Rocky Mount Greenville Willson Regional Transit Plan

Greater Rocky Mount,
Greenville & Wilson Area
Regional Transit Plan
January 2024

Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville & Wilson Area Regional Transit Plan | i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 | Introduction
Report Structure ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
Chapter 2 | Operating Conditions
Study Area........................................................................................................................................... 2-1
Population and Demographics............................................................................................................ 2-7
Travel and Commuting Trends.......................................................................................................... 2-23
Land Use Characteristics................................................................................................................... 2-27
Multimodal Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 2-40
Chapter 3 | Existing Services and Performance Evaluation
Transit Agency Profiles........................................................................................................................ 3-1
Regional Travel Considerations......................................................................................................... 3-31
Peer Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 3-33
Chapter 4 | Public and Stakeholder Engagement
Public Involvement Plan...................................................................................................................... 4-1
Coordinating Committee .................................................................................................................... 4-1
Stakeholder Interviews ....................................................................................................................... 4-2
Discussion Group Workshops ............................................................................................................. 4-5
Operator Discussions .......................................................................................................................... 4-7
Virtual Room and Online Public Survey ............................................................................................ 4-10
Public Workshops.............................................................................................................................. 4-13
Prior Engagement Activities.............................................................................................................. 4-14
Overall Themes ................................................................................................................................. 4-15
Chapter 5 | Regional Appraisal
Review of Plans and Policies............................................................................................................... 5-1
Demographic and Socioeconomic Trends .......................................................................................... 5-7
Travel Trends....................................................................................................................................... 5-7
Land Use.............................................................................................................................................. 5-7
Multimodal Connectivity .................................................................................................................... 5-7
Organizational Assessment................................................................................................................. 5-8
Technology Assessment...................................................................................................................... 5-8
Community Feedback ......................................................................................................................... 5-8
Funding ............................................................................................................................................... 5-8
Chapter 6 | Transit Demand and Needs Assessment
Transit Market Assessments............................................................................................................... 6-1
Ridership Estimation and Forecasting .............................................................................................. 6-36
Transit Needs Identification.............................................................................................................. 6-38

Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville & Wilson Area Regional Transit Plan | ii
Alternative Solutions......................................................................................................................... 6-39
Alternative Solutions Evaluation....................................................................................................... 6-41
Chapter 7 | Implementation and Resource Allocation Plan
Five-Year Implementation Plan and Resource Allocation Plan........................................................... 7-1
Baseline Budget .................................................................................................................................. 7-3
Potential Costs .................................................................................................................................... 7-4
Potential Revenue Sources ................................................................................................................. 7-7
Appendix A | OpStats FY2021 Agency Reports
Appendix B | OpStats FY2021 Peer Review Reports
Appendix C | Public Involvement Plan
Appendix D | Coordinating Committee Materials
Appendix E | Stakeholder Interviews
Appendix F | Operator Interviews
Appendix G | Public Survey Summary

Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville & Wilson Area Regional Transit Plan | iii
LIST OF MAPS
Map 2.1 Regional Transit Plan Study Area.......................................................................................... 2-2
Map 2.2 Municipalities ....................................................................................................................... 2-4
Map 2.3 Key Activity Centers.............................................................................................................. 2-6
Map 2.4 Population Density................................................................................................................ 2-9
Map 2.5 Older Adult Population....................................................................................................... 2-11
Map 2.6 Youth Population................................................................................................................ 2-12
Map 2.7 Households Below Poverty................................................................................................. 2-14
Map 2.8 Unemployment Rate........................................................................................................... 2-15
Map 2.9 Minority Population............................................................................................................ 2-17
Map 2.10 LEP Households................................................................................................................. 2-19
Map 2.11 Persons with Disabilities................................................................................................... 2-20
Map 2.12 Zero-Vehicle Households.................................................................................................. 2-22
Map 2.13 Study Area Commute Pattern........................................................................................... 2-24
Map 2.14 Commute Patterns by County .......................................................................................... 2-25
Map 2.15 AADT Volumes.................................................................................................................. 2-26
Map 2.16 Transit Operator Coverage Areas..................................................................................... 2-41
Map 2.17 Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................................................................... 2-43
Map 2.18 Proposed Bicycle Facilities................................................................................................ 2-44
Map 2.19 Existing Pedestrian Facilities............................................................................................. 2-45
Map 2.20 Proposed Pedestrian Facilities.......................................................................................... 2-46
Map 2.21 Existing Shared Use Paths................................................................................................. 2-47
Map 2.22 Proposed Shared Use Paths.............................................................................................. 2-48
Map 3.1 Transit Operators.................................................................................................................. 3-2
Map 3.2 GREAT | Transit Routes ........................................................................................................ 3-4
Map 3.3 TRT | Transit Routes ............................................................................................................. 3-7
Map 3.4 Wilson RIDE Service Coverage Area.................................................................................... 3-19
Map 3.5 Regional Transportation Providers..................................................................................... 3-32
Map 6.1 Environmental Justice Index................................................................................................. 6-3
Map 6.2 Transportation Disadvantaged Index ................................................................................... 6-5
Map 6.3 Transit Orientation Index...................................................................................................... 6-7
Map 6.4 Balanced Demand Scenario Scores and STIP Projects (FYs 2020-2029)............................... 6-9
Map 6.5 Regional Travel Market Analysis | All Trip Pairs................................................................. 6-11
Map 6.6 Regional Travel Market Analysis | High Volume Trip Pairs ................................................ 6-12
Map 6.7 Regional Travel Market Analysis | Trip Pairs Longer Than 10 Miles .................................. 6-13
Map 6.8 Demand Response Origin-Destination Pairs | All Day Trips............................................... 6-15
Map 6.9 Demand Response Origin-Destination Pairs | Early Morning Trips ................................... 6-16
Map 6.10 Demand Response Origin-Destination Pairs | Morning Peak Trips.................................. 6-17
Map 6.11 Demand Response Origin-Destination Pairs | Daytime Trips........................................... 6-18
Map 6.12 Demand Response Origin-Destination Pairs | Afternoon Peak Trips............................... 6-19

Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville & Wilson Area Regional Transit Plan | iv
Map 6.13 Demand Response Origin-Destination Pairs | Late Night Trips........................................ 6-20
Map 6.14 BATS Center Zone and Major Destinations ...................................................................... 6-22
Map 6.15 CPTA Center Zone and Major Destinations ...................................................................... 6-23
Map 6.16 GREAT Center Zone and Major Destinations.................................................................... 6-24
Map 6.17 MCT Center Zone and Major Destinations ....................................................................... 6-25
Map 6.18 TRT Center Zone and Major Destinations......................................................................... 6-26
Map 6.19 WCTS Center Zone and Major Destinations .................................................................... 6-27
Map 6.20 Wilson RIDE Center Zone and Major Destinations........................................................... 6-28
Map 6.21 BATS Service Zones and Frequent Corridors .................................................................... 6-30
Map 6.22 CPTA Service Zones and Frequent Corridors.................................................................... 6-31
Map 6.23 GREAT Service Zones and Frequent Corridors.................................................................. 6-32
Map 6.24 MCT Service Zones and Frequent Corridors..................................................................... 6-33
Map 6.25 WCTS Service Zones and Frequent Corridors................................................................... 6-34
Map 6.26 Wilson RIDE Service Zones and Frequent Corridors......................................................... 6-35
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Activity Centers ................................................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2.2 Projected Population Trends by County (2021 - 2028)....................................................... 2-8
Table 2.3 Age Distribution (2020)..................................................................................................... 2-10
Table 2.4 Households Below Poverty (2020).................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2.5 Percent of LEP Households in Study Area......................................................................... 2-18
Table 2.6 Population with Disabilities............................................................................................... 2-18
Table 2.7 Percentage of Households with Zero Vehicles (2020) ...................................................... 2-21
Table 2.8 Transit Operators in Study Area........................................................................................ 2-40
Table 3.1 Transit Operators Peer Groups ......................................................................................... 3-34
Table 3.2 Peer List............................................................................................................................. 3-34
Table 3.3 Peer Assessment | Urban Systems ................................................................................... 3-37
Table 3.4 Peer Assessment | Community Transportation Systems.................................................. 3-38
Table 4.1 Coordinating Committee Members .................................................................................... 4-1
Table 4.2 Coordinating Committee Meeting Dates and Agendas ...................................................... 4-2
Table 4.3 Stakeholder Interviews ....................................................................................................... 4-3
Table 4.4 Discussion Groups ............................................................................................................... 4-6
Table 4.5 Operator Discussions........................................................................................................... 4-7
Table 4.6 Public Workshops.............................................................................................................. 4-13
Table 5.1 Plan Review ......................................................................................................................... 5-2
Table 6.1 Origin-Destination Trip Pair Characteristics...................................................................... 6-10
Table 6.2 Study Area Fixed Route Ridership Estimates .................................................................... 6-36
Table 6.3 Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria and Weights..................................................... 6-42
Table 6.4 Alternatives Evaluation Ranking........................................................................................ 6-43
Table 6.5 Alternative Solutions Ranking and Implementation ......................................................... 6-44

Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville & Wilson Area Regional Transit Plan | v
Table 7.1 Five-Year Implementation And Resource Allocation Plan .................................................. 7-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Coordinated Regional Transit Plan Process ....................................................................... 1-1
Figure 2.1 Projected Population Trends (2021-2028)......................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2.2 Projected Population Density Trends (2021 -2028)........................................................... 2-8
Figure 2.3 Study Area and State Unemployment Rates ................................................................... 2-13
Figure 2.4 Study Area Population Distribution by Race.................................................................... 2-16
Figure 2.5 Bertie County Future Land Use Map................................................................................ 2-28
Figure 2.6 Edgecombe County Future Land Use Map ...................................................................... 2-29
Figure 2.7 Hertford County Future Land Use Map ........................................................................... 2-30
Figure 2.8 Martin County Future Land Use Map .............................................................................. 2-31
Figure 2.9 Northampton County Future Land Use Map ................................................................... 2-32
Figure 2.10 Pitt County Future Land Use Map.................................................................................. 2-33
Figure 2.11 Wilson County Future Land Use Map ............................................................................ 2-34
Figure 2.12 City of Greenville Future Land Use Map........................................................................ 2-35
Figure 2.13 City of Rocky Mount Future Land Use Map................................................................... 2-36
Figure 2.14 City of Wilson Future Land Use Map ............................................................................. 2-37
Figure 2.15 City of Winterville Future Land Use Map....................................................................... 2-39
Figure 3.1 GREAT | Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021) ................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3.2 TRT | Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021)..................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3.3 BATS | Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021)................................................................. 3-10
Figure 3.4 CPTA | Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021)................................................................. 3-12
Figure 3.5 MCT | Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021).................................................................. 3-14
Figure 3.6 PATS | Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021)................................................................. 3-16
Figure 3.7 GREAT | Paratransit Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021) ........................................... 3-17
Figure 3.8 WCTS | Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021)................................................................ 3-18
Figure 3.9 Wilson RIDE | Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021) ..................................................... 3-20
Figure 3.10 TRT | Community Transportation Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021) .................... 3-22
Figure 3.11 TRT | Paratransit Key Performance Indicators (FY 2021) .............................................. 3-23
Figure 3.12 Asset Inventory Summary.............................................................................................. 3-23
Figure 3.13 Weekday Service Spans ................................................................................................. 3-24
Figure 3.14 Service Days of Operation.............................................................................................. 3-25
Figure 3.15 Scheduling and Cancellation Policies............................................................................. 3-26
Figure 3.16 Fare Structures............................................................................................................... 3-27
Figure 3.17 Aggregated Passenger Trips........................................................................................... 3-28
Figure 3.18 Aggregated Revenue Miles ............................................................................................ 3-29
Figure 3.19 Aggregated Revenue Hours ........................................................................................... 3-30
Figure 4.1 Engagement Activities........................................................................................................ 4-1
Figure 4.2 Virtual Room & QR Code.................................................................................................. 4-10

Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville & Wilson Area Regional Transit Plan | vi
Figure 4.3 Survey Summary Fact Sheet............................................................................................. 4-11
Figure 4.4 Public Workshop in Bertie County................................................................................... 4-14
Figure 4.5 Transit Director Areas of Concern.................................................................................... 4-15
Figure 6.1 EJI Score Methodology....................................................................................................... 6-2
Figure 6.2 TDI Score Methodology ..................................................................................................... 6-4
Figure 6.3 Fixed Route Ridership Demand Forecast......................................................................... 6-36
Figure 6.4 Demand Response Ridership Forecast............................................................................. 6-38
Figure 7.1 Observed Historical Operating Budgets By Agency ........................................................... 7-3
Figure 7.2 Historical Operating Budgets by Year ................................................................................ 7-4
Figure 7.3 Federal Funding Sources for Community Transportation Agencies .................................. 7-9
Figure 7.4 State Funding Sources for Community Transportation Agencies.................................... 7-11
Figure 7.5 Local Funding Sources for Community Transportation Agencies.................................... 7-12

Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville & Wilson Area Regional Transit Plan | 1-1
1 | INTRODUCTION
North Carolina has experienced significant population growth in the last decade and, according to the 2020
Census, is the ninth most populous state in the US. In addition to adding nearly 904,000 residents, geographic
and demographic shifts are impacting where, how, and why people travel around the state. To support and
guide local agencies with this effort, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Integrated
Mobility Division (IMD) developed a statewide approach to coordinated regional public transportation planning.
The Regional Transit Plan (RTP) is a planning tool that helps further the IMD’s goal to integrate regional public
transportation. This process is also designed to provide continuity from plan development to implementation
and benefit related federal and state planning activities and requirements.
Developed in 2022 by NCDOT, the regional transit planning process encompasses six primary plan elements, as
illustrated in Figure 1.1Figure 1.1. Additionally, three process-related elements are incorporated into the overall
framework to support a coordinated approach from plan development through implementation and beyond.
This RTP relies on this coordinated planning process for the Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilson study
area. This chapter is the first of six and will discuss the findings of the first plan element, which is the Current
Operating Conditions Assessment chapter.
FIGURE 1.1 COORDINATED REGIONAL TRANSIT PLAN PROCESS
Source: NCDOT

1.1 Report Structure
The Regional Transit Plan is divided into seven chapters including this Introduction.
• Chapter 2 presents the Operating Conditions in which the various transit agencies are operating.
• Chapter 3 provides a description of all the transit agencies operating in the study area.
• Chapter 4 details the engagement activities undertaken in support of the study as well as the themes
coming out of those activities.
• Chapter 5 contains the regional appraisal, which develops insights based on the material presented in
chapters 2 through 4.
• Chapter 6 provides a needs assessment and evaluates alternatives to meet those needs.
• Chapter 7 lays out the implementation and resource allocation plan.

Chapter 2
Operating Conditions

2 | OPERATING CONDITIONS
This chapter presents the current operating conditions in the study area. This material includes population and
demographic characteristics, travel and commuting patterns, current and future land use, and multimodal
networks.
2.1 Study Area
The Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville and Wilson Area Coordinated Region is found in the northeastern part of
North Carolina. As shown in Map 2.1, the study area includes 10 counties: Bertie, Beaufort, Edgecombe, Halifax,
Hertford, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Pitt, and Wilson. Collectively the 10 counties span about 5,667 square
miles, 100 miles east to west and 80 miles north to south. The study area is bordered on the north by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, on the east by the coastal region of North Carolina, and on the west by the Raleigh
metro area. In terms of distance, the study area is about 60 miles east of the Raleigh Metro Area, about 90 miles
southwest of the Norfolk-Virginia Beach Metro Area, and about 100 miles west of Cape Hatteras and the Atlantic
Ocean.
The 10-county study area is predominantly rural with a handful of medium-sized cities, such as Greenville, Rocky
Mount, and Wilson. The eastern part of the study area sits on the Chowan River and the Pamlico River, which
empty into the larger Albemarle Sound and Pamlico Sound, respectively. These two water bodies, along with
some smaller water bodies, form the second largest estuary in the United States after the Chesapeake Bay.
Other significant bodies of water in the area include the Roanoke River, which crosses the northern part of the
study area, and the Tar River, which passes through Rocky Mount, Tarboro, and Greenville.
2.1.1 Transportation Network
The western side of the study area is served by I-95, which spans from the Canadian border in Maine to Miami,
Florida. I-95 goes through Northampton, Halifax, Nash, and Wilson counties and serves the following cities:
Roanoke Rapids, Rocky Mount, and Wilson. The I-795 spur starts in Wilson County and moves south towards
Goldsboro in neighboring Wayne County. Another major roadway that passes through the study area is U.S. 264,
which travels east to west in the southern section of the study area. It runs from the west boundary of Nash
County, passing through Wilson, Greenville, and Washington, and continuing past the Beaufort County line east
towards the Pamlico Sound.
U.S. 64 passes east to west in the central part of the study area, connecting Raleigh and the capital region from
Rocky Mount to Plymouth, and moving east past the Martin County line into the Outer Banks and Cape Hatteras.
This is the main and most direct thoroughfare towards Cape Hatteras and the Outer Banks, a region with limited
access points due to its coastal geography. Much of U.S. 64 will be designated as the future I-87, which is
planned to connect the metro areas of Raleigh and Virginia Beach. The current track of U.S. 64 up to Williamston
in Bertie County exists as a freeway and will be updated to meet design standards for an interstate. I-87 is
expected to travel through this track and will continue northeast past Williamston and into Virginia. Other major
roads in the area include U.S. 13, U.S. 17, and U.S. 258 as well as SR 11, SR 43, and SR 48.

MAP 2.1 REGIONAL TRANSIT PLAN STUDY AREA
Source: NCDOT

2.1.2 Municipalities
Displayed in Map 2.2, there are 82 municipalities within the study area, as can be observed on Error! Reference s
ource not found.. The largest is Greenville with a population of 87,428, followed by Rocky Mount at 54,309, and
Wilson at 48,000. Only 6 incorporated areas have populations over 10,000, while 10 have populations between
2,000 and 10,000. There are 66 municipalities with populations below 2,000. About 53% of the population lives
in an incorporated area, while 47% lives in unincorporated and primarily rural areas.
The study area experiences a large degree of municipal fragmentation with nearly three municipalities for every
10,000 residents, an indication of potential overlaps in local governance that could create challenging
circumstances for a unified pooling of resources. While this issue is most problematic in urban areas, where
various governing entities are close to each other yet competing for similar resources, it could also pose
challenges in rural communities.
2.1.3 Key Activity Centers
The study area has several key activity centers ranging from hospitals to universities to distribution centers.
These places are of regional significance due to the large number of people who travel there for work, health,
recreation, or other purposes. Distribution centers include warehouses that distribute goods or centers that
manufacture and export numerous goods, from pharmaceutical materials, to boating supplies.
Table 2.1 lists the major activity centers present in the study area, their respective locations, and the general
type of activities that they provide. Map 2.3 provides the location of the various activity centers, all of which are
accessible through public transportation.

MAP 2.2 MUNICIPALITIES
Source: NCDOT, 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates

TABLE 2.1 ACTIVITY CENTERS
Key Activity Centers County Activity Type
Rocky Mount–Wilson Regional Airport Nash County Airport
Pitt-Greenville Airport Pitt County Airport
CSX Intermodal Terminal Edgecombe County Distribution Center
Lowes Distribution Center Northampton County Distribution Center
Severn Peanut Co. Northampton County Distribution Center
Perdue Farms, Inc. Bertie County Distribution Center
Pfizer PGS Rocky Mount Facility Nash County Distribution Center
Cummins Rocky Mount Engine Plant Nash County Distribution Center
Pharmaceutical Complex Pitt County Distribution Center
AAF Flanders Beaufort County Distribution Center
National Spinning Beaufort County Distribution Center
IDX Corporation Beaufort County Distribution Center
Ann’s House of Nuts Martin County Distribution Center
Domtar Paper Mill Martin County Distribution Center
East Carolina University Pitt County Education Center
Halifax Community College Halifax County Education Center
Chowan University Hertford County Education Center
North Carolina Wesleyan University Nash County Education Center
ECU Health Complex Pitt County Medical Center
Nash General Hospital Nash County Medical Center
Rocky Mount Mills Nash County Recreational Area
RM Event Center Nash County Recreational Area
RM Sports Complex Nash County Recreational Area
Fleming Stadium Wilson County Recreational Area
Downtown Wilson Wilson County Recreational Area
Dowdy-Ficklen Stadium Pitt County Recreational Area
Greenville Town Common Pitt County Recreational Area
Washington Waterfront Docks Beaufort County Recreational Area
Bob Martin Eastern Agricultural Center Martin County Recreational Area
Source: Benesch

MAP 2.3 KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS
Source: NCDOT

2.2 Population and Demographics
Population characteristics are an important factor in assessing a community’s current and future public
transportation needs. Growing communities need to evaluate and assess the range of mobility options provided,
including transit, to determine whether future needs can continue to be met with current service levels. The 10-
county study area and its 82 municipalities have a total population of 575,356 residents. This section describes
the various demographic characteristics of individuals living in the study area including race, ethnicity, age,
income, and travel patterns.
2.2.1 Current and Future Population Density
The North Carolina Office of State Budget & Management (OSBM) maintains projections for the state
population. Since 2021, the OSBM has estimated that the total population in the study area has decreased by
0.79% and is projected to decrease to 1.35% by 2028. Figure 2.1 displays the estimated and projected
population trend for the 10-county area between 2021 and 2028.
FIGURE 2.1 PROJECTED POPULATION TRENDS (2021-2028)
Source: North Carolina OSBM Population Estimates and Projections
When looking at each county separately, Pitt, Wilson, and Nash are the only counties in the study area expected
to experience some increase in their local populations within the same timeframe. An estimated 4% growth
between 2021 and 2028 is expected in Pitt County, while Nash and Wilson counties are expected to increase 1%
by 2028. Hertford County is projected to experience the largest decrease in local population at 11% by 2028,
followed by Northampton and Edgecombe counties at 9% and 8%, respectively.
Table 2.2 shows the OSBM projections at the county level.
559,751 557,688 555,625 554,933 554,240 553,548 552,855 552,163
500,000
520,000
540,000
560,000
580,000
600,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

TABLE 2.2 PROJECTED POPULATION TRENDS BY COUNTY (2021-2028)
County 2021 Population 2028 Population Percent Change
Study Area 559,751 552,163 -1.36%
Beaufort 44,120 41,768 -5.33%
Bertie 17,598 16,572 -5.83%
Edgecombe 48,104 44,436 -7.63%
Halifax 47,873 44,772 -6.48%
Hertford 19,871 17,586 -11.50%
Martin 21,713 20,445 -5.84%
Nash 95,116 96,023 0.95%
Northampton 16,796 15,347 -8.63%
Pitt 170,276 176,473 3.64%
Wilson 78,284 78,741 0.58%
Source: North Carolina OSBM Population Estimates and Projections
Population density can be a key influence on public transportation demand. In terms of an area’s potential
transit market, higher density areas can place more people near bus stops and often have land uses that better
support a multimodal transportation network.
Figure 2.2 shows that the study area is projected to have a population density of 98.2 persons per square mile in
2023, with higher densities in Nash, Edgecombe, Wilson, and Pitt counties. Map 2.4 shows the population
densities for 2020. Areas with higher population densities are found in the cities of Greenville, Winterville,
Tarboro, Rocky Mount, Roanoke Rapids, Wilson, and Washington.
FIGURE 2.2 PROJECTED POPULATION DENSITY TRENDS (2021-2028)
Source: North Carolina OSBM Population Estimates and Projection
98.9
98.6
98.2
98.2
98.1
98.0
97.8
97.7
97.6
95.0
95.5
96.0
96.5
97.0
97.5
98.0
98.5
99.0
99.5
100.0
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Population
per
square
mile

MAP 2.4 POPULATION DENSITY
Source: NCDOT, 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates

2.2.2 Current and Future Employment Density
Employment density is another important factor to consider when analyzing existing and potential public
transportation markets. Areas of high employment density often include major activity centers that cluster
retail, medical offices, and/or educational uses that create demand for transit trips. Downtowns or similar urban
centers also typically have higher employment densities and limited parking capacities, which also can increase
demand for alternative modes to driving.
2.2.3 Age
Table 2.3 shows the distribution of population by age cohort for the study area. According to the 2020 American
Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 18.2% of the study area population is 65 or older. The share of this
age cohort is an important consideration for public transportation, as a person’s ability to drive is often reduced
with age, leading to demand for transportation options other than driving.
TABLE 2.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION
Age Distribution Total % of Total
Under 10 years 65,545 11.1%
10 to 14 years 37,918 6.4%
15 to 24 years 87,255 14.8%
25 to 39 years 105,262 17.8%
40 to 64 years 187,654 31.8%
65 years and older 107,249 18.2%
Total 590,883 100.0%
Source: 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Map 2.5 shows the older adult population. Areas within the study area with the highest concentrations of older
adults include Northampton and Beaufort counties with 26% and 24% of their respective populations. The areas
outside of Roanoke Rapids and the waterfront areas along the Pamlico River in Beaufort County have the largest
contiguous area of more than 35% older adults. Pitt County has the lowest share of older adults at 13%, which is
below the 18% study area average.
The proportion of adults 25 to 64 years is nearly 50% of the study area’s population. This age group represents
most working-age adults, many of whom commute daily to work, thereby creating a potential demand for public
transportation options.
The proportion of younger persons 15 to 24 years comprise 14.8% of the study area and are more concentrated
in the larger cities. The City of Greenville, for example, has a larger concentration of 15- to 24-year-olds at 52%
located in pockets that coincide with the city center and with East Carolina University. Map 2.6 shows the
percentage of the younger population in the study area.

MAP 2.5 OLDER ADULT POPULATION

MAP 2.6 YOUTH POPULATION

2.2.4 Low-Income Households and Unemployment Rates
Annual household income can be a key indicator for determining the potential public transportation needs of an
area, as low-income persons tend to rely on public transportation more than those who have incomes that can
support the costs of owning and operating a car. As shown in Table 2.4, 20.3% of the study area population falls
below the federal poverty level.
TABLE 2.4 HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY
Poverty Thresholds Households in Poverty % of Households
Below Poverty 115,915 20.3%
Map 2.7 shows the distribution of the study area’s population defined as living in poverty. Concentrations of
households in poverty are found around the cities of Greenville and Wilson, as well as the northwestern part of
Beaufort County. Bertie and Halifax counties show the highest percentage of population living below the poverty
line at slightly over 25%, while Nash observes the lowest rate at about 16%.
Another key indicator of economic hardship is the local unemployment rate. Error! Reference source not f
ound.3 shows that the average unemployment rate in the study area is 8%, which is higher than the state
average unemployment rate of 5%. No county in the study area has an unemployment rate below the state
average, indicating an above average level of economic hardship in this region.
FIGURE 2.3 STUDY AREA AND STATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
Bertie and Martin counties have the highest unemployment rates at about 10%, while Beaufort and Halifax
counties are around 7%. Map 2.8 shows the current unemployment rates in the study area.
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%
State
Study Area

MAP 2.7 HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY

MAP 2.8 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

2.2.5 Minority Populations
Research indicates that minorities tend to ride public transportation in higher proportions compared to their
share of the total population; therefore, this demographic can provide insight into potential rider markets. As
shown in Figure 2.4, in 2020 the study area had a total minority population of 49.6% with the majority
identifying as Black or African American at 42%.
Between 2010 and 2020, the study area experienced a 4% decrease in residents who identify as White, a 28%
increase in the Asian population, and 30% increase in residents who identify as Hispanic or Latino.
FIGURE 2.4 STUDY AREA POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY RACE
Map 2.9 shows the distribution of minority populations in the study area, such as in Bertie and Hertford
counties where minorities make up 65% of the local population. Northampton, Edgecombe, and Halifax counties
also have significant minority populations of at least 60% of residents. All counties have at least 40% of their
population composed of minorities, except for Beaufort County.
White alone
50%
Black or African American
alone
42%
American Indian and
Alaska Native alone
1%
Asian alone
1%
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander
alone
0%
Some other race alone
3%
Two or more races
3%

MAP 2.9 MINORITY POPULATION

2.2.6 Limited English Proficiency
Public transportation can also provide essential transportation options to households with Limited English
Proficient (LEP) persons. As shown in Table 2.5, 1.2% of households in the study area are LEP.
TABLE 2.5 PERCENTAGE OF LEP HOUSEHOLDS
Language Spoken
LEP Households
Number % of Households
Total LEP Households 2,843 1.2%
Spanish 2,215 0.9%
Other Indo-European 175 0.1%
Asian and Pacific Island 429 0.2%
Other 24 0.0%
Map 2.10 shows the distribution of LEP households in the study area. Bertie, Pitt, and Wilson counties generally
have a higher presence of LEP households. Other such areas are found in the northeastern part of Beaufort
County, just east of Greenville and in southwestern Nash County.
2.2.7 Persons with Disabilities
People with disabilities may rely on public transportation services for their mobility needs if they cannot drive or
walk long distances. Monitoring changes in the population with disabilities in the study area, as well as the
ridership rate for local Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and paratransit services, has implications for public
transportation agencies. As shown in Table 2.6, 17% of the noninstitutionalized population has some form of
disability.
TABLE 2.6 POPULATION WITH DISABILITIES
Population with Disabilities % of Population
96,704 17%
Map 2.11 shows the distribution of the population with disabilities in the study area, with Beaufort and Hertford
counties having the highest percentages.

MAP 2.10 LEP HOUSEHOLDS

MAP 2.11 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

2.2.8 Zero-Vehicle Households
Owning a vehicle can be costly, and for households already near or below the poverty line the costs can be a
significant financial barrier to mobility. Some people choose to be car-free when other transportation options
are available, more typically in denser, urban areas. Persons living in “zero-vehicle households” are more likely
to depend on public transportation for work, education, and other travel needs. As shown in Table 2.7, 8.7% of
households in the study area are considered zero-vehicle households.
TABLE 2.7 PERCENTAGE OF ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS
Number of Vehicles % of Households
No vehicle available 8.7%
1 vehicle available 32.3%
2 vehicles available 33.4%
3+ vehicles available 25.6%
Map 2.12 shows the distribution of zero-vehicle households in the study area. The highest concentrations are in
the outskirts of the larger urbanized areas, such as Greenville and Rocky Mount. In the more rural areas, a larger
presence of zero-vehicle households can be found in Bertie and Halifax counties. Although lack of access to a car
may be challenging in an urban environment if access to alternative modes of transportation is low, it is a
greater challenge in rural areas where amenities may be further away and where alternative mode options are
significantly reduced.

MAP 2.12 ZERO-VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS

2.3 Travel and Commuting Trends
A review of travel and commute patterns is important to evaluate existing public transportation services and the
potential demand for new local or regional connections. Map 2.13 shows that, according to Census
Transportation Planning Products (CTPP) estimates, 158,514 people live and work in the study area. About
68,000 commuters travel into the study area for work, and 78,000 study area residents commute out for work,
for a net study area outflow of about 10,000 people. As shown in Map 2.14, the largest commuter inflows and
outflows occur in Pitt, Nash, and Wilson counties. The top commuter outflows from the study area occur in the
direction of Raleigh and Durham, which attract a combined 25,000 trips.
Notable neighboring counties that attract trips include Lenoir and Johnston to the south and the more distant
Mecklenburg County, where the Charlotte metropolitan area is located. Hertford and Northampton counties
have the highest number of trips interacting with Virginia, with some workers traveling from places such as
Emporia, Newport News, and Norfolk.
Overall, the study area exhibits manageable levels of traffic volumes. The roads with the highest volumes of
vehicles include I-95, which averages about 35,000 to 55,000 vehicles per day. Additionally, U.S. 64, between
Church Street in Rocky Mount and SR 54, is one of the more highly traveled roads in the study area. U.S. 264 in
Wilson and Greenville Boulevard in Greenville both carry between 20,000 and 35,000 vehicles daily, serve as
bypass routes for their respective cities and may be prone to congestion. Map 2.15 shows the 2021 Average
Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes on every major roadway in the study area.

MAP 2.13 STUDY AREA COMMUTE PATTERN
Source: 2019 CTPP

MAP 2.14 COMMUTE PATTERNS BY COUNTY
Source: 2019 CTPP

MAP 2.15 AADT VOLUMES
Source: NCDOT

2.4 Land Use Characteristics
A brief assessment of the various land use patterns found in the study area was conducted to understand how a
multimodal network would best fit in with future land use strategies. Across the study area, the most
predominant land uses are rural and conservation. Large swaths of land are dedicated to conservation around
the various river watershed areas. Rural land uses include those geared strictly towards agricultural use, rural
commercial uses along major roadways and crossways, and rural residential uses. A selection of intensified land
uses along roadway corridors can be found throughout various land use maps, indicating a desired growth of
intensified land uses along major roadways.
The cities have different future land use policies compared to the counties. Greenville and Wilson have land use
categories such as mixed-use high-intensity or designated downtown development areas, which are geared
towards more dense and diverse development in city cores. Rings of suburban densities can be found around
these cities and are designed to allow for expected continued growth.
It may be challenging for alternative modes of transportation to serve the predominantly low-density and
sparsely populated rural areas. Based on the land use characteristics of the study area, not every mobility option
may be adequate.
Figures 2.5 through 2.15 provide future land use maps for various subunits of the study area.

FIGURE 2.5 BERTIE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: Bertie County

FIGURE 2.6 EDGECOMBE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: Edgecombe County

FIGURE 2.7 HERTFORD COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: Hertford County

FIGURE 2.8 MARTIN COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: Martin County

FIGURE 2.9 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: Northampton County

FIGURE 2.10 PITT COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: Pitt County

FIGURE 2.11 WILSON COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: Wilson County

FIGURE 2.12 CITY OF GREENVILLE FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: City of Greenville

FIGURE 2.13 CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: City of Rocky Mount

FIGURE 2.14 CITY OF WILSON FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: City of Wilson

FIGURE 2.14 CITY OF WILSON FUTURE LAND USE MAP (CONTINUED)
Source: City of Wilson

FIGURE 2.15 TOWN OF WINTERVILLE FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Source: Town of Winterville

2.5 Multimodal Conditions
Evaluating the various transportation networks that exist and how they interact is a critical part of enhancing
multimodal connectivity in the study area. Moreover, evaluating potential interactions or gaps in the multimodal
network can help guide a plan of action that addresses the existing multimodal needs. This section focuses on
the various multimodal networks that exist in the study area.
2.5.1 Existing Transit Services
The study area includes several public transportation systems, two of which provide fixed-route services.
Demand response transit services are found in every county in the study area. Table 2.8 lists the public
transportation operators and their respective service area, which are illustrated in Map 2.16. Chapter 3 provides
more information regarding these agencies and their services.
TABLE 2.8 TRANSIT OPERATORS IN STUDY AREA
Transit Operator Area Served Service Type(s) Offered
Beaufort County Developmental Center,
Inc. (BCDC)
Beaufort County Demand-Response
Choanoke Public Transportation
Authority (CPTA)
Bertie, Halifax, Hertford and
Northampton counties
Demand-Response
City of Rocky Mount – Tar River Transit Edgecombe and Nash counties Demand-Response, Fixed-Route
Greenville Area Transit (GREAT) City of Greenville Fixed-Route
Martin County Transit Martin County Demand-Response
Pitt County/Pitt Area Transit (PATS) Pitt County Demand-Response
Wilson County Transportation Services
(WCTS)
Wilson County Demand-Response
Wilson RIDE City of Wilson Demand-Response
Source: NCDOT
2.5.2 Other Transportation Operators
In addition to the previously mentioned public transportation operators, East Carolina University’s (ECU) transit
system includes four internal campus routes and nine off-campus routes primarily serving the university’s
students and employees.
Regional and commuter transit services are also present within the study area. Amtrak train service runs
between the Rocky Mount and Wilson train stations. Amtrak Thruway Connection buses provide additional
services from Wilson to Greenville. Greyhound buses serve stops in Rocky Mount, Greenville, Wilson, Ahoskie,
Tarboro, and Washington.
The study area also has a variety of local taxi service providers. The only major rideshare company available is
Lyft, which provides services in the Greenville area as part of the Jacksonville, NC service market. No scooter
services are currently available in the study area, and the only bike share service is available on the ECU campus
in partnership with Wheels.

MAP 2.16 TRANSIT OPERATOR COVERAGE AREAS
Sources: NCDOT, Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) FY 2021 OpStats

2.5.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks
Most transit trips begin by bicycle and walking. Bicyclists and pedestrians are often the most vulnerable users of
the right-of-way, and inadequate facilities can generate challenges to accommodate these users, generating
unfavorable and potentially dangerous scenarios for bicyclists and pedestrians alike.
The study area has a sizeable but limited network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities based on a statewide
inventory of bicycle and pedestrian facilities maintained by NCDOT. Maps 2.17 and 2.18 show the inventory of
existing and proposed bicycle facilities in the study area. Greenville has the largest concentration of bike lanes
while Rocky Mount has only two bicycle facility points. The proposed plan shows that Greenville is planning to
expand its bicycle network by adding numerous separated bike lanes, while Rocky Mount is planning to
accommodate more bike lanes along roadways. A bicycle trail has been proposed out of Rich Square in
Northampton County down through Windsor in Bertie County and along the Chowan River.
Existing pedestrian networks are substantial in the central areas of Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilson.
However, the suburban areas of these cities show themselves to be lacking in sidewalks as well as marked
crosswalks as shown in Map 2.19. The few existing sidewalks in the suburban areas are isolated and do not have
marked crosswalks. Greenville and other communities in Pitt County have a vast number of proposals to
improve the existing pedestrian network while Rocky Mount and Wilson have few to none. Washington within
Beaufort County also has a list of proposed improvements to its pedestrian network as shown in Map 2.20.
Shared-use paths are also limited in number in the study area, with a few dedicated to recreation in Greenville
and in Rocky Mount along the Tar River as shown in Map 2.21. Pitt County, and the cities of Wilson and Rocky
Mount, have a vast list of proposed paths. Map 2.22 shows that the eastern portion of the study area has a
lengthier proposed shared-use path moving north from Washington, up through Williamston in Martin County,
and east along the Edenhouse Bridge that connects Bertie County with Chowan County.

MAP 2.17 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
Source: NCDOT

MAP 2.18 PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITIES
Source: NCDOT

MAP 2.19 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Source: NCDOT

MAP 2.20 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Source: NCDOT

MAP 2.21 EXISTING SHARED USE PATHS
Source: NCDOT

MAP 2.22 PROPOSED SHARED USE PATHS
Source: NCDOT

Chapter 3
Existing Services and
Performance Evaluation

3 | EXISTING SERVICES AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
This chapter contains an overview of each transit agency operating in the study area as well as a discussion of
regional travel considerations. The final part of this chapter is a peer review comparing the study area transit
agency performance to its peers.
3.1 Transit Agency Profiles
An overview of each transit operator in the study area, the services they provide, and other key data are
provided in this section. The systems are divided into two categories:
• Fixed-Route Systems | These agencies provide both fixed-route and on-demand paratransit services.
• Demand-Response Systems | These agencies only provide demand-response services including
advanced reservation services, microtransit on-demand services, and demand-pattern limited routes.
The FY 2021 NCDOT Community Transportation Operating and Financial Statistics (OpStats) reports compiled by
the Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) for each agency are presented in Appendix A.
These reports focus on FY 2021 data, but also provide comparative information for the five-year period from FY
2017 to FY 2021.
Map 3.1 provides an overview of the service areas for each of the seven transit agencies operating in the study
area.

MAP 3.1 TRANSIT OPERATORS
Sources: NCDOT, ITRE OpStats FY 2021

3.1.1 Fixed Route Systems
A brief review of each fixed route system is provided in this section. The reviews are generated from FY 2021
data from various sources, including agency data, OpStats, ITRE, National Transit Database (NTD), and NCDOT.
Greenville Area Transit
Greenville Area Transit (GREAT) is operated by the City of Greenville’s Transit Division within the Public Works
Department. GREAT operates an urban fixed-route network with six bus routes within Greenville. While
paratransit service is provided in Greenville to complement the fixed-route network, it is operated by Pitt Area
Transit System (PATS).
GREAT fixed-route service hours are from 7:25 AM to 5:15 PM Monday through Friday. Bus services do not
operate on Saturdays or Sundays. Currently, the one-way fare is $1.00 payable in cash or with a pre-purchased
pass. A discounted fare of $0.50 is available to adults 65 and over as well as persons with disabilities. Ride punch
passes for 22 and 44 trips, and 100-ticket booklets can all be purchased at the G.K. Butterfield Transportation
Center for a discounted price. Bus information is provided in real-time through the NextBus application.
GREAT operates in the style of a hub and spoke system, with buses starting and ending their trips at the G.K.
Butterfield Transportation Center, which is located next to the Uptown neighborhood of Greenville. The Public
Works Department provides transit vehicle maintenance at its maintenance facility on 1600 Beatty Street in
Greenville. Buses run once an hour on each route illustrated in Error! Reference source not found..
• Route 1 operates along the Evans Street Corridor and serves the southern section of the city.
• Route 2 is a loop that serves the East Carolina University (ECU) medical complex and western Greenville.
Route 2 also serves the Greenville Housing Authority and the Mid-East Regional Housing Authority.
• Route 3 operates in a loop that broadly covers southwest Greenville along the Memorial Drive corridor,
which is a predominantly single-family area except near Greenville Boulevard where it serves large
commercial centers.
• Route 4 operates three loops in the northern part of Greenville; the first loop serves the neighborhood
north of ECU, the second loop serves the neighborhood adjacent to the Pitt-Greenville Airport, and the
third loop serves a mixed industrial and suburban section of Greenville.
• Route 5 serves the eastern portion of Greenville, following the East Tenth Street Corridor from Uptown,
past Greenville Boulevard and ending at the easternmost Walmart. Route 5 deviates south along
Greenville Boulevard into the Greenville Mall.
• Route 6 is a hybrid loop that broadly follows routes 2 and 3 and serves the southwestern portion of the
city.
GREAT hosted over 155,000 passenger trips and over 183,000 revenue miles of service in FY 2021. With a total
budget of $2.1 million, GREAT is operating with an average cost per trip of $13.27. The agency has 13 buses in its
fleet.
Figure 3.1 illustrates GREAT’s key performance indicators for 2021.

FIGURE 3.1FIGURE 3.1 GREAT | KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Sources: GREAT, ITRE OpStats FY 2021
Sources: NCDOT, GREAT

Rocky Mount Tar River Transit
Tar River Transit (TRT) operates as a division of the City of Rocky Mount Public Works Department. TRT operates
an urban fixed-route network with 10 bus routes in Rocky Mount. ADA paratransit services complement the
fixed-route network within a ¾-mile service area around each transit route covering most of the city and
extending some outside the city limits. TRT also operates a rural general public demand-response service in
Edgecombe and Nash counties. These two services are described in the demand-response section.
Service hours for fixed-route transit are from 6:45 AM to 6:45 PM Monday through Friday and 9:15 AM to 5:45 PM
on Saturday; service does not operate on Sundays. Currently, a one-way bus fare is $1.25 payable in cash or pre-
purchased ticket. A discounted fare of $0.60 is available to most seniors and persons with disabilities as well as
children under 4 feet tall. Ride tokens and 10-ride punch cards can be purchased for $1.15 and $11.25,
respectively, at the City of Rocky Mount Business Office on Franklin Street or the Transit Office located in the
downtown train station. Real-time bus tracker information is provided through the DoubleMap mobile
application.
TRT operates in the style of a hub and spoke system, with buses starting and ending trips at the Downtown
Transfer Center located next to the Rocky Mount Train Station. Map 3.3 displays all of the system’s transit
routes.
• Route 1 is a loop that serves the Meadowbrook neighborhood east of downtown.
• Route 2 operates in a loop that serves the Oakwood neighborhood southeast of downtown.
• Route 3 operates in a loop that serves the South Rocky Mount neighborhood along the Church Street
and Raleigh Boulevard corridors.
• Route 4 is a loop that serves the Hillsdale neighborhood northeast of downtown.
• Route 5 serves various major commercial establishments in the northwest, following SR 43 past the
Rocky Mount Mills, into the Golden East Crossings Mall, and out to Winstead Avenue.
• Route 6 is a loop that covers the Ravenwood neighborhood in the southwestern portion of Rocky
Mount.
• Route 7 follows Sunset Avenue westwards, ending at the Nash General Hospital.
• Route 8 serves the western portion of the city out past I-95 and into Nash Community College.
• Route 9 serves areas further north from the city, passing through the Golden East Crossings Mall before
stopping at Wesleyan College and the Honeywell Aerospace manufacturing center, and continuing north
into Battleboro.
• Route 10 is a loop that covers the Rocky Mount East neighborhood.
In FY 2021, TRT provided 268,459 passenger trips on its fixed-route network over 21,902 revenue hours. The
annual operating expenses for Tar River Transit totaled about $1 million. The average cost per trip was
estimated at $4.08, while the agency served an average of 12.3 trips per revenue hour and 0.8 trips per revenue
mile.
TRT is reported to have a 30-foot motorbus, 7 cutaway buses, and 27 raised roof vans with lifts in its fleet. The
35-revenue vehicle fleet has a total asset value estimated at $2.5 million. Three vans have reached their useful
life benchmarks and have an estimated $175,000 replacement value. TRT does not exclusively own any support

vehicles. The agency operates its own administrative facility at 100 Coastline Street in Rocky Mount and has a
maintenance facility at 725 Albemarle Avenue. Figure 3.2 displays a selection of key performance indicators for
TRT.
MAP 3.2 TRT | TRANSIT ROUTES
Sources: NCDOT, Tar River Transit

FIGURE 3.2 TRT | KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
3.1.2 Demand-Response Systems
The following section describes the various demand-response systems in the study area. These agencies,
operated by Community Transportation providers, generally have small fleets of demand-response vans or
cutaway buses that serve general or specific trip purposes in challenging to serve areas such as rural
communities and other areas of low population density. Demand-response systems apply for federal, state, and
Sources: Tar River Transit, ITRE OpStats FY 2021

local funds to operate services for the public, and for the transportation disadvantaged (TD) populations, which
include the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Beaufort Area Transit System
Beaufort Area Transit System (BATS) operates as a division of the Beaufort County Developmental Center
(BCDC), a non-profit organization based in the City of Washington that focuses on serving children with
developmental disabilities in the area. BATS operates a single-county, public demand-response service within
Beaufort County. Trips originating in the county with a destination outside of the county are also served by
BATS.
Service hours are from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. Services do not operate on Saturdays or
Sundays. The fare depends on the location of the origin and destination and whether it is a shared-ride trip or a
one-on-one trip. Trips within Washington start at $12.00 for a shared trip and $20.00 for a one-on-one trip,
while trips from Washington to Aurora on the other end of the county may cost $25.00 for a shared trip and
$75.00 for a one-on-one trip. The range of monthly fares starts at $50.00 within the City of Washington and goes
up to $85 for trips from the Town of Aurora to the City of Washington. Trips to Greenville may cost an additional
$20 above the stated fares to Washington, and trips to Durham or Chapel Hill cost between $155.00 and
$375.00 from Washington. All fares must be exact and paid upfront to the driver in cash.
All trips must be requested by 1:00 PM the business day before the scheduled appointment. Trips with
destinations outside of Beaufort County must be scheduled between 8:00 AM and 2:00 PM. All trips have a 15-
minute pickup window. Once a vehicle arrives, passengers have three minutes to board.
In FY 2021, BATS provided 22,272 demand-response trips over 18,219 revenue hours. The annual operating
expenses totaled about $855,000. The average cost per trip was estimated at $38.40, while the agency served
an average of 1.22 trips per revenue hour and the average length of a trip was about 15 miles.
BATS is reported to have eight cutaway buses, and five raised roof vans with lifts, and one minivan, for a fleet of
14 revenue vehicles with a total asset value estimated at $826,000. None of the vehicles have reached or
exceeded their useful life benchmarks. BATS operates out of the BCDC administrative facility located at 1534
West Fifth Street in Washington. Figure 3.3 displays a selection of key performance indicators for BATS.

FIGURE 3.3 BATS | KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Choanoke Public Transportation Authority
Based out of the Town of Rich Square in Northampton County, Choanoke Public Transportation Authority (CPTA)
is a non-profit organization that became a public transportation authority in 1977, modeled after the Choanoke
Area Development Association that provided medical transportation services in the four-county area into
Durham and Chapel Hill. CPTA operates public demand-response services in Bertie, Halifax, Hertford, and
Northampton counties.
Sources: BATS, ITRE OpStats FY 2021

CPTA provides regular out-of-county trips to Rocky Mount on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays that arrive at
7:00 AM and depart at 1:00 PM. CPTA provides 12 subscription routes, which are scheduled based on a recurring
demand pattern. There are two types of routes: regular routes and dialysis routes. Regular routes serve general
purposes and operate Monday through Friday, while the dialysis routes are strictly for medical purposes and
operate Monday through Saturday.
Four regular routes connect to the City of Roanoke Rapids:
• The Littleton Route extends from the city to the westernmost part of Halifax County.
• The Gaston Route extends northward into Northampton County.
• The Enfield-Holister Route extends from Roanoke Rapids into the southwestern part of Halifax County.
• The Weldon Route also extends into the southwestern part of Halifax County and serves parts of Warren
and Nash counties.
Two regular routes connect to the Town of Ahoskie in Hertford County:
• The Northampton-Hertford Route extends across Northampton County, as well as several towns in
Hertford County.
• The Bertie-Hertford Route extends out of Ahoskie, across Hertford County, and into Bertie County.
Six dialysis routes connect various parts of the four-county service area to three dialysis centers:
• Three routes connect the Roanoke Dialysis Center to nearby areas in Halifax and Northampton counties.
• Two routes connect the Conway Dialysis Center in Northampton to nearby areas.
• One route connects the Ahoskie Dialysis Center to nearby areas in Hertford County.
A Rural General Public Program (RGP) is intended to provide transportation services to individuals who do not
have a human service agency or organization that will pay for the transportation service and live in the non-
urbanized area of the county. RGP is a demand-response service connecting riders within any part of the four-
county area when scheduled in advance. Phone reservations for any of CPTA’s services can be made from 8:00
AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. RGP services do not operate on Saturdays or Sundays. The RPG fare is
$2.00 per one-way trip for individuals who do not already receive transportation assistance from other human
service programs such as Medicare. Bus passes can be purchased in books of 20 or 42 trips. Payment for all fares
must be exact and be paid up front to the driver.
All trips must be requested by 10:00 AM two business days in advance. All trips have a 15-minute pickup
window. Once a vehicle arrives, passengers have three minutes to board.
The out-of-county services, subscription shuttles, and RGP programs together provided 20,286 demand-
response trips over 12,130 revenue hours in FY 2021. The annual operating expenses for CPTA totaled about
$1.1 million. The average cost per trip was estimated at $57.77, while the agency served an average of 1.67 trips
per revenue hour and the average length of a trip was about 13.5 miles.
CPTA is reported to have 23 cutaway buses and two raised roof vans with lifts, for a fleet of 25 revenue vehicles
with a total asset value estimated at $1.5 million. Three of its vehicles have reached or exceeded their useful life
benchmarks for a total replacement value of about $181,000. CPTA’s fleet also includes two support vehicles.

CPTA operates out of their administrative and maintenance facility located at 505 North Main Street in Rich
Square. Figure 3.4 displays a selection of key performance indicators for CPTA.
FIGURE 3.4 CPTA | KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Sources: CPTA, ITRE OpStats FY 2021

Martin County Transit
Martin County Transit (MCT) is a branch of the Martin County government and operates a single-county, public
demand-response service. Trips originating in the county with a destination outside of the county are also
served by MCT.
Service hours are from 4:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. Saturday services are only provided for
dialysis patients. Services do not operate on Sundays. Fares depend on the trip destination and apply to
individuals who do not already receive transportation assistance. Within Martin County and in the Town of
Williamston, trips cost $2.00 one way. Outside the town limits but within a two-mile buffer, the trip costs $3.00
one-way. Other trips elsewhere within the county cost $5.00 one-way. Trips outside of the county are planned
as a round trip and range from $10.00 to $75.00 and vary in availability; for example, trips to Greenville may be
offered every weekday, while trips to Ahoskie may be offered only once a month.
All trips must be requested at least three business days before the scheduled appointment and cancellations
must be made 24 hours in advance to avoid a trip being billed as a “no show.” Once a vehicle arrives, passengers
have three minutes to board.
In FY 2021, MCT provided 15,099 demand-response trips over 12,037 revenue hours. The annual operating
expenses for MCT totaled about $584,000. The average cost per trip was estimated at $38.67, while the agency
served an average of 1.25 trips per revenue hour and the average length of a trip was about 12.2 miles.
MCT is reported to have 10 cutaway buses, two minivans, and one van with no lift, for a fleet of 13 revenue
vehicles with a total asset value estimated at $776,000. One vehicle has reached its useful life benchmark with a
replacement value of about $53,000. MCT operates out of its administrative facility located at 314 East Ray
Street in Williamston. Figure 3.5 displays a selection of key performance indicators for MCT.

FIGURE 3.5 MCT | KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Pitt Area Transit
PATS operates as a department of Pitt County with oversight from the engineering department. PATS operates
public demand-response service within Pitt County. PATS also operates a complementary paratransit service for
GREAT within ¾-mile from GREAT routes. PATS does not serve trips outside of Pitt County.
Service hours for demand-response trips are from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday. Services do not
operate on Sundays. The RPG fare is $7.00 and for individuals who do not already receive transportation
assistance. All fares must be exact and paid upfront to the driver in the form of cash or check. An E-Pass
payment option is also available, which allows human service beneficiaries to pay through an online account.
Sources: MCT, ITRE OpStats FY 2021

The coverage area for PATS demand-response services is all of Pitt County outside of the GREAT service area.
PATS also serves passengers who live in the GREAT service area but wish to travel outside of it staying within Pitt
County. As seen in Map 3.2, the GREAT service area refers to the ¾-mile buffer around the transit routes.
All trips must be requested between 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM one business day in advance. Cancellations may be
made up to an hour before the scheduled pick-up time before the trip is designated as a “no show.” Once a
vehicle arrives, passengers have five minutes to board.
In FY 2021, PATS provided 46,901 demand-response trips over 19,042 revenue hours. The annual operating
expenses totaled about $1.1 million. The average cost per trip was estimated at $23.58, while the agency served
an average of 2.46 trips per revenue hour and the average length of a trip was about 9.2 miles.
PATS is reported to have five cutaway buses and 15 raised roof vans with lifts, for a fleet of 20 revenue vehicles
and a total asset value estimated at $1.2 million. Two vans have reached their useful life benchmarks, with an
estimated $111,000 total replacement value. PATS operates out of its administrative facility located at 1717
West Fifth Street in Greenville. Figure 3.6 displays a selection of key performance indicators for PATS.
Service hours for paratransit trips match those for GREAT, which are 7:25 AM to 5:15 PM Monday through Friday.
Paratransit services are not provided on Saturdays or Sundays and are only available to clients who qualify for
ADA trips or for older adults over 65 years old. Trips must be made within ¾-mile from GREAT bus routes.
In FY 2021, GREAT, through PATS, provided 13,809 paratransit trips over 6,903 revenue hours. The annual
operating expenses for the paratransit services totaled about $278,000. The average cost per trip was estimated
at $20.15, while the agency served an average of 2.0 trips per revenue hour and the average length of a trip was
about 5.7 miles. The city of Greenville is 37.1 square miles, while the paratransit coverage area is 45.2 square
miles. Despite a larger service coverage area, only 26.6 square miles or 72% of the city has paratransit coverage.
Figure 3.7 displays a selection of key performance indicators for the paratransit services provided by PATS in Pitt
County, which encompasses GREAT service area.

FIGURE 3.6 PATS | KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Sources: PATS, ITRE OpStats FY 2021

FIGURE 3.7 GREAT | PARATRANSIT KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Wilson County Transportation Services
Wilson County Transportation Services (WCTS) operates as a branch of the Wilson County Government. WCTS
operates a single-county RPG demand-response service in Wilson County and also provides veteran
transportation outside of the county to the Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals in Durham or Greenville.
Service hours are from 5:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Saturday. Services may operate on Sundays;
however, reservations for Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays must be received by 2:00 PM on Friday. The RPG
fare is a minimum of $3.00 per one-way trip. RPG trips are available to residents of Wilson County who live at
least ¼-mile outside of the City of Wilson limits.
All trips must be requested by 2:00 PM, the business day before the scheduled appointment. Once a vehicle
arrives, passengers have five minutes to board. Cancellations for trips must be received two hours prior to the
scheduled trip or it will be designated as a “no show.”
In FY 2021, WCTS provided 36,668 demand-response trips over 13,993 revenue hours. The agency served an
average of 2.6 trips per revenue hour and the average length of a trip was about 8.3 miles.
WCTS is reported to have four cutaway buses and eleven raised roof vans with lifts, for a fleet of fifteen revenue
vehicles and a total asset value estimated at $879,000. None of the vehicles have reached or exceeded their
useful life benchmarks. WCTS operates out of their administrative facility located at 2201 Miller Road South in
Wilson. Figure 3.8 displays a selection of key performance indicators from WCTS.
Sources: GREAT, ITRE OpStats FY 2021

FIGURE 3.8 WCTS | KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Wilson City RIDE
Wilson City’s RIDE is a public transportation system that operates as a division of the City of Wilson’s Public
Works Department. RIDE operates a small-city urban, demand-response, microtransit service in the City of
Wilson. RIDE is a partnership between the City of Wilson and Via Transportation, a private Transportation
Network Company (TNC) based out of New York City that provides a range of mobility services including
microtransit, paratransit, planning services, scheduling, and other such services. The City of Wilson manages a
contract with River North Transit, LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Via Transportation Inc. The city
replaced its fixed-route transit system in September 2020 with a citywide microtransit service.
Service hours are from 5:30 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday. On Saturdays, RIDE operates from 7:00 AM to
6:00 PM, but it does not operate on Sunday. RIDE serves most of the residents within the city limits, with a
Sources: WCTS, ITRE OpStats FY 2021
Note: No operating costs were provided for WCTS in OpStats for FY 2021

coverage of nearly 23 square miles. Map 3.4 shows the service area map provided by the City of Wilson on the
RIDE webpage.
All trips can be requested on-demand, meaning rides do not need to be requested in advance. RIDE trip requests
can be made through the Via smartphone application, the Via web-based application, or by telephone. Trips cost
$1.50, and an extra person can be added to the trip for $1.00. Children under eight years old ride for free.
Qualifying seniors and persons with disabilities may apply for a discounted price and are generally certified
through the city. Discounted rates are provided to anyone if trips are purchased in bulk at a rate of 10 trips for
$10.00.
In FY 2021, RIDE reported the completion of 209,412 demand-response trips and a utilization rate estimated at
about 4.0 trips per revenue hour. By December 2021, 6,153 unique riders had used RIDE microtransit services.
Between January 2021 and December 2021, RIDE saw an average monthly increase of 198 returning riders and
641 new riders. RIDE has less than 2% of unmet demand or cancelled trips; unmet demand refers to the number
of trips that were unable to fulfilled from the supply side, while cancelled trips refers to trips that were unable
to be fulfilled from the demand side. Figure 3.9 displays a selection of key performance indicators from RIDE.
MAP 3.3 WILSON RIDE SERVICE COVERAGE AREA
Source: Wilson RIDE

FIGURE 3.9 WILSON RIDE | KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Rocky Mount Tar River Transit
TRT offers several demand-response services to Rocky Mount and Edgecombe and Nash counties.
• The RPG Shuttle is a community transportation route service that covers the various towns outside of
Rocky Mount in both counties.
• The Night Shuttle is a late-night, demand-response service covering the entire city and two-county area.
• The RPG Program is a community transportation, demand-response service covering the two-county
area.
• The Dial-A-Ride Transportation Services (DARTS) ADA Paratransit program is an urban demand-response
service that complements the fixed-route network within ¾-miles of each transit route.
Sources: Wilson RIDE, ITRE OpStats FY 2021

The RPG Shuttle service hours are from 8:15 AM to 5:15 PM Monday through Friday. Services do not operate on
Saturdays or Sundays. The fare is $5.00 per trip for individuals who do not already receive transportation
assistance. There are two routes, and each departs from the Downtown Transfer Station in Rocky Mount at
designated times:
• The Edgecombe County Route leaves Rocky Mount and stops in Tarboro, Battleboro, and Leggett.
• The Nash County Route leaves Rocky Mount and stops in Red Oak, Dortches, and Middlesex.
The Night Shuttle operates in the late evening for work, educational, and recreational trips. The shuttle operates
from 6:00 PM to 12:00 AM, Monday through Friday. The program serves Nash Community College near Nashville,
the Edgecombe Community College Rocky Mount Campus, and the Tarboro Campus. Employees at the Pfizer
and QVC manufacturing factories may benefit, as well as employees from most other work locations in the city
and the two counties. Trips cost $2.00 within the city limits and $5.00 outside the city limits. Trips may be
scheduled for the same day until 4:00 PM.
RGP Program trips are available upon request by any rider for any purpose. The service operates from 6:30 AM
to 6:30 PM Monday through Friday. The cost of each round trip is $14.00. Trips to Wilson may also be provided
for $20.00. Tickets may be purchased at the Rocky Mount Business Office or the Transit Office in downtown
Rocky Mount. Passengers must call a business day in advance by 5:00 PM to schedule a trip.
The RGP Shuttle, Night Shuttle, and RGP Program together provided 105,544 passenger trips over 55,907
revenue hours in FY 2021. Annual operating expenses for these services totaled about $2.6 million. The average
cost per trip was estimated at $24.63, while the community transportation programs served an average of 1.89
trips per revenue hour and the average length of a trip was about 13.1 miles. Figure 3.10 displays a selection of
key performance indicators for the community transportation services.

FIGURE 3.10 TRT | COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Service hours for DARTS paratransit trips match those for TRT buses, from 6:45 AM to 6:45 PM Monday through
Friday and 9:15 AM to 5:45 PM on Saturdays. Paratransit services are not provided on Sundays and are only
available to clients who qualify for ADA trips or are over 65 years old. Trips must be made within ¾-mile from
the TRT bus routes as shown on Map 3.2.
In FY 2021, TRT provided 12,279 paratransit trips over 6,370 revenue hours. Annual operating expenses for the
paratransit services totaled about $125,000. The average cost per trip was estimated at $10.19, while the
agency served an average of 1.9 trips per revenue hour and the average length of a trip was about 10.2 miles.
The City of Rocky Mount is 45.1 square miles, while the paratransit coverage area is 51.1 square miles. Despite a
larger service coverage area, only 35.8 square miles or 80% of the city has paratransit coverage. Figure 3.11
displays a selection of key performance indicators for the paratransit services.

FIGURE 3.11 TRT | PARATRANSIT KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (FY 2021)
Study Area Summary
The study area is served by 38 public transportation services: 16 urban fixed routes, 6 RPG routes, 6 rural
medical routes, 6 demand-response services, 2 paratransit services, 1 on-demand microtransit service, and 1
late-night demand-response service.
Figure 3.12 displays an aggregated summary of all assets in the study area. In FY 2021, 135 revenue vehicles
were owned and operated by these transit agencies for an aggregated value of $16.3 million. In FY 2023, 9% of
this inventory is past its useful life with a total replacement cost estimated at $2.4 million (i.e., 15% of the
aggregated inventory value). This data does not demonstrate any concern regarding the progress of vehicle
replacements considering that a large replacement value is attributable to the four higher-cost buses.
FIGURE 3.12 ASSET INVENTORY SUMMARY
Source: NCDOT Transit Asset Management Plan, 2021

Figure 3.13 shows the combined service spans for each of the study area’s individual services. Most services operate from 8 AM to 4 PM. Only four
services in the study area operate before 5 AM while the only services that operate after 6 PM are TRT’s Night Shuttle and Wilson RIDE’s
microtransit. The highest service frequency provided in the study area is from Wilson RIDE, while CPTA’s subscription routes operate single buses
in each direction daily.
FIGURE 3.13 WEEKDAY SERVICE SPANS
Sources: GREAT, TRT, CPTA, Wilson Ride, WCTS, MCT, BATS, PATS
Agency Service 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM
Route 1 60
Route 2 60
Route 3 60
Route 4 60
Route 5 60
Route 6 60
Paratransit
Route 1 60
Route 2 60
Route 3 60
Route 4 60
Route 5 60
Route 6 60
Route 7 60
Route 8 60
Route 9 90 90
Route 10 60
Edgecombe County RGP Shuttle 120 120
Nash County RGP Shuttle 120 120
Night Shuttle DR
RGP DR Shuttle
DARTS (Paratransit)
Enfield-Holister Route 1 Bus 1 Bus
Gaston - Roanoke Rapids Route 1 Bus 1 Bus
Littleton Route 1 Bus 1 Bus
Northampton - Ahoskie Route 1 Bus 1 Bus
RGP DR Shuttle
Roanoke Rapids 1st Shift Route 1 Bus
Roanoke Rapids 2nd Shift Route 1 Bus
Roanoke Rapids 2nd Shift Route 1 Bus
Conway 1st Shift Route 1 Bus
Conway 2nd Shift Route 1 Bus
Conway 1st Shift Route 1 Bus
Wilson RIDE RIDE (On-Demand Microtransit)
WCTS Demand-Response
MCT Demand-Response
BATS Demand-Response
PATS Demand-Response
60 minute headway
60< minute headway
Advanced Scheduling
GREAT
TRT
CPTA
On-Demand
1 Bus (MWF)
1 Bus (MWF)
1 Bus (TTh)
Advanced Scheduling
On-Demand
Advanced Scheduling
Advanced Scheduling
Advanced Scheduling
1 Bus (MWF)
1 Bus (MWF)
Advanced Scheduling
Advanced Scheduling
Advanced Scheduling
Advanced Scheduling
1 Bus (TTh)

Figure 3.14 shows the days of operation for each service. Only TRT’s fixed-route network, Wilson RIDE, and PATS demand-response services
operate on Saturdays, although CPTA’s and MCT’s respective RPG shuttles operate dialysis-only trips on Saturdays. No service operates on Sundays
except for WCTS, which takes special requests for Sunday trips.
FIGURE 3.14 SERVICE DAYS OF OPERATION

Figure 3.15 shows the minimum trip scheduling and cancellation windows for each transit agency’s demand-response service. Four services have
the same 12-hour minimum scheduling window and one-hour cancellation window, while MCT has the longest scheduling and cancellation
window requiring a minimum of three business days to schedule a trip and one business day to cancel. TRT’s Night Shuttle has the shortest
scheduling window, with some trips able to be scheduled within two hours on the day of service.
FIGURE 3.15 SCHEDULING AND CANCELLATION POLICIES

Figure 3.16 shows the existing fare structure for each service. The lowest is the discounted fare for GREAT’s fixed route service at $0.50 per trip,
while the highest minimum fare is $14.00 for TRT’s RPG Shuttle. The highest fare cost in the study area can be attributed to Beaufort County,
where the minimum fare is $12.00 within the city of Washington. Mobility within Greenville, Rocky Mount, and Wilson are within the range of
$1.00 and $1.50.
FIGURE 3.16 FARE STRUCTURES

Figure 3.17 shows the five-year trend for passenger trips by provider. In the 10-county area, an average of one million trips were provided
annually. In FY 2021, the total trips provided dipped significantly below the average to 774,010. Collectively GREAT, TRT, and Wilson RIDE provided
nearly 75% of these trips while MCT and BATS provided the lowest annual trips.
FIGURE 3.17 AGGREGATED PASSENGER TRIPS
1,036,000 1,059,000
1,485,000
944,000
774,010
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
GREAT TRT RIDE TRT-DR CPTA PATS BATS MCT

Figure 3.18 shows the five-year trend in revenue miles served. An average of four million miles of service were provided annually. TRT’s demand
response services provide the most annual revenue miles among the operators.
FIGURE 3.18 AGGREGATED REVENUE MILES
4,054,000
4,507,000 4,574,000
4,153,000
3,875,000
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
GREAT TRT BATS CPTA MCT PATS TRT-DR RIDE

Figure 3.19 shows the study area five-year trend for revenue hours. An average of approximately 250,000 hours of service were provided annually.
Revenue hour trends generally mirrored revenue mile trends within the study area with TRT’s demand response services providing the largest
number of revenue hours.
FIGURE 3.19 AGGREGATED REVENUE HOURS
216,000
245,100 243,500
224,000
192,272
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
GREAT TRT BATS CPTA MCT PATS TRT-DR RIDE

3.2 Regional Travel Considerations
As this plan focuses on improving coordinated transit options within the Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville, and
Wilson region, it is important to understand the regional transportation options in the study area. This section
explores the extent to which transit agencies are currently coordinating services regionally, including the
presence of regional transit facilities and fare interoperability. It also reviews connectivity to other regional
providers such as intercity bus and/or rail services, TNCs like Uber or Lyft, and micromobility options. This
context provides an understanding of where regional coordination can be improved.
3.2.1 Regional Coordination among Transit Agencies
Currently, there is no significant regional coordination between agencies in terms of service, facilities, or fare
interoperability. There may be areas that lend themselves to greater coordination such as Battleboro in the
north end of Nash County. TRT’s Route 9 operates near CPTA’s Weldon Route in this general area. Similarly,
most agencies have transit services that reach Greenville on a regular basis. The use of the G.K. Butterfield
Transportation Center may help facilitate transfers and interoperability between agencies.
3.2.2 Other Regional Transportation Providers
There are a handful of other major service operators in the study area as displayed on Map 3.5.
ECU offers 14 bus routes on its fixed-route system in the area surrounding the university. The service is oriented
towards serving the mobility needs of students, faculty, and staff at ECU. Additionally, it provides an on-demand
microtransit service geared towards evening and weekend service hours. Pirate Access is ECU’s paratransit
service, which provides mobility services to eligible users with disabilities.
Amtrak provides regular daily rail services from two train stations in Wilson and Rocky Mount. The minimum
coach fare is $9.00 for a one-way trip between the two stations. Two train routes serve the study area,
including:
• The Palmetto route extends from New York City to Savannah. A southbound train stops in Rocky Mount
at 2:32 PM and in Wilson at 2:49 PM while the northbound train stops in Wilson at 1:43 PM and in Rocky
Mount 2:08 PM.
• The Carolinian route extends from New York City to Charlotte. A southbound train stops in Rocky Mount
at 3:46 PM and in Wilson at 4:01 PM. A northbound train stops in Wilson at 11:18 AM and in Rocky Mount
at 11:35 AM.
Additionally, Amtrak provides two Thruway Bus routes out of Wilson Station, one towards Morehead City and
the other towards Wilmington. The Wilson-Wilmington route serves a stop in Greenville.
Greyhound provides regular daily bus services in the study area. Fares range from $9.00 to $30.00 for these
trips. Three bus routes serve the study area:
• The Raleigh–Hampton, VA route stops in Ahoskie, Tarboro, Rocky Mount, and Wilson; the bus leaves
Ahoskie at 11:30 AM and arrives at Wilson by 1:55 PM and returns from Wilson at 6:40 PM and Ahoskie at
9:05 PM.

MAP 3.4 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS

Rocky Mount Greenville Willson Regional Transit Plan

Rocky Mount Greenville Willson Regional Transit Plan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Rocky Mount Greenville Willson Regional Transit Plan

Similar to Rocky Mount Greenville Willson Regional Transit Plan (20)

More from Robert Hiett

More from Robert Hiett (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Rocky Mount Greenville Willson Regional Transit Plan