The document discusses proposed changes to the draft system reimagining plan based on community feedback and operational assessments. Key points: - Over 1,100 public comments were received, with three areas receiving strong negative feedback related to specific proposals. - Feedback was mixed, with most disagreeing that proposals would benefit their neighborhood but most agreeing it would benefit the region. Excluding controversial proposals, most felt neutral or agreed with benefits. - Several specific areas are identified for potential changes including Northwest Transit Center, Katy Freeway/Memorial Corridor, Hiram Clarke/Southwest, Far Northwest, Weslayan/Buffalo Speedway, and Far Northeast. - Alternative recommendations are proposed for some

1. SYSTEM REIMAGINING
Discussion on Proposed Changes to
the Draft System Reimagining Plan
August 2014
Special Board Meeting

2. Today’s Discussion

Review of project outreach and feedback
Review of process to refine Draft System Reimagining Plan
•Public Input
•Operational Assessment
Discuss recommended plan revisions based on community feedback and identified operational issues for development of Final Plan
2

3. Meetings, Events, and Briefings
Community Outreach
18 Public Community Meetings
13 Transit Center events connecting with riders
65+ Community, Neighborhood and Organization Briefings
Website Interactive Map
3

4. Project Website

23,000+ Interactive Network Map Views
4,700+ Reimagining Presentation Views
1,100+ Feedback Comments
4

5. System Reimagining Project Timeline
Analysis of
Existing Conditions
Defining Goals
Developing Draft Plan
Public Outreach on the Plan
Implement Plan
We Are Here
July –August 2014
Completed
Summer 2014
Completed
Spring 2014
Completed
Fall 2013
Completed
Summer 2013
June 2015
Planned Board Presentation

September 2014 –Final Plan presented for Board Approval
Refine and
Finalize Plan
5

6. Summary of Feedback

Survey & Meeting Responses from May 5 –August 4

Total number of responses: 1,109

Comments received from 120 zip codes

Three hotspots of strongly negative feedback related to specific proposals for new service:
•
Weslayan/West University Place (21%)
•
Jones Road/Jersey Village (3%)
•
Louetta Road/Vintage Lakes (3%)
Weslayan21%
Jones/Jersey Village3%
Louetta / Vintage Lakes3%
Other73%
Survey Responses:
3 Major Segment Issues
(percent of 1,109 comments)
6

7. Where We Received Feedback
Responses By Zip Code 7

8. Summary of Feedback
35%
33%
36%
28%
36%
12%
16%
12%
11%
11%
53%
51%
52%
61%
53%
Better for Me
Better for my friends andfamily
Better for myneighborhood
Better for the Houstonregion
Likely to help me ridetransit for more trips
Survey Responses -Excluding 3 Segment Issues (~810)
Disagree or Strongly Disagree
Neutral
Agree or Strongly Agree
Excluding Weslayan, Jones Road/Jersey Village, and Louetta/Vintage Lakes Comments
8

9. Summary of Feedback
89%
88%
90%
73%
89%
3%
5%
2%
14%
4%
7%
7%
7%
13%
7%
Better for Me
Better for my friends andfamily
Better for myneighborhood
Better for the Houstonregion
Likely to help me ridetransit for more trips
Survey Responses -3 Segment Issues Only (~305)
Disagree or Strongly Disagree
Neutral
Agree or Strongly Agree
Weslayan, Jones Road/Jersey Village, and Louetta/Vintage Lakes) Comments Only
9

10. 51%
48%
51%
40%
51%
9%
13%
9%
12%
9%
40%
38%
40%
48%
40%
Better for Me
Better for my friends andfamily
Better for myneighborhood
Better for the Houstonregion
Likely to help me ridetransit for more trips
All Responses (1109)
Disagree or Strongly Disagree
Neutral
Agree or Strongly Agree
Summary of Feedback -Overall
10

11. Feedback & Refinement Process

Summarize:Feedback grouped into general comments and specific, actionable feedback on the plan
•General Positive (“I like this plan!”, etc.)
•General Negative (“I don’t like this plan!” etc.)
•Specific Suggestion about routing, frequencies, and spans (“Consider moving/changing this route like this,” “Don’t change this route/don’t run service on this street,” etc.)
•Neutral/not network design issue (“METRO needs to get new buses,” “Build more rail”)
•Implementation Detail-Implementation items (e.g. stop locations) to be cataloged and resolved in implementation phase
11

12.  Does the proposed change improve or worsen the plan’s
ability to meet the goal of maximum ridership?
•Links major centers of activity
•High density along route
•Maximize high-frequency service (every 15 minutes or better all day)
•Route is simple and straight
•Parallel frequent routes are well spaced (1/2 mile or more apart)
 Does the proposed change improve or worsen the level of
basic access to the transit system (coverage goal) including
to areas of social-service concern?
•Does the change provide coverage to more people and/or jobs?
•Does the change address walking distances for mobility-impaired persons (seniors and physically disabled)?
•Does the change provide better access to a destination of interest to disadvantaged persons, such as social services, clinics, etc.?
Assessment Process for Specific Feedback
Ridership Service
Coverage Service
12

13. Propose Recommended Revision to
the Draft Plan

Comments were put into one of three groups:
•Consider:The comment or suggestion may improve the plan
•Defer:The comment is a high-cost item that could be a priority in the future, but should not be considered within current plan budget
•No: Comment or suggestion does not improve the plan and should not be pursued
•Proposed plan recommendations have also been made to address identified operational and facility capacity issues
13

14. Why Reimagine?
Draft Reimagining Plan

The community has asked for improvements to the local bus system

Simpler, more frequent, 7-days a week service connecting more people to more places with faster trips

Ridership has declined on the local bus system

Projected to drive local bus ridership increase of 20+% after 2 years

To create an integrated network of bus and rail service

Stronger connections between the bus and rail network allowing for more seamless operations

Establishes a strong foundation and clear tools to continue to improve the system as resources allow

Need to provide a strong foundation for future growth

The transit system has not evolved with the growing Houston region

A much better match with where and when people live, work, play and learn
Why Reimagine the Transit Network?
14

15. Plan Development
Plan and recommended changes reflect Board direction:
80% Maximum Ridership
20% Maximum Coverage
Simple, straight routes arriving frequently focused on places where transit can be most productive
Particular focus on maintaining service for existing riders
Projected at 80% Ridership/20% Coverage no more than 0.5% of existing boardingswould occur more than ½ mile from proposed service; Draft Plan delivered at 0.04%
15

16. Local Service Types
Red (Frequent)
Blue(Ridership)
Green
(Coverage)
Orange
(Peak Only)
BaseHeadway
(14-16 hours, 7 days)
(includes weekday peaks)
10 to15 minutes
30 minutes
60 minutes
noservice
PeakHeadway
(2-3 hours in weekday AM and PM peak travel periods)
7 to 15 minutes
12, 15 or 20 minutes
30 minutes
15 minutes
Late EveningHeadway
(Last 3-4 hours of service)
20 or 30 minutes
30 minutes
noservice
noservice
Overall Daily
Spanof Service
18 to 20
hours
18 to 20
hours
14
hours
Weekday
AM & PM peaks
14 hours represents reduction in span on some coverage routes
16

17. Discussion Areas for Potential
Changes to the Draft Plan

Northwest Transit Center
Katy Freeway/Memorial Corridor
Hiram Clarke/Southwest
Far Northwest
Weslayan/Buffalo Speedway
Far Northeast
Span on Coverage Routes
Other individual route revisions

Where possible related changes have been grouped together

For each group we will present
•
Public feedback and operational issues leading to consideration of change
•
Draft Plan Map
•
Map showing recommended changes
•
Impacts of the change

For several areas we have also provided additional alternatives for discussion
17

18. Northwest Transit Center

Northwest TC Operational Issues:
•12 existing bus bays at Northwest TC
•Draft Plan included 17 local routes plus Park & Rides
•Expansion of Northwest Transit Center will be a multi- year project; interim solution necessary for June 2015
Other Operational Issues
•Northbound IH 610 frontage road will not be completed by June 2015
•Anticipated loads on 16 White Oak Quitman in Draft Plan require 40 foot bus which cannot be operated through Cottage Grove neighborhood streets
18

19. Northwest TC
Draft Network Plan and Impacted Routes
19

20. Northwest TC
Recommended Option (Part 1)

Develops Hempstead Mini Terminal (MT) at Hempstead/Post Oak
18 Long Pointcombined with 20 Cavalcade, as crosstown 20 Long Point Cavalcade
Route split at Kashmere TC to create 63 MLK Lockwood

46 Antoinecombined with 14 Washington to create 46 Antoine Washington

47 Post Oakextended to Hempstead MT
20

21. Northwest TC
Recommended Option (Part 2)

16 White Oak Quitmanand 89 Dacomaterminated at Hempstead MT
16 White Oak Quitmanrerouted via 11th, TC Jester, and IH 10 frontage roads
88 Cottage Groveadded as small bus route
21

22.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ Required to allow operations on target implementation
timeline for 2015; can be revised after NWTC
improvements completed
+ Provides direct connection to Red Line LRT on 20 Long
Point at Cavalcade Station
+ Improves Frequent Network connections at Kashmere TC
− 16 White Oak Quitman, 89 Dacoma, and new 88 Cottage
Grove connected to Hempstead Mini Terminal instead of
Northwest TC
 Estimated Cost Impact: $400,000 per year (0.2% of
local budget)
Northwest TC
Proposed Network Revisions 22

23. Katy Freeway/Memorial Corridor

Public Feedback:
•Midday and evening service to Downtown from outer Memorial Drive should be maintained
•Draft Plan service in Katy Freeway/Memorial corridor is confusing
•Access to existing retail at Beltway 8 & Westview is important
Ridership Consideration:
•Frequent link between Memorial City, Northwest TC, and Downtown has high ridership potential
Operational Issues:
•Routing in Town & Country/City Centre not feasible
•Park Row extension not complete until 2016
23

24. Katy Freeway/Memorial Corridor
Draft Network Plan and Impacted Routes
24

25. Katy Freeway/Memorial Corridor
Recommended Option (Part 1)

160s Memorial City Flyer composed of trips on:
161 Wilcrest Flyer(30 base/20 peak)
162 Memorial Flyer(60 base/20 peak),
160 Memorial City Flyer(60 base)
All 160sstop at Northwest TC
25

26. Katy Freeway/Memorial Corridor
Recommended Option (Part 2)

85 Memorial Villagesand 87 Westviewrerouted and coordinated to provide higher frequency to retail at Beltway 8
86 Katy Freewayrenamed, simplified, and rerouted to cover Sherwood Forest
33 Dairy Ashford truncated south of IH 10 until Park Row completed
26

27.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ Adds frequent service between Memorial City, Northwest
TC, and Downtown and expansion over Draft Plan
+ Adds increased frequency along Westview between
Gessner and Brittmoore serving retail destinations
+ Straightens and simplifies routes with consistent, seven-day
pattern on outer Memorial
 Cost Impact: saves $325,000 per year (0.2% of local
budget)
Katy Freeway/Memorial Corridor
Recommended Option
27

28. Hiram Clarke / Southwest

Public Feedback:
•Connection to Post Oak/Chimney Rock is preferred by Ridgemont neighborhood
•Proposed 82 route in Draft Plan viewed as confusing
Ridership Consideration:
•Opportunity to better match proposed service levels to ridership and travel demand
28

29. Hiram Clarke / Southwest
Draft Network Plan and Impacted Routes
29

30. Hiram Clarke / Southwest
Recommended Option

45 Chimney Rocklong line rerouted to Ridgemont loop
Terminus of 41 Fondrenmoved to Missouri City P&R
Remaining segments create 82 Briargateand 83 West Airport, better matching ridership demand
30

31.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ Better matches service to existing ridership patterns
+ Straightens and simplifies routes reinforcing network grid
+ Addresses areas with shorter span in Draft Network than
existing
 Cost Impact: even
Hiram Clarke / Southwest
Recommended Option
31

32. Far Northwest

Public Feedback:
•Strong opposition to routes running on Jones and Louetta with little support
•Acres Homes community requested maintaining number 44 on Acres Homes/Montgomery route
Budget Consideration:
•Extension of routes to West Little York Park & Ride makes less sense without connecting local route to the north
32

33. Far Northwest
Draft Network Plan and Impacted Routes
33

34. Far Northwest
Recommended Option

95 Jonesremoved from plan
94 Acres Homes Montgomeryrenumbered to 44 and extended to University Park via modified route
Connection of 25 Tidwell West, 28 W Little York Irvington, and 40 Gessnermoved to Tidwell & Fairbanks N Houston
34

35.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ Increases service to University Park area (retail,
hospital, office, college) with direct connection from
44 Acres Homes Montgomery bus
+ Route numbering change meets community request
− Eliminates direct connection between FM 1960 and
Gessner corridors
 Cost Impact: saves $435,000 per year (0.2% of
local budget)
Far Northwest
Recommended Option
35

36. Weslayan / Buffalo Speedway

Public Feedback:
•Most residents do not consider Weslayan Street suitable for bus traffic
•Proposed 48 Weslayan route does not serve the heart of Greenway Plaza along Richmond
•10 Kirby should extend further south down Kirby Drive to connect to more destinations 36

37. Weslayan/Buffalo Speedway
Draft Network Plan and Impacted Routes
37

38. Weslayan / Buffalo Speedway
Recommended Option

48 Weslayanbecomes 48 Buffalo Speedwayto TMC TC via University
10 Kirbyextended down Kirby to South Main
81 Willowbendrerouted via Stella Link
38

39.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ 48 serves Greenway Plaza on Richmond
+ Connects Northwest TC and Greenway Plaza
directly to TMC
+ Extends service further south on Kirby Drive
+ Better serves Rice Village area
− Eliminates simple, straight route connecting West
Loop TC to Greenway Plaza area
− Reduces service on Stella Link below existing levels
 Estimated Cost Impact: $75,000 per year (0.04%
of local budget)
Weslayan / Buffalo Speedway
Recommended Option
39

40. Weslayan / Buffalo Speedway
Draft Network Plan and Impacted Route
40

41. Weslayan / Buffalo Speedway
Alternative Option

48 Weslayandeviated to Buffalo Speedway between Bellaire and Richmond
41

42.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ 48 serves Greenway Plaza on Richmond
+ Maintains service level on Stella Link justified by ridership
− Introduces deviation between West Loop TC and
Greenway area
− Does not connect Northwest TC and Greenway Plaza
directly to TMC
− Does not extend service further south on Kirby Drive
− Does not better serve Rice Village
 Estimated Cost Impact: $110,000 per year (0.06% of
local budget)
Weslayan / Buffalo Speedway
Alternative Option
42

43. Far Northeast

Public Feedback:
•Flex zone anchor at Mesa TC does not allow good connections to Downtown
•Mixed support and opposition to flex service concept with some desire to maintain existing service
Ridership Consideration:
•Ridership at stops along Mesa Drive north of Mesa TC justifies fixed route
Operational Issue:
•No layover locations available near Little York & Eastex Freeway
43

44. Far Northeast
Draft Network Plan and Impacted Routes
44

45. Far Northeast
Recommended Option

78 Collingsworthand 79 Leycombined into 78 Collingworth Leyand extended north of Mesa TC
Flex Routes 377 and378 revised to balance uncovered fixed route boardings and zone size
Fixed route segments of 377 and378 moved to Lockwood
61 Jensen short line layover and 398 Jensen Flexconnection point moved to Jensen & Tidwell
45

46.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ Simplifies and straightens routes
− Smaller area covered by flex zones; though no reduction
in coverage of existing boardings
 Operations Impact:
+ Balances existing boardings within flex zones and
reduces size of zones which will improve reliability
+ Moves 377 zone closer to hub at Kashmere
 Estimated Cost Impact: $130,000 per year (0.1% of
local budget)
Far Northeast
Recommended Option
46

47. Far Northeast
Draft Network Plan and Impacted Routes
47

48. Far Northeast
Fixed Route Option 1 –Cost Neutral

Hourly fixed routes within ½ mile of all current boarding locations
76 Wayside(2buses)
79 Hirsch (1 bus)
Rerouted 15 Lyonslong line
48

49.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ Closer to existing service that riders are used to
− Does not provide coverage and walk distance benefits
of flexible service
− Leaves stops with 386 daily boardings outside 1/4 mile
(no stops in the areas outside ½ mile of fixed route)
 Estimated Cost Impact: even
•Assumes small buses; longer routes may require 40 foot buses which would add cost
Far Northeast
Fixed Route Option 1 –Cost Neutral
49

50. Far Northeast
Draft Network Plan and Impacted Routes
50

51. Far Northeast
Fixed Route Option 2 –Coverage Neutral

Fixed routes (30 minute peak headway, 60 base) serve nearly all existing stop locations
61 Jensenbranch,
76 Wayside,
79 Laura Koppe
Rerouted 15 Lyonslong line
51

52.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ Closer to existing service that riders are used to
+ No existing boardings in the area outside 1/4 mile of
fixed route
− Does not provide coverage and walk distance benefits
of flexible service
 Estimated Cost Impact: $915,000 per year (0.5% of
local budget)
Far Northeast
Fixed Route Option 2 –Coverage Neutral
52

53. Span of Service on Coverage Routes

Public Feedback:
•14 hour span on some coverage routes is not sufficient
•Early morning/late evening service is necessary to allow people to access jobs
Coverage and Ridership Considerations:
•1,018 boardings + alightings after 8pm in areas with shorter proposed spans (0.25% of daily total)
•664 of those are over 1 mile from proposed late evening service
•Ridership on many existing late evening trips in the affected areas is extremely low
Note: Span on all ridership-oriented routes is 18 hours or matched to existing, whichever is greater
53

54. Span on Coverage Routes
Draft Network Plan and 14 Hour Routes
54

55.  Network and Ridership Impacts:
+ Exceeding 14 hours would likely decrease system level
ridership by allocating more service toward coverage
+ Most closely aligns service levels with ridership demand
+ Requirements to add additional span of service can be
determined by service standards (e.g., if average load on
first or last trip exceeds a certain percentage of seated
capacity)
 Coverage Impacts:
− Reduction in late evening coverage versus existing service
 Cost Impact: No change from Draft Plan
Span on Coverage Routes
Recommended Option
55

56. Span on Coverage Routes
Option 1 –Maintain Existing Span on All Coverage Routes
56

57.  Coverage and Ridership Impacts:
+ Provides service in all areas at all times it is currently
provided
− Allocates high level of resources to very low ridership
services
 Estimated Cost Impact: $5,050,000 per year (2.7% of
local budget)
Span on Coverage Routes
Option 1 –Maintain Existing Span on All Coverage Routes
57

58. Span on Coverage Routes
Draft Network Plan and 14 Hour Routes
58

59. Span on Coverage Routes
Option 2 –Additional Span on Targeted Coverage Routes

Goal of this scenario is to leave no late evening boardings or alightings more than 1 mile from late evening service
Span on highlighted routes would match existing span
59

60.  Coverage and Ridership Impacts:
+ Provides service in most areas at most times it is
currently provided (938 of 1,018 boardings + alightings
after 8pm in areas with shorter span in Draft Plan)
+ Leaves no existing late evening boardings or alightings
outside 1 mile of late evening service
− Allocates resources to very low ridership services
 Estimated Cost Impact: $2,512,000 per year (1.4% of
local budget)
Span on Coverage Routes
Option 2 –Additional Span on Targeted Coverage Routes
60

61. Other Recommended Changes

Minor adjustments to individual routes with minimal cost impacts
Examples:
•Adjust routing on 77 Market Pleasantville within Pleasantville neighborhood to serve additional existing bus stops
•Move TMC-Eastwood frequent segment from 2 Brays Bayou to 4 Beechnut to simplify patterns and legibility to customers
•Adjust routing on 47 Post Oak and 12 Memorial to better connect through Uptown/Galleria Area
•Move short line terminus of 46 Antoine Washington from Victory Drive to SH 249, expanding access to frequent network
61

62. 534,000
643,000
1,126,000
998,000
1,160,000
1,000,000
FrequentAccess
FrequentAccess
People Within
1/2 Mile
Jobs Within
1/2 Mile
Draft
Existing
The Reimagined Network Plan connects a million people to a million jobs on the frequent network
+117% Increase
Existing
Source: 2010 US Census Data; American Community Survey
+56% Increase
Recommended
Draft
Recommended
Impact of Recommended Changes on Frequent Access
62

63. Populationand Jobs
Total METRO Service Area
Population: 3.5 Million Employment: 1.8 Million
Source: 2010 US Census Data; American Community Survey
1,631,000
1,219,000
2,112,000
1,451,000
1,665,000
1,270,000
2,175,000
1,500,000
1,651,000
1,258,000
2,112,000
1,480,000
Population
Jobs
Population
Jobs
Within
1/4 Mile
Within 1/2 Mile
Existing
+1%
0%
+3%
+2%
Impact of Recommended Changes on
Total Coverage
Draft
Recommended
Existing
Draft
Recommended
Existing
Draft
Recommended
Existing
Draft
Recommended
63

64. 1,066
84
1,093
81
WeekdayBoardings
WeekdayBoardings
Outside
1/4 Mile
Outside
1/2 Mile
Typical weekday Local Boardings: 207,000
0.5% of Daily Boardings
Source: 2010 US Census Data; American Community Survey
Recommended
Recommended Changes have Minimal Impact on Uncovered Boardings
94%of existing customers can board the bus at the same location as today versus 93% in the Draft Plan
0.04% of Daily Boardings
Draft
Recommended
Draft
Recommended
64

65. Frequent Network - Existing
65

66. Frequent Network – Draft Plan
66

67. Frequent Network - Recommended
67

68. Overall Cost Adjustment Levers

Plan will be implemented within existing bus service budget
Operating costs of plan are estimated using sophisticated tool but include assumptions on speed, layover, span, etc.
Actual costs will be refined after scheduling of the new routes is completed
Final revisions will be made through scheduling process to hit target budget
68

69. Overall Cost Adjustment Levers

“Levers” for adjusting cost to align with budget:
•Frequency changes within service color type, e.g., 15 peak to 20 peak on blue routes
•Temporarily changing route color (e.g., red to blue, blue to green) until additional resources are available
•Deferring routes providing new coverage
•Adjusting spans of frequency
•Adjusting Sunday and holiday service levels
•Identifying additional utilization of alternative service (e.g., smaller buses)
69

70. Deferred Changes

Desirable Ridership or Coverage benefits but significant added cost beyond likely scope of the budget; potential to implement as resources allow
Examples:
•Additional span of service (e.g., 24-hour service on key routes)
•Additional frequent service (e.g., Kirby)
•Service expansion into areas not currently covered
•New grid routes (e.g., north-south route in Spring Branch area)
•Additional Quickline services (e.g., Richmond, Westheimer)
70

71. Changes Not Recommended

Specific comments which do not effectively serve either the ridership or coverage goal, or which are substantially at odds with the overall nature of Reimagining; may have considerable cost
•Maintain service on closely-spaced streets (e.g., Navigation, Alabama)
•Maintain service which largely duplicates other routes (e.g., 53 Briar Forest)
•Maintain existing deviations (e.g., Chiswick on 98 Briargate)
•Maintain existing underperforming fixed routes (e.g., 59 Aldine Mail Route)
•Maintain recommended replacement of select, low-performing Park & Ride routes where proposed local service provides comparable service (e.g., 261, 274, 285)
71

72. Summary and Next Steps

Feedback received from board will be incorporated in the Final System Reimagining Plan
Final plan to be presented for Board adoption in September
Adoption of plan will kick off implementation phase to target a June 2015 implementation
72