This document is the executive summary of the regional transit development plan for the Rocky Mount/Wilson/Greenville North Carolina service area. The plan provides a high level overview of the findings from the full study.

1. Regional Transit Plan
Greater Rocky Mount, Greenville, & Wilson Area
Executive Summary
November 2023

2. ii Executive Summary
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the many stakeholders and residents who
contributed to the development of the Greater Rocky Mount,
Greenville, and Wilson Area Regional Transit Plan:
• To the Coordinating Committee for their leadership,
review, and feedback.
• To the leadership and staff from each of the ten counties
and eight transit agencies who provided valuable
information and input throughout this process.
• To the many residents and stakeholders with whom we
spoke along the way and who took the time to provide
their thoughts, insights, and concerns about transit in the
Rocky Mount region.
For more information about the plan,
please scan the QR code. It will take you
to the project Virtual Room.

3. iii
Executive Summary
Rhonda Suggs
Beaufort Area Transit System
Pamela Perry
Choanoke Public Transportation Authority
Todd Gardner
City of Rocky Mount-Tar River Transit
Becky Derderian
Greenville Area Transit
Elizabeth Stalls
Greenville Area Transit
Kevin Mulligan
City of Greenville
Eliud De Jesus
Greenville Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO)
Angela Ellis
Martin County Transit
Sam Singleton
Mid-East Rural Planning Organization (RPO)
Stephanie Harmon
Peanut Belt Rural Planning Organization
(RPO)
Cameron Coburn
Pitt Area Transit System
Misty Chase
Pitt Area Transit System
Jordan Reedy
Rocky Mount Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO)
Robert Hiett
Upper Coastal Plain Council of Government
(COG)
James Salmons
Division Engineer, Division 4 (NCDOT)
Gronna Jones
City of Wilson
Wood Davidson
East Carolina University
Lesley Barnes
Wilson County
Project
Team
Nick Morrison
Transportation Planner II
Bryan Lopez
Regional Planning Manager
John Vine-Hodge
Deputy Director, Planning and
Programming
NCDOT IMD
Coordinating Committee
Prepared by

4. Over the last few years, the State of North Carolina has
experienced significant population growth leading to
demographic shifts that are impacting where, how, and why
people travel. To guide this growth, North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) Integrated Mobility Division (IMD)
developed a statewide approach to coordinated regional public
transportation planning.
The goal is to provide regional continuity from plan
development to implementation. The Greater Rocky Mount,
Greenville, & Wilson Area Regional Transit Plan combines
six primary plan elements, as shown below, with three
process elements to create a framework that supports a
coordinated approach to plan, develop, and implement regional
mobility solutions. The study area covers 10 counties, which
encompasses 8 transit systems.
The plan will be comprised of the following chapters:
• Executive Summary
• Chapter 1 – Current Operating Conditions Assessment
• Chapter 2 – Existing Services & Performance Evaluation
• Chapter 3 – Public & Stakeholder Involvement
• Chapter 4 – Regional Appraisal
• Chapter 5 – Transit Demand & Needs Assessment
• Chapter 6 – Implementation and Resource Allocation Plan
Introduction

5. Introduction
1
Executive Summary
Beaufort Area Transit System
Choanoke Public Transportation Authority
Tar River Transit
Greenville Area Transit
Martin County Transit
Pitt County/Pitt Area Transit System
Wilson County Transportation Services
Wilson RIDE
Transit Agency Coverage Area

6. 2 Executive Summary
Total Population (2021)
559,751
Existing Conditions
The study area covers a 10-county region. These 10 counties are Beaufort,
Bertie, Edgecombe, Halifax, Hertford, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Pitt, and
Wilson. The study area total population, as of 2021, was 559,751 and is
projected to experience a slight population decline of 1.35% by 2028. Pitt
County has the highest population, followed by Nash and Wilson counties.
The study reviews several demographics to assess the current and future
need for transit. The demographic section looks at percent of adults above
age 65, youth aged 16-24, households below poverty, unemployment rate,
minorities, Limited English Proficient (LEP) households, population with
disabilities, and zero-vehicle households. For example, nearly one in five
people in the study area is over 65 years old, while one in five households live
in poverty. The top three counties with the highest zero-vehicle households
are Bertie, Edgecombe, and Halifax. These are a few top indicators
highlighting the importance of transit in the region.
White....................................................................50%
Black or African American.............................42%
American Indian/Alaskan Native..................1%
Asian....................................................................1%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander......0%
Some Other Race.............................................3%
Two or More Races..........................................3%
Residents
Unincorporated.......................47%
Incorporated.............................53%
Land Area
Unincorporated.......................95%
Incorporated.............................5%
Study Land Area
Ethnic Groups

7. 3
Executive Summary
Existing
Conditions
20%
18%
26%
22%
26%
19%
19%
16%
21%
20%
19%
Study Area
Beaufort
Bertie
Edgecombe
Halifax
Hertford
Martin
Nash
Northampton
Pitt
Wilson
Percentage of Households Below Poverty

8. Existing
Conditions
The study also looks at the commute patterns of both residents and
commuters outside the study area to understand where people are coming
from and going. The analysis shows that 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. The top three
destinations for outflow commuters are Wake, Durham, and Johnston counties.
Total Commuters
158,514
Inflow Trips
68,027
Outflow Trips
78,033
Wilson Trips
15,128
Nash Trips
17,608 Edgecombe Trips
5,520
Bertie Trips
1,908
Halifax Trips
7,832
Hertford Trips
3,133
Commuter Trips per County
Inflow
Trips
Outflow
Trips
Pitt County 36,086 28,431
Nash County 25,135 22,188
Wilson County 20,162 18,328
Halifax County 6,902 11,934
Beaufort County 8,217 11,625
Edgecombe County 7,972 16,667
Hertford County 5,264 4,359
Martin County 3,662 6,634
Bertie County 3,373 5,004
Northampton County 3,732 5,341
Top Inflow Trip Origin Counties
Top Outflow Trip Origin Counties
Lenoir County 3,378
Wayne County 3,744
Craven County 3,788
Johnston County 4,147
Wake County 8,531
Durham County 3,234
Johnston County 3,564
Mecklenburg County 3,587
Lenoir County 3,886
Wake County 21,524
Northampton Trips
1,559
Pitt Trips
42,981
Beaufort Trips
7,367
Martin Trips
3,000
Executive Summary
4

9. 5
Executive Summary
Existing
Conditions
Residents
Unincorporated.................47%
Incorporated.......................53%
82
Municipalities
10 Most Populous Incorporated Places
87,428
54,309
47,769
15,158
10,685
10,450
9,848
5,635
5,225
4,972
Greenville
Rocky Mount
Wilson
Roanoke Rapids
Tarboro
Winterville
Washington
Nashville
Williamston
Ayden
Study Area Population

10. 6 Executive Summary
Beaufort Area Transit System
Choanoke Public Transportation Authority
Tar River Transit
Greenville Area Transit
Martin County Transit
Pitt County/Pitt Area Transit System
Wilson County Transportation Services*
Wilson RIDE
Existing
Conditions
Of the eight transit agencies in the study area, one agency provides fixed-
route service, six agencies provide demand-response, and one agency
provides both. 2021 Key Performance Indicators (KPI) show that fixed-route
provided a total of 424,310 passenger trips, while demand-response provided
431,793. These numbers are expected to keep rising due to a surge in demand
that transit agencies have been experiencing.
Transit Agency Coverage Area
Fixed
Route
Demand
Response
Beaufort Area Transit System l
Choanoke Public Transportation Authority l
Tar River Transit l l
Greenville Area Transit l
Martin County Transit l
Pitt County/Pitt Area Transit System l
Wilson County Transportation Services l
Wilson RIDE l
Transit Operators in
Study Area
Trips per Hour and Trips per Mile
1.22
0.07
1.67
0.07
12.26
0.79
11.60
0.85
1.25
0.08
2.46
0.11
0.28
4.28
0.20
Trips per Hour Trips per Mile
*No Data for Trips per Hour for FY 21

11. 7
Executive Summary
Existing
Conditions
Study Area Transit Agencies
Key Performace Indicators (FY 2021)
Passenger
Trips
Passenger
Trips
Passenger
Trips
Passenger
Trips
Passenger
Trips
Passenger
Trips
Passenger
Trips
Passenger
Trips
Trips per Hour
Trips per Hour
Trips per Hour
Trips per Hour
Trips per Hour
Trips per Hour
Trips per Hour
Trips per Hour
Operating
Expenses
Operating
Expenses
Operating
Expenses
Operating
Expenses
Operating
Expenses
Operating
Expenses
Operating
Expenses
Operating
Expenses
169,660 11.6 $2.3M
386,282 12.2 $3.8M
22,272 1.2 $855K
20,286 1.7 $1.2M
15,099 1.3 $584K
46,901 2.5 $1.1M
36,668 No Data for FY 21 $2.3M
209,412 4.2 $2.3M

12. 8 Executive Summary
Transit Demand and Needs Assessment
The plan provides a comprehensive analysis of potential transit demand in the study area, utilizing
six Geographic Information System (GIS)-based tools. The Environmental Justice Index (EJI) and
Transportation Disadvantaged Index (TDI) identify areas with high concentrations of minority and
low-income populations, crucial for considering the equity impacts of transit projects. Additionally,
the Transit Orientation Index (TOI), Balanced Demand Scenario Scores, and Regional Travel
Market Analysis delve into factors like population density, employment, and travel patterns to
assess transit potential. The Demand Response Transportation Planning and Visualization Tools
offer agency-specific insights into transit demand, identifying service zones, top destinations, and
key corridors for various transit providers.
The study area’s travel demand landscape underscores the importance of equity considerations,
as clusters of high EJI and TDI scores are found in both urban and rural parts of the study
area. These clusters highlight the need for transit in areas with significant minority and low-
income populations. The TOI identifies urban zones, particularly Greenville and Rocky Mount,
characterized by high population density and employment opportunities, suggesting these
areas can support discretionary transit ridership. There are opportunities for transit-oriented
development, particularly in urban centers like Greenville and Rocky Mount, where Complete
Streets projects could enhance transit access and infrastructure.
Fixed Route Demand Forecast
Demand Response Ridership Forecast
Study Area
Traditional Transit markets Forecasting
Supply Side Forecasting
Pre-Pandemic Trend
Sources: OpStats 2016-2021, NCTR, Benesch
Potential Transit Market
Demand to be served
Transit Maket Demand that can be
served based on service supply

13. 9
Executive Summary
Transit
Demand
and
Needs
Assessment
Regional Travel Market Analysis
The analysis also pinpoints underserved travel markets and corridors
within the study area, emphasizing the potential for transit service
expansion in key routes like Greenville to Wilson and along the
I-95 corridor. Tailored insights for individual transit agencies reveal
distinct demand patterns, with BATS, CPTA, and MCT, focusing on
medical trips, while others such as Wilson RIDE or TRT serve a mix
of purposes, including employment and retail trips. Overall, these
findings provide a comprehensive understanding of the diverse travel
demand landscape in the study area, informing future transit planning
and service optimization efforts.

14. 10 Executive Summary
Public Outreach
Part of the plan development involved reaching
out to stakeholders and residents for their input. A
Virtual Room was created to serve as a central area
to continually share information such as upcoming
meetings, public survey links, and chapter drafts. The
online survey was open from April to August 2023,
and it received 430 survey responses. The planning
team also held 10 discussion groups, 4 public
workshops, 4 coordinating committee meetings,
11 operator discussions, and 29 stakeholder
interviews. All the input we received informed plan
recommendations and increased our understanding
of community needs as they relate to transit.
Virtual Room & Survey Responses
430
Virtual Room &
Online Surveys
430
Discussion
Groups
10
Stakeholder
Interviews
29
Public
Workshops
4
Operator
Discussions
11
Coordinating
Committee
4
Age Groups
White............................................................................ 49%
Black or African American.......................................41%
American Indian/Alaskan Native.............................2%
Asian........................................................................... 0.3%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander............. 0.3%
Prefer Not to Answer..................................................6%
Two or More Races......................................................1%
Ethnic
Groups
Current Use
Primary Mode of Transportation
75%
Drive Alone
11%
Public Transportation
2%
Walk
How important is public transportation to your community?
83%
Very Important
12%
Somewhat Important
5%
Not Important
Do you think there is a need for additional/
improved public transportation services in
your county?
90%
Yes
4%
No
7%
Not Sure
How likely are you to use public
transportation in the future?
How likely are you to support an increase
in public transportation funding?
61%
Likely &
Very Likely
22%
Unsure
18%
Unlikely &
Very Unlikely
78%
Likely &
Very Likely
14%
Unsure
8%
Unlikely &
Very Unlikely
Future Use
Under 18
1.3%
18 - 44
20.9%
75 +
11.1%
45 - 74
66.7%
Household Income (2022)
Less than $20K
$50K - $75K
More than $75K
$20K - $50K 24.7%
40.2%
18.9%
16.2%
Demographics
Transit Use

15. 11
Executive Summary
Public
Outreach
Overall, the input we received highlighted that transit is
appreciated and utilized in the study area. In the future, transit
users would like to see increased service hours to capture early
morning, evening, and weekend trips, reduced headway, increased
frequency, as well as receiving real time information regarding
the location of the next bus. The Coordinating Committee
meetings brought transit systems and stakeholders to the table to
discuss their vision for the area. At the end of the planning study,
committee members shared that they would like to stay involved
through the implementation phase. The Coordinating Committee
also expressed interest in continuing to coordinate transit solutions
with members of the committee as well as neighboring systems to
implement regional mobility solutions developed in this plan.

16. 12 Executive Summary
Alternatives
Evaluation
Alternatives Evaluation
After analyzing the plan in its entirety, 16 alternative solutions were
suggested and grouped into four categories: Service Solutions, Coordination,
Infrastructure and Technology, and Funding.
The alternatives were evaluated based on criteria such as innovation, regional
mobility impact, and cost-effectiveness, resulting in a ranked list. The report
also categorizes these solutions as near-term, mid-term, or far-term based on
their feasibility within the plan’s five-year period, offering practical guidance
for improving transit services in the study area.
Service Solutions Coordination
Funding
Infrastructure and
Technology
Alternatives
Key Recommendations
Continuing funding for
microtransit feasibility
studies and pilots
Expanding transit service
hours (especially on
weekends)
Coordinating trips to major
activity centers
Creating service
coordination funds
Establishing a mobility
manager pilot program
Assessing technology needs

17. 13
Executive Summary
Implementation
Plan
Implementation Plan
To conclude the study, an implementation plan was developed with a
comprehensive roadmap for improving transportation services over the next
seven years and beyond. Divided into three phases, the plan first focuses on
the following:
• Building the Foundation – preparing the ground for future regional transit
growth. This phase addresses operational challenges, particularly the
critical issue of driver shortage that impacts transit agencies.
• Find the Funding – where the agencies will secure additional financial
resources for expansion.
• Expand the Service – involves the actual expansion of transit services,
improving quality and efficiency. This strategic approach emphasizes
the need for a systematic and coordinated effort to meet regional
transportation needs effectively.
The plan also delves into potential costs and revenue sources. It breaks down
costs associated with each phase, outlining specific projects and their financial
implications. On the revenue side, a range of federal, state, and local funding
sources are identified. These include federal grants, state programs like the
Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) and ConCPT, as well as local
partnerships and generated revenue. The plan underscores the importance
of leveraging federal and state grants while collaborating with local entities to
ensure the successful implementation of transit improvements.
• Benefits of Transit Fact
Sheet
• Concierge Service
• Statewide Procurement
Contracts
• Microtransit Pilots
• Regional Scheduling
Software Assessment
• Large Activity Center
Coordination
• Out-of-County
Coordination Study
• Mobility Manager Pilot
• Hours of Service
• Regional Technology
Assessment
• Working Groups
• Match Requirements
• Grant Expert
• Service Coordination
Funding
• Inter-County Trip Fund
• Transfer Location
Identification &
Infrastructure
2024 - 2027 2027 - 2030 Beyond 2030
Foundation Funding Expansion

18. N.C. Department of Transportation
1501 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1501
www.ncdot.gov