

The adult cash fare for CKtransit is $2.00 while the rural community bus fare is $5.00,

regardless of distance travelled

There have been no service increases or fare increases in over 5 years

At 4:15pm, the inter-urban buses leave the terminal. If C-K buses are late, transfers

between C-K and inter-urban buses are not met

About Town owns, maintains and operates a fleet of seven (7) buses described as

follows:

19-passenger equipped with wheelchair lift

4 in-service, 2 regular spares, 1 emergency spare

The buses cost about $80,000 and have been in place since 2004; they will need to be

replaced


July 2011 iii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479

Concern about the lack of coverage along Queens Line/ Richmond Street was identified

by About Town

About Town also owns, maintains and operates four Handi-bus paratransit vehicles that

accommodate four wheelchair positions

Handi-bus service is only provided within Chatham and Wallaceburg.

Diamond fareboxes are used, with revenues counted by C-K daily by route except on

Friday and Saturday, which are combined

The first trip of the day, at 6:15am, data indicates there are no more than 3 passengers on

any of the bus routes

About Town also operates Handi-Bus with two accessible vehicles

Handi-bus only operates within the community of Chatham and the Community of

Wallaceburg; service to residents is complemented by the availability of three wheelchair

accessible taxis

Accessible Service (Handi-bus) in Chatham is operated by Aboutown; the Accessible

Service (Handi-bus) in Wallaceburg is operated by Cadillac Cabs.

2.2 Inter-Urban CKtransit Service

A summary of the discussions and issues identified by C-K staff and Windride (service

provider) are provided as follows:

There are three year-round routes:

Route A: Wallaceburg and Dresden (2am and 2 pm trips)

Route C: Blenheim, Ridgetown and Charing Cross (2am and 2 pm trips)

Route D: Tilbury and Wheatley (2am and 2 pm trips)

There is one summer route, Route S1, that operates June through September, connecting

Mitchell Bay, Grande Point, Pain Court, Chatham, Blenheim, and Erieau (4 trips per day)

Two of the three routes (Tilbury route being the exception) are used well

Transit customers from outlying communities would like to be able to travel to

destinations within Chatham

Windride owns, maintains and operates three 20-seat compressed natural gas vehicles

(25-26‟) plus a smaller vehicle spare

NE county area has no service (e.g. Thamesville: population 1,000)

A recent delegation went to council requesting seasonal service between Rondeau and

Ridgetown be reconsidered

2.3 Observations and Preliminary Suggestions

Based on the input received a number of observations and preliminary suggestions were

discussed with Chatham-Kent and Aboutown with respect to the local CKtransit:

The one-way route design should be replaced with two-way service with consideration

given to a figure 8 two-way loop design (i.e. combining two routes to reduce the number

of transfers required)


July 2011 iv HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479

Route 2 could be reconfigured to reduce travel time while meeting acceptable, industry

standard walk distance thresholds (e.g. 90% of residences within 400 metre walk to bus

stop)

The high floor CKtransit buses should be replaced with larger, low-floor accessible buses

Although Route 3 has the shortest distance and travel time of all routes, it is affected

most by rail traffic. Missed Route 3 connections with buses for the late afternoon trip

(approximately 5pm) are a significant irritant that requires a unique solution since current

efforts are not working in a consistent manner.

The first trip in the morning is lightly loaded and could probably be accommodated by

taxis. The approximately 10 revenue hours saved per week could be used to extend

service by 30 minutes at the end of the day or used to provide a skeleton Sunday service

(2 buses 10am-3pm)

The $2.00 cash fare for adults is reasonable. CKtransit should consider a single time-

based transfer (e.g. 60 minutes) to allow passengers to stop over and board on the next

bus in the same direction or make the return trip at no additional cost.

CKtransit should consider the use of smart card technology, which is considered a

ridership growth strategy

The existing public timetables for all services could be standardized and developed into a

booklet form (this can be contracted out to private sector). Costs can be off-set through

selling of the advertising space or charging a nominal fee to customers (e.g. $0.50 or

$1.00)

Chatham-Kent should consider owning the fleet given external funding programs that

may return, thereby reducing the cost of contracted services since it will mitigate the

financial risk of the contractor.

An Excel based worksheet could be used to provide monthly performance statistics on

each route for planning purposes

Applying walk distance criteria to route design may help provide expanded coverage at

no additional cost

Based on the input received, a number of observations and preliminary suggestions were

discussed with Chatham-Kent and Windride staff with respect to the rural community

service:

Windride buses are not allowed to pick up or drop off customers within Chatham except

at the downtown terminal (e.g. a person cannot be allowed to get off at Walmart forcing

passengers to board the CKtransit Route 2 in the downtown, paying an additional fare

and travelling longer).

Bus fares for the rural communities are relatively inexpensive and, in many cases, costing

less than the fuel cost to operate a private automobile.

A fare by distance pricing strategy (e.g. two zones) may be reasonable for the rural

community service in addition to providing free transfers to CKtransit and allowing

Windride to use local bus stops.

There should be fare integration between the local and inter-urban bus routes.


July 2011 v HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479

2.4 Next Steps

Given the findings and level of detail addressed during the project initiation, it is suggested

that the following three assignments be combined since the subject matter overlaps:




Assignment 2 Bus Shelter and Bench Policy can be undertaken independently.

Appendix B

Bus Stop, Shelter and Bench Guideline

HDR | iTRANS 100 York Blvd. Suite 300




i

File: 2.0

Project # 6479

Memorandum

To: Gary Northcott, Director of Engineering and Transportation, Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Cc: Stephen Jahns, Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Jan Metcalfe, Engineering Technologist

From: Wally Beck, HDR | iTRANS Conor Adami, HDR | iTRANS

Date: June 23, 2011

Re: Transit Assignment #2

Bus Shelter and Bench Guidelines

1. INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this assignment are:

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.


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


July 2011 iii


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.


July 2011 iv


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.


July 2011 v


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.


July 2011 vi


Exhibit 2: Typical Nearside Stop Arrangement

Exhibit 8: Typical Farside Stop Arrangement


July 2011 vii


Exhibit 4: Typical Midblock Stop Arrangement

Exhibit 5: Typical Bus Turn-Out (Bus Pad)


July 2011 viii


Exhibit 6: Typical "Curb-Out" Bus Stop

Exhibit 12: Typical “Fully-Accessible” Bus Stop


July 2011 ix


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


July 2011 x


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.


July 2011 xi


Exhibit 14: Bus Stop Landing Pad


July 2011 xii


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.


July 2011 xiii


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


July 2011 xiv


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


July 2011 xv


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


July 2011 xvi


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


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


July 2011 iii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479

Exhibit 1-1: Route 1 Passenger Load Profile


July 2011 iv HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479

Exhibit 1-2: Route 2: Passenger Load Profile


July 2011 v HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479



July 2011 vi HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479



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


July 2011 viii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479




July 2011 ix HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479




July 2011 x HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479




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%


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%


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]

Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25

Kilometers

LegendROAD NETWORKBUS TERMINALROUTE 1 (NORTHWEST)ROUTE 2 (NORTHEAST)ROUTE 3 (SOUTHEAST)ROUTE 4 (SOUTHWEST)

POINTS OF INTERESTCALL CENTRE

CHATHAM KENT HEALTH ALLIANCE

CHATHAM KENT SECONDARY SCHOOL

CIVIC CENTRE

COMMUNITY LIVING

COURT HOUSE/SOCIAL SERVICES

JOHN McGREGOR SECONDARY SCHOOL

LIBRARY

MAPLE CITY CENTRE FOR OLDER ADULTS

NORTH MAPLE MALL

NORTOWN PLAZA

ST CLAIR COLLEGE

THAMESLEA PLAZA

THAMESVIEW LODGE

URSULINE COLLEGE - THE PINES

VICTORIA RESIDENCE

SERVICE HOURS:6:15 am to 7:15 pm

FREQUENCY:

MON-SAT EVERY 30 MIN

INQUIRIES: 436-3233

Fares - effective January 1, 2006:Cash Adult $2.00Cash Senior $1.75Cash Student $1.75Child $1.00

Multi-Pass Adult $35.00Multi-Pass Senior $27.00Multi-Pass Student $27.00

St. Clair College Students $120.00 per semester.

GRAND AV W

BALDOON RD

KING S

T W

ST CLAIR ST

LACROIX ST

MCNAUGHTON AV W

VICTORIA AV

OXLEY D

R

RIVERVIEW DR

SANDYS ST

RICHMOND S

T

GRAND AV E

KEIL DR N

GREGORY DR W

MERRITT AV

QUEEN ST

PARK AV W

HARVEY ST

FOREST ST

WOODS ST

LORNE A

V INSHES AV

TAYLOR AV

SELKIRK S

T

ELIZABETH ST

RALEIGH ST

DELAWARE AV

JOSEPH ST

WILLIA

M S

T S

GRAY ST

BEAR LINE RD

LARK S

T

KEIL DR S

TH

AM

ES

ST

SHELDON AV

CHURCHILL ST

COVERDALE ST

EDGAR ST

WELLINGTON ST W

POPLAR S

T

PHYLLIS AV

GLENWO

OD DR

STANLEY AV BYNG

AV

WILLIA

M S

T N

BALMORAL RD

CANTERBURY ST

UN

NA

ME

D 1

2 R

D

ALLEY

FLORENCE ST

PARRY DR

WILT

SHIRE D

R

URSULINE AV

CRYSTAL DR

DOVER ST

FIFT

H S

T

SEMENYN AV

KEIL TRAIL

ARNOLD ST

MCG

UIGAN AV

KERR AV

BEDFORD ST

KING ST E

MURRAY ST

CENTRE ST

MCFARLANE A

V

STEWART ST

ORANG

EWO

OD BLVD

MARY ST

SPENCER AV

CURRIE ST

DEVON RD

BARTHE ST

LLYDICAN AV

GARDEN PATH

CRAVEN DR

DAHLIA D

R

ALPINE A

V

WATER ST

TH

IRD

ST

UNIVERSITY DR

EMMA ST

PHILLIP

ST

ALDEN ST

LEESON DR

UN

NA

ME

D 1

4 R

D

PATTESON AV

ORDON BLV

D

SUDBURY DR

SMITHFIELD CIRCLE

FIRST ST

PRIMROSE LA

NE

FOU

RTH

ST

JOANNE ST

OTTAWA D

R

PHEASANT DR

GALBRAITH ST

WIN

DFIELD

CRES

FAIRCOURT AV

IRIS

COURT

JAMES ST

OAK ST

PATTESON AV

EMM

A ST

LLYDICAN AV

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.

Adults $5.00Seniors $4.50Students (with valid ID) $4.50Children (5yrs & under) $2.50

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

10:00 AM10:20 AM10:35 AM11:15 AM

County Fair MallWallaceburg HospitalDresden ArenaWallaceburg HospitalCounty Fair MallChatham TerminalCounty Fair MallWallaceburg HospitalDresden ArenaWallaceburg HospitalCounty Fair MallChatham Terminal

AFTERNOON BUSES

4:45 PM5:00 PM5:30 PM5:50 PM6:05 PM6:45 PM7:15 PM7:30 PM8:00 PM8:20 PM8:35 PM9:15 PM

County Fair MallWallaceburg HospitalDresden ArenaWallaceburg HospitalCounty Fair MallChatham TerminalCounty Fair MallWallaceburg HospitalDresden ArenaWallaceburg HospitalCounty Fair MallChatham Terminal

ck transit service review 2011

Documents

l4b 1j8 tel

apple auto

gauge public

gather public

transit advisory

excluding

phyllis avenue

potential