introduction to milwaukee county transit system ...milwaukee county transit system fixed-route bus...
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction to Milwaukee County
Transit System Development Plan
�
�
Evaluation of existing transit system
Assessment of transit system and route performance
Comparison of MCTS to “peer” transit systems
Identification of unmet transit service needs
Preparation of short-range (5-years) plan of service
improvements and expansion
�
�
�
Who is preparing the plan?
The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission(SEWRPC) has been asked
he Commission is preparing the plan together with theMilwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) and Milwaukee CountyDepartment of Transportation and Public Works staff.
by Milwaukee County to develop theplan. T
The Milwaukee County Transit Planning AdvisoryCommittee oversees the work of the MilwaukeeCounty Transit System Development Plan.
Members of the Committee are appointed by theMilwaukee County Executive
The Committee guides technical staff in thepreparation of the plan, including the design andevaluation of transit improvement proposals.
The Committee will propose to Milwaukee County arecommended transit system development plan,identifying improvements for MCTS which shouldbe implemented over the next five years.
�
�
�
Peter W. Beitzel
Rodney A. Clark
Anita Gulotta-Connelly
Leticia Keltz
Don Natzke
Beth Nichols
Jeffrey S. Polenske
Gary Portenier
Richard Riley
Nancy Senn
James G. White
Vice President, International Trade, Transportation, and BusinessDevelopment, Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce
Director, Bureau of Transit & Local Roads, Wisconsin Departmentof Transportation
Acting Managing Director, Milwaukee County Transit System
Support Services Manager, United Migrant Opportunity Services
Director, Milwaukee County Executive’s Office for Persons withDisabilities
Executive Director, Downtown Milwaukee Management District
City Engineer, City of Milwaukee
Program Planning Coordinator, Milwaukee County Department onAging
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 998
Transportation Planning Manager, Milwaukee County Departmentof Transportation and Public Works
Supervisor, Milwaukee County
Advisory Committee
Milwaukee County Transit PlanningAdvisory Committee
Steps in the Plan Process
Steps Completed to Date
� Inventory and analysis of population, employment, landuse, and travel patterns in Milwaukee County and thefour-county Milwaukee metropolitan area
Review of the existing transit system and trends inoperation
Development of transit objectives and standards toevaluate system performance
Assessment of transit system and route performance
Comparison of MCTS performance to similar transitsystems
Initial identification of unmet transit service needs
Projection of the transit system’s future financial condition
�
�
�
�
�
�
Next Steps
� Obtain public opinion on transit system performance,unmet needs, and service improvement ideas
Finalize identification of unmet transit service needs
Develop alternative transit service improvement plans,including costs of different plans
Additional public meetings to obtain public input onservice improvement plans
Develop final recommended transit service improvementplan
�
�
�
�
Why Do We Need A Strong Transit
System in Milwaukee County?
A good public transit system is essential in the Milwaukee area:
To provide a necessary and desirable alternative to theautomobile in heavily traveled corridors and areas;
To contribute to efficiency in the transportation system,including reduced highway traffic volume and congestion andattendant air pollutant emissions and energy consumption;
To support and encourage higher density development, whichresults in efficiencies for public infrastructure and services;
To meet the travel needs of the significant portion of thepopulation (16 percent of households) without access to anautomobile; and
To meet the needs of business and industry, enhancingeconomic development and enhancing the quality of life ofCounty residents by providing job and labor force accessibilityand permitting a reduction in household expenditures ontransportation, enabling greater household savings, otherexpenditures, and a higher standard of living.
�
�
�
�
�
�
Key Findings to Date:
Executive Summary
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
MCTS outperforms its peers.
Good coverage of County
Inadequate hours and frequency of service.
Lengthy travel times.
Limited service to surrounding counties.
Dependent on State operating funding.
Potential service cuts of 35 percent may be needed if
current funding trends continue.
The transit system rankssignificantly better than comparable transit systems nationwidefor all measures of ridership and financial performanceidentified in the plan.
. Within Milwaukee County, MCTSprovides excellent coverage of residential areas, employmentlocations, and major activity centers.
Although thetransit system provides excellent coverage, it does providelimited hours and infrequent buses on many routes, particularlyon weekends.
Because most of the service isprovided by local buses in mixed traffic with frequent stops,transit travel time is slow.
Transit service isnot available to take Milwaukee County residents to many jobsand activity centers in surrounding counties, or if available, isvery limited in hours, frequency, and travel times.
The transit systemdepends heavily on State operating funding, which has notkept pace with inflation. MCTS has had to increase fares, cutservice, and use up its “bank” of Federal capital funds foroperating expenses.
Without increases in Statetransit assistance funds sufficient to address cost inflation, andwithout a dedicated local funding source for transit, MCTS canexpect to deplete its “bank” of remaining Federal capital funds.It would then face implementing drastic service cuts--up to a35 percent reduction by 2010.
�
Population
TRANSIT-DEPENDENT POPULATIONS: 2000
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1 2 MILES
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 FEET
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and SEWRPC.
THE FOLLOWING POPULATIONGROUPS WERE CATEGORIZEDAS TRANSIT DEPENDENT:1) SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN
(AGE 12-16),2) ELDERLY PERSONS (AGE 65
AND OLDER),3) PERSONS IN LOW-INCOME
FAMILIES,4) DISABLED PERSONS, AND5) HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO
VEHICLE AVAILABLE.
NOTE:
AREAS WITH ABOVE-AVERAGEPERCENTAGES IN 2 OR FEWERTRANSIT-DEPENDENT GROUPS
AREAS WITH ABOVE-AVERAGEPERCENTAGES IN ALL 5TRANSIT-DEPENDENT GROUPS
AREAS WITH ABOVE-AVERAGEPERCENTAGES IN 4 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT GROUPS
AREAS WITH ABOVE-AVERAGEPERCENTAGES IN 3 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT GROUPS
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and SEWRPC.
MINORITY POPULATION: 2000
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1 2 MILES
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 FEET
THE MINORITY POPULATIONINCLUDES PERSONSIDENTIFIED IN THE 2000CENSUS AS BLACK/AFRICANAMERICAN, AMERICAN INDIANAND ALASKA NATIVE, ASIANAND PACIFIC ISLANDER,OTHER RACIAL MINORITY,AND HISPANIC.
NOTE:
CENSUS BLOCKS WHEREMINORITY POPULATIONEXCEEDS THECOUNTYWIDE AVERAGE(38.6 PERCENT)
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DENSITY:
2000
Source: SEWRPC.
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1 2 MILES
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 FEET
LESS THAN 4.0 DWELLINGUNITS PER NETRESIDENTIAL ACRE
4.0 TO 6.9 DWELLING UNITSPER NET RESIDENTIAL ACRE
7.0 TO 8.9 DWELLING UNITSPER NET RESIDENTIAL ACRE
9.0 TO 14.9 DWELLING UNITSPER NET RESIDENTIAL ACRE
15.0 OR MORE DWELLINGUNITS PER NETRESIDENTIAL ACRE
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
�
�
�
�
Since 1960, Milwaukee County's total populationhas decreased by about 9 percent, modestlyreducing the size of the market for MCTS transitservice. By comparison, the total population inadjacent Ozaukee, Washington, and WaukeshaCounties has increased by about 138 percent.
Much of central Milwaukee County hasresidential densities capable of supporting fixed-route bus service. Newer residential areas on thenorthwest side of the City of Milwaukee and in theCities of Franklin and Oak Creek presentchallenges for providing fixed-route bus service.
Some population groups with limited access tothe automobile may be categorized as “transit-dependent ” . The h ighes t res iden t ia lconcentrations of these persons are in the east-central and northwestern portions of the County.
The concentrations of the transit-dependentpersons generally coincides with that for the totalminority population in Milwaukee County.
Transit-Supportive Areas and
Major Activity Centers
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 8 164 24 32,000 FEET
0 1 2 3 6 MILES4 5
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 7 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DENSITY
EMPLOYMENT DENSITY OF 4 OR MORE JOBS PER ACRE
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE AREAS
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE AREAS INTHE MILWAUKEE AREA: 2000
Source: SEWRPC.
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 8 164 24 32,000 FEET
0 1 2 3 6 MILES4 5
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS INTHE MILWAUKEE AREA: FALL 2004
Source: SEWRPC.
MAJOR OFFICE OR INDUSTRIAL AREA
EMPLOYER WITH 500 OR MORE EMPLOYEES
MEDICAL, SCHOOL, SHOPPING, GOVERNMENT, RECREATION, ORPASSENGER TRANSPORT CENTER
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER
�
�
�
Total employment in Milwaukee County has increased by about 17 percent from1960 to 2003. This compares with an increase of 550 percent during the sameperiod in bordering Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha Counties. The jobgrowth in these bordering counties and in the northern, western, and southernportions of Milwaukee County has led to the creation of new transit services,largely sponsored and funded by Waukesha and Ozaukee Counties, designedto connect Milwaukee County residents to jobs.
Most Milwaukee-area major activity centers for medical, school, shopping,government, recreation and intercity rail and bus passenger transport arelocated within Milwaukee County. However, the major activity centers relatedto employment (large employers and major office and industrial parks) arewidely dispersed throughout the four-county Milwaukee area.
Areas with transit-supportive residential densities (at least seven dwelling unitsper acre) and/or employment densities (at least four jobs per acre) can be foundthroughout Milwaukee County, except in the far southern portion.
Travel Patterns
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
0
2
10
4
20
6
30
8
40
10
50
MILES
60,000 FEET
9,5
00
6,9
00
8,1004,400
41
,60
0
59
,50
039,9
00
21,3
00
253,200
247,800
47
,80
0
24
,50
0
MILWAUKEE CO.
WASHINGTON CO. OZAUKEE CO.
WAUKESHA CO.
MILWAUKEE CO.
RACINE CO.
KENOSHA CO.WALWORTH CO.
NOTE: TRIPS ARE DISPLAYED BY THENUMBER OF “ROUND TRIPS” MADE BYRESIDENTS OF EACH COUNTY LEAVINGFROM AND RETURNING TO EACH COUNTY.FOR EXAMPLE, A WAUKESHA COUNTYRESIDENT COMMUTING FROM WAUKESHATO MILWAUKEE FOR WORK ANDRETURNING TO WAUKESHA AFTER WORKIS COUNTED TWICE IN THE ARROW FROMWAUKESHA TO MILWAUKEE.
DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE WEEKDAYINTERCOUNTY PERSON TRIPS MILWAUKEE
COUNTY AND SURROUNDING COUNTIES: 2001BETWEEN
Source: SEWRPC.
�
�
�
�
Travel surveys undertaken by the Regional Planning Commission indicatethat average weekday total intra-county person trips—those made entirelywithin Milwaukee County—increased by about 14 percent from 1963 to2001.
Inter-county trips—those made between Milwaukee County and one of theother six counties in the Southeastern Wisconsin Region—increased byabout 210 percent from 1963 to 2001.
Despite the large increase in inter-county trips from 1963 to 2001, themajority (77 percent, or 2.5 million trips) of all Milwaukee County person tripswere made entirely within the County in 2001.
About two-thirds of all the Milwaukee County inter-county person trips in2001 were made between Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties. Most ofthese trips occurred between central Milwaukee County and easternWaukesha County.
Existing Transit Services
0 1 2 3½ 4 MILES
GRAPHIC SCALE
CONNECTING RAPID BUSROUTE THAT SERVES REVERSECOMMUTE TRAVEL
CONNECTING RAPID BUSROUTE THAT DOES NOT SERVEREVERSE COMMUTE TRAVEL
CONNECTING LOCAL BUS ORSHUTTLE ROUTE THAT SERVESREVERSE COMMUTE TRAVEL
ONE QUARTER-MILE WALKDISTANCE FROM CONNECTINGBUS ROUTES THAT SERVEREVERSE COMMUTE TRAVEL
PARK-RIDE LOT
OTHER MAJOR STOP
TO RACINEAND KENOSHA
CONNECTING BUS SERVICES PROVIDED BYOTHER TRANSIT OPERATORS OUTSIDE
MILWAUKEE COUNTY: FALL 2006
Source: SEWRPC.
ONE-QUARTER MILEWALK DISTANCEFROM BUS ROUTES
FREEWAY FLYER /UBUS BUS ROUTE
LOCAL / SHUTTLEBUS ROUTE
Source: SEWRPC.
EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICEPROVIDED BY MCTS: FALL 2006
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1 2 3 MILES
BAYSIDE PARK-RIDE LOT
The MCTS fixed-route bus services currently include:
Freeway flyer service on 9 high-speed busroutes connecting
downtown Milwaukee. Serviceis limited to weekday morning and afternoonpeak periods;
Local and shuttle bus service over 31 local andshuttle routes operating over arterial andcollector streets with frequent stops; and
Special school day bus services, including ninehigh school and middle school routes and threeUBUS routes.
Transit Plus paratransit service is availablefor disabled individuals who are
unable to use the fixed-route bus service.
Transit Plus provides curb-to-curb taxicabservice for ambulatory disabled individuals,and door-to-door van service for disabledindividuals who require an accessible vehicleand/or some driver assistance.
Available during the same periods as theMilwaukee County Transit System fixed-routebus service.
Disabled individuals can also use theaccessible bus service provided on all regularroutes of the transit system.
outlying residential areas inthe County and
throughoutMilwaukee County
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
The MCTS routes connect with other bus routessponsored by other local governments in southeasternWisconsin.
Some connecting bus routes can be used byMilwaukee County residents to access jobsand major activity centers outside MilwaukeeCounty, including MCTS routes funded byOzaukee and Waukesha Counties (Route No.143 and Route Nos. 8, 9, and 10 west of theMilwaukee-Waukesha County line), androutes operated by Wisconsin Coach Lines,Inc. and the Waukesha Metro Transit Systemfunded by Waukesha County and/or the Cityof Waukesha.
There are also connecting bus routes whichdo not provide service that can be used byMilwaukee County residents for reversecommute travel, including the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee service sponsored by theCity of Racine; the West Bend-Milwaukeeservice sponsored by Washington County;and the Oconomowoc-Milwaukee,Mukwonago-Milwaukee, and MenomoneeFalls-Milwaukee services sponsored by
�
�
Historic Ridership
and Service Levels
Ridership data for 1975 through1977 have been adjusted to include passengersusing a weekly pass to transfer to make the ridership comparable to that reportedfrom1978tothepresent.
a
Service data for 1975 through 1984 have been adjusted to remove deadheadvehicle miles and vehicle hours to make the service comparable to that reportedfrom 1985 to the present.
Ridership and service data for 1978 reflect less than 12 months of operationdue to a bus operator's strike.
b
ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES AND VEHICLE HOURS OF SERVICEc
ANNUAL RIDERSHIP
ANNUAL RIDERSHIP AND SERVICE LEVELS FORFIXED-ROUTE BUS SERVICE PROVIDED BY MCTS :
Source: Milwaukee County Transit System and SEWRPC.
RE
VE
NU
EP
AS
SE
NG
ER
S(M
ILL
ION
S)a
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
b
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
RE
VE
NU
EV
EH
ICL
EM
ILE
S(M
ILL
ION
S)
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2.4
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0R
EV
EN
UE
VE
HIC
LE
HO
UR
S(M
ILL
ION
S)
REVENUE VEHICLE HOURS
REVENUE VEHICLE MILES
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
b
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
YEAR
YEAR
c
�
�
�
�
�
About 45 percent of the travel madeon the transit system is to and fromwork, 25 percent to and from school,10 percent for shopping, and the other20 percent for medical, social,recreational, and other purposes.
Transit ridership is highly linked withthe level of service provided, such ashours of operation, and frequency ofservice.
As shown in the figures to the right,since the year 2000, the transit systemhas cut annual vehicle miles by 17percent and annual vehicle hours by16 percent; increased adult cash farestwice; and raised the price of weeklypasses four times.
Ridership on the bus system declinedby 12 percent between 2000 and2005.
Several factors have contributed to thegeneral decline of ridership on thetransit system since the early 1980's.These factors include:
The decrease in population inMilwaukee County
The decline in residential andemployment density in the County
An increase in automobileownership and use
Fare increases and servicereductions implemented by thetransit system during the period
�
�
�
�
Operating and Capital Costs
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
DO
LL
AR
S(I
NM
ILL
ION
S)
OPERATING EXPENSESOPERATING REVENUESOPERATING ASSISTANCE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
DO
LL
AR
S(I
NM
ILL
ION
S)
OPERATING EXPENSESOPERATING REVENUESOPERATING ASSISTANCE
CONSTANT 1975 DOLLARSACTUAL DOLLARS
Source: Milwaukee County Department of Public Works, Milwaukee County Transit System and SEWRPC.
ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES, OPERATINGREVENUES, AND OPERATING ASSISTANCE: 1975-2005MCTS
YEAR YEAR
0 0
�
�
�
�
Total operating expenses for the transit system have risen since the systembegan public operation in 1975, as displayed in the figures above. Theincrease in operating expenses since 1990 reflects bus service expansionbetween 1995 and 2000, and changes to the Transit Plus paratransit service tocomply with Federal ADA requirements.
Since 2000, fares and other operating revenues paid for about 32 percent ofaverage annual operating costs for the combined bus and paratransit system.
The transit system is heavily dependent on State funding, with the Stateproviding about 63 percent of all Milwaukee County Transit System publicoperating funding.
About 80 percent of capital expenditures are funded through Federal transitcapital assistance programs, and the remaining 20 percent come fromMilwaukee County.
FEDERAL FUNDS
$10,959,400
STATE FUNDS
$55,076,700
OPERATING REVENUES
$39,690,900
COUNTY FUNDS
$18,615,800
15%
32%
44%
9%
DISTRIBUTION OF MCTS TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATINGEXPENSES BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: 2000 AND 2005
2000 2005
Source: Milwaukee County Department of Public Works, Milwaukee County Transit System and SEWRPC.
COUNTY FUNDS$17,352,300
OPERATING REVENUES
$46,783,600
STATE FUNDS
$59,072,300
FEDERAL FUNDS
$20,022,800
12%
33%
14%
41%
Drawdown of Federal Funds
DRAWDOWN OF MCTS “BANK” OFFEDERAL TRANSIT CAPITAL ASSISTANCE
�
�
In 2001, MCTS had a “bank” of $37 million in unspent Federal Transit Administration(FTA) funds intended for capital projects. This bank existed because the transit systemhad not fully spent the Federal transit capital assistance funds it had been allocated inprevious years, and the unspent funds were still available to Milwaukee County.
From 2001 to 2006, MCTS increased its use of these funds to support capitalizedmaintenance items included in its operating costs. By drawing upon these funds, thetransit system was able to limit the need for increases in County tax levy funding, farehikes, and service reductions. As shown in the figure below, the balance of these fundshad been drawn down to about $12 million at the beginning of 2006.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
YEAR
FE
DE
RA
LT
RA
NS
ITC
AP
ITA
LA
SS
ISTA
NC
E(M
ILLIO
NS
OF
DO
LLA
RS
)
BALANCE OF UNSPENT FUNDS
ANNUAL CAPITALIZEDMAINTENANCE FUNDS
0
Planning Objectives and Standards
The following five transit service objectives serve as a basis for assessing theperformance of the transit system, identifying unmet transit service needs, anddesigning and recommending improvements:
1.The public transit system should effectively serve the existing land usepattern and support the implementation of planned land uses, meetingthe demand and need for transit services, and particularly the needs ofthe transit-dependent population;
2.The transit system should promote effective utilization of transit serviceand operate service that is reliable and provides for user convenienceand comfort;
3.The transit system should promote the safety and security of itspassengers, operating equipment and facilities, and personnel;
4.The public transit system should promote efficiency in the totaltransportation system; and
5.The public transit system should be economical and efficient, meetingall other objectives at the lowest possible cost.
Each of the above transit service objectives is supported by a planningprinciple and a set of standards intended to quantify the achievement of eachobjective.
Evaluation of Transit System:
Outperformed Peer Transit Systems
Operating Dataa
Peer Group Descriptive Statistics
Performance Measureb
MilwaukeeCountyTransitSystem Minimum Average Maximum
Milwaukee CountyTransit System
Rankc
Service Effectiveness
Passengers per Capita
Passengers per RevenueVehicle Mile
Passengers per RevenueVehicle Hour
71.2
3.5
45.5
13.9
1.7
25.3
30.4
2.3
30.7
48.0
3.1
41.2
1
1
1
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense perRevenue VehicleMile
Operating Expense perRevenue VehicleHour
$ 5.35
$69.41
$ 4.89
$63.56
$ 6.32
$85.52
$ 8.72
$102.04
5
3
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense perPassenger
Total OperatingAssistance perPassenger
Farebox Recovery Ratefor All Service
$ 1.52
$ 1.01
33.8
$ 2.30
$ 1.49
15.2
$ 2.81
$ 2.22
21.5
$ 3.44
$ 2.81
35.0
1
1
2
aBased on data obtained from the Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database for 2000, published
in the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Transit System Management Performance Audit of theMilwaukee County System, August 2002.
bKey performance indicators were developed based on information reported by thirteen other urban bus systems
selected in the Performance Audit.
cRank of 1 is best, 14 is worst.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation
COMPARISON OF RIDERSHIP AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCEMEASURES BETWEEN MCTS AND PEER GROUP: 2000
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) completeda management performance audit of MCTS in 2003, which includeda comparison of the performance of the transit system to that for apeer group of 13 similar transit systems in the United States.
The peer transit systems all operated within metropolitan areas withpopulations similar to Milwaukee County, were located in a northernclimate, and had a similar bus fleet size.
The peer comparison concluded that the Milwaukee County TransitSystem outperformed its peers for all measures of ridership andfinancial performance, as shown in the table below.
While noting MCTS’ exceptional performance, the audit referred tothe service reductions which were implemented since 2000 andwarned that further transit system reductions could potentiallydamage the system's performance.
TRANSIT-DEPENDENT POPULATIONS IN RELATION
TO MCTS WALK ACCESS SERVICE AREA: 2005
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1 2 MILES
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 FEET
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and SEWRPC.
NOTE:
AREAS WITH ABOVE-AVERAGEPERCENTAGES IN ALL 5TRANSIT-DEPENDENT GROUPS
AREAS WITH ABOVE-AVERAGEPERCENTAGES IN 4 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT GROUPS
AREAS WITH ABOVE-AVERAGEPERCENTAGES IN 3 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT GROUPS
AREAS WITH ABOVE-AVERAGEPERCENTAGES IN 2 OR FEWERTRANSIT-DEPENDENT GROUPS
TRANSIT SERVICE AREA
THE FOLLOWING POPULATIONGROUPS WERE CATEGORIZEDAS TRANSIT DEPENDENT:1) SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN
(AGE 12-16),2) ELDERLY PERSONS (AGE 65
AND OLDER),3) PERSONS IN LOW-INCOME
FAMILIES,4) DISABLED PERSONS, AND5) HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO
VEHICLE AVAILABLE.
MINORITY POPULATION IN RELATION TOMCTS WALK ACCESS SERVICE AREA: 2005
NOTE: THE MINORITY POPULATIONINCLUDES PERSONSIDENTIFIED IN THE 2000CENSUS AS BLACK/AFRICANAMERICAN, AMERICAN INDIANAND ALASKA NATIVE, ASIANAND PACIFIC ISLANDER,OTHER RACIAL MINORITY,AND HISPANIC.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and SEWRPC.
CENSUS BLOCKS WHEREMINORITY POPULATIONEXCEEDS THE COUNTYWIDEAVERAGE (38.6 PERCENT)
TRANSIT SERVICE AREA
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1 2 MILES
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 FEET
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DENSITY IN RELATION
TO MCTS WALK ACCESS SERVICE AREA: 2005
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1 2 MILES
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 FEET
Source: SEWRPC.
LESS THAN 4.0 DWELLING
UNITS PER NET
RESIDENTIAL ACRE
4.0 TO 6.9 DWELLING
UNITS PER NET
RESIDENTIAL ACRE
7.0 TO 8.9 DWELLING
UNITS PER NET
RESIDENTIAL ACRE
9.0 TO 14.9 DWELLING
UNITS PER NET
RESIDENTIAL ACRE
15.0 OR MORE DWELLING
UNITS PER NET
RESIDENTIAL ACRE
TRANSIT SERVICE AREA
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
�The transit service objectives and standardswere applied in a systemwide evaluation ofMCTS transit. This evaluation identifiedexcellent performance for the transit systemfor its overall coverage
About 91 percent of the total Countypopulation resides within a convenient
.
Virtually all of the census block groupswith concentrations of
transit-dependent persons are within aone-quarter mile walk of a local route
of the County’sresidential areas and special populationgroups.
one-quarter mile walk of a local route ofthe system
within the County
All of the census tracts within the Countyw i t h a b o v e - a v e r a g e m i n o r i t ypopulations are within a one-quarter milewalk of a local route.
�
�
�
Evaluation of Transit System:
Excellent Coverage of
Residential Areas
Evaluation of Transit System:
Excellent Coverage of
Transit-Supportive Areas and
Major Activity Centers
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 8 164 24 32,000 FEET
0 1 2 3 6 MILES4 5
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 7 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DENSITY
EMPLOYMENT DENSITY OF 4 OR MORE JOBS PER ACRE
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE AREAS
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE AREAS INTHE MILWAUKEE AREA: 2000
Source: SEWRPC.
TRANSIT SERVICE AREA FOR MILWAUKEE COUNTY SPONSORED ROUTES
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 8 164 24 32,000 FEET
0 1 2 3 6 MILES4 5
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS INTHE MILWAUKEE AREA: FALL 2004
Source: SEWRPC.
MAJOR OFFICE OR INDUSTRIAL AREA
EMPLOYER WITH 500 OR MORE EMPLOYEES
MEDICAL, SCHOOL, SHOPPING, GOVERNMENT, RECREATION, ORPASSENGER TRANSPORT CENTER
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER
TRANSIT SERVICE AREA FOR MILWAUKEE COUNTY SPONSORED ROUTES
� The systemwide evaluation also identified excellent performance for the overallcoverage of the activity centers and transit-supportiveland areas in Milwaukee County.
In total, 81 of the 86 major employers, 22 of the 25 office and industrial parks, and68 of the 70 other activity centers in the County are
.
The majority of the transit-supportive areas in Milwaukee County (areas with theresidential and employment densities considered necessary to support fixed-route bus service) are .
provided by the transit system
within a one-quarter mile walkof a local route
within a one-quarter mile walk of a local route
�
�
Evaluation: Route Effectiveness
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
27 30 35 22 62 21 19 18 63 60 12 23 80 10 67 54 15 76 14 20 11 53 31 51 57 55 64 28 68 219
REGULAR ROUTES
BO
AR
DIN
GP
AS
SE
NG
ER
SP
ER
RE
VE
NU
EV
EH
ICL
EH
OU
R
22
MINIMUM LEVEL FOR WEEKDAYS
WEEKDAY PASSENGERS PER REVENUE VEHICLE HOURON MCTS LOCAL ROUTES: 2004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 43 46 44 48 39 49 47 45 61 59 4BV 85 88 50 4AH 87 89 16U 40U 49U
FREEWAY FLYER ROUTES
BO
AR
DIN
GP
AS
SE
NG
ER
SP
ER
RE
VE
NU
EV
EH
ICLE
HO
UR
HIGH/MIDDLE SCHOOL ROUTES UBUS ROUTES
MINIMUM LEVEL FOR WEEKDAYS
22
WEEKDAY PASSENGERS PER REVENUE VEHICLE HOUR ONFREEWAY FLYER, HIGH/MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND UBUS ROUTES: 2004
MCTS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
27 21 63 30 18 60 35 12 22 23 62 19 14 67 76 10 55 15 51 80 137 28 54 20 53 31 11 57 64 68
LOCAL/SHUTTLE ROUTES
BO
AR
DIN
GP
AS
SE
NG
ER
SP
ER
RE
VE
NU
EV
EH
ICLE
HO
UR
Saturdays Sundays
Source: Milwaukee County Transit System and SEWRPC
SATURDAY/SUNDAY PASSENGERS PER REVENUE VEHICLE HOURON MCTS LOCAL ROUTES: 2004
�
�
�
�
On weekdays, 26 of 31 local routesmeet or exceed the performancestandard for route effectiveness (22boarding passengers per revenuehour)
Freeway flyer and UBUS routesmostly do not meet the performancestandard for route effectiveness.The low performance levels for thefreeway flyer and UBUS routes maybe attributed to “deadhead” tripsoperated in the nonpeak direction toput vehicles in position to make apeak direction trip.
On Saturdays, 26 of 30 routesexceed the performance standardfor route effectiveness (15passengers per bus hour onSaturdays)
On Sundays, 26 of 28 routes exceedthe route effectiveness performancestandards defined for Sunday (10passengers per bus hour)
Staff also evaluated the transit system on a route-by-route basis to measureroute performance. Each route of the transit system was reviewed on severalmeasures, including the ridership and service efficiency and effectiveness ofeach route. The route performance evaluation found that, in terms of routeeffectiveness, most MCTS routes perform very well, as shown on the chartsbelow:
Evaluation of the Transit System: Unmet Need
to Unserved Areas and Activity Centers
Source: SEWRPC.
AREAS WITH UNMET TRANSIT SERVICE NEEDSFOR MILWAUKEE COUNTY RESIDENTS WITH RESPECTTO LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICE AREA COVERAGE: 2005
EXISTING TRANSITSERVICE AREA
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVERESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENTDENSITIES
MAJOR EMPLOYER OR OFFICEAND INDUSTRIAL PARK/AREA
UNSERVED MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVERESIDENTIAL DENSITY
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVEEMPLOYMENT DENSITY
NONEMPLOYMENT CENTER
UNSERVED RESIDENTIAL AREAS ANDEMPLOYMENT CONCENTRATIONS
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1 2 3 MILES
The map below identifies areas within and just outside MilwaukeeCounty with transit-supportive residential and employment densities, ormajor activity centers that are not served at all by the routes of thetransit system. Problem areas include the western, southern,northwest, and northeast portions of the County, and in particular:
In the Cities of Franklin and Oak Creek, the Franklin Industrialand Business Parks and the Southbranch Industrial Park
In the far northwestern portion of Milwaukee County, theTowne Corporate Park of Granville
Areas with transit-supportive employment densities along thewestern edge of Milwaukee County
�
�
�
MCTS provided busservice to many of theseareas during the last 10years by regular orshuttle routes of thetransit system. However,the services were not aseffective as the otherroutes and service of thetransit system, and werepart of the servicereductions over the pastseveral years.
Evaluation of Transit System: Unmet
Need for Longer Service Hours
The maps below display the local route segments over which less than20 hours of service is provided on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.Of most concern are the local route segments over which less than 16hours of service is provided, as these routes would not serve thestarting and ending times of second and third shifts.
On weekdays, 25 of 31 local routes meet the desirable standard of20 hours of service.
On Saturdays, only 14 out of 31 local routes meet the desirablestandard of 20 hours of service.
On Sundays, only 9 out of 30 local routes meet the desirablestandard of 20 hours of service.
Freeway flyer routes do not meet the desirable standard of 20hours of service, as they operate only during weekday peakperiods, with no midday or evening service. UBUS routes do notmeet the desirable standard, either.
�
�
�
�
WEEKDAY, SATURDAY, AND SUNDAY HOURS OF SERVICE FOR MCTS BUS ROUTES: 2004
SATURDAY REGULAR ROUTES SUNDAY REGULAR ROUTESWEEKDAY REGULAR ROUTES
HOURS OF SERVICE ON ROUTE SEGMENT
20 or more
17 - 19
14 - 16
12 - 13
4 - 11
3 or less
SERVICE AREA FOR ROUTES MEETINGDESIRABLE SERVICE HOURS STANDARD(SERVICE AVAILABLE 5:00a.m. - 1:00a.m.)
WHERE MORE THAN ONE ROUTE OPERATES OVER ASTREET SEGMENT, THE MAPS DISPLAY INFORMATIONFOR THE ROUTE HAVING THE LONGEST SERVICE
Evaluation of Transit System: Unmet
Need for More Frequent Service
NEW
BERLIN
NEW
BERLIN
MORNING OR AFTERNOON PEAK PERIODS MIDDAY OR EARLY EVENING OFF-PEAK PERIODS
AREAS WITH UNMET NEED FOR ON MCTS
LOCAL/SHUTTLE BUS ROUTES DURING MORNING PEAK AND OFF-PEAK PERIODS
MORE FREQUENT SERVICE
Source: Milwaukee County Transit System and SEWRPC.
SERVICE AREA FOR ROUTESWITH SERVICE FREQUENCY OFLESS THAN 10 MINUTES DURINGPEAK PERIODS AND LESS THAN20 MINUTES DURING OFF-PEAKPERIODS
SERVICE AREA FOR ROUTESWITH INADEQUATE SERVICEFREQUENCIES
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 2 4 MILES1
MCTS uses a grid system of local routes, so transfers between one ormore routes are generally required to complete a trip by public transit.The frequency of service on the routes directly affects the convenienceof transferring and the travel time by transit.
Only the central portion of the County currently enjoys desirableheadways for local and shuttle routes (see map below)
During weekday peak periods when most work and school trips aremade, less than 30 percent of the County population, and less than37 percent of the jobs in the County, are served by routes withdesirable headways of 10 minutes or less
No freeway flyer or UBUS routes have headways that conform withdesirable headways
The low service frequency is largely the result of service reductionsover the past five years.
�
�
�
Unmet Need: Evaluation of Transit
System for Faster Travel Times
OVERALL TRANSIT TRAVEL TIMEINCLUDES TIME WALKING TO ABUS STOP, WAITING FOR THEBUS, RIDING THE BUS, WAITINGFOR A TRANSFER (IFNECESSARY) AND WALKINGFROM THE BUS STOP.
NOTE:
SELECTED LOCATIONS
TRANSIT IS 1.51 TO 2.0 TIMESLONGER THAN AUTOMOBILE
TRANSIT IS 2.0 TO 3.0 TIMESLONGER THAN AUTOMOBILE
TRANSIT IS 3.0 TO 4.0 TIMESLONGER THAN AUTOMOBILE
TRANSIT IS 4.0 TO 5.0 TIMESLONGER THAN AUTOMOBILE
TRANSIT IS MORE THAN 5.0TIMES LONGER THANAUTOMOBILE
RATIO OF TRANSIT-TO-AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL TIME
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1 2 MILES
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 FEET
Source: SEWRPC.
RATIOS OF OVERALL TRANSIT TRAVEL TIMES TO OVERALL AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL TIMES BETWEENSELECTED LOCATIONS FOR WEEKDAY MORNING AND MIDDAY PERIODS: 2005 ESTIMATED
MORNING PEAK PERIOD MIDDAY OFF-PEAK PERIOD
Transit travel time is generally between 2 to 4 times more thanautomobile travel time for comparable trips. Ratios of transit-toautomobile travel times between selected locations within theCounty during weekday morning peak period and midday off-peakperiod are displayed on the maps below.
The lengthy transit travel time is a result of the following:
Local bus routes with low operating speeds operating in mixedtraffic provide the majority of transit service in the system
Lack of tools such as traffic signal priority to extend green lightsfor buses, and reserved lanes for buses at peak hours toincrease bus travel speeds.
Service cuts since 2000 reduced service frequency oreliminated route segments or entire routes. The grid system ofroutes operated by MCTS needs good service frequencies tomake transfers between routes convenient and keep waitingand overall travel times low. The recent service cutslengthened wait times particularly during off-peak periods.
�
�
�
Unmet Need: Limited Service
Connecting to Outlying Counties
Milwaukee County residents have unmet needs for travel betweenMilwaukee County and the other surrounding counties ofSoutheastern Wisconsin:
Lack of Service
Limited Service Hours and Frequency
Lengthy Travel Times:
Coordination of Transit Fares and Information
: Many major activity centers and significantjob concentrations outside Milwaukee County do not havepublic transit service connecting to Milwaukee Countyresidents
: The transit servicescurrently available to connect Milwaukee County residentswith jobs and activity centers in the surrounding counties withrare exception have limited weekday service hours and areoperated with infrequent trips.
Transit service connecting MilwaukeeCounty residents with surrounding counties in many casesinvolves slower local bus service, and/or requires use of aconnecting local bus route in Milwaukee County.
: Whilediscounted fares for passengers transferring between thedifferent transit systems are offered, the discounts andtransfer arrangements are not uniform among all the transitservices connecting with the Milwaukee County TransitSystem.
Milwaukee County’s policy is not to provide any transit servicesconnecting with the surrounding counties unless it receivesfinancial assistance for the service. This includes the transitservices that would allow Milwaukee County residents to accessjob sites and activity centers in the other counties. The transitservices that exist today for intercounty transit travel by MilwaukeeCounty residents are sponsored and funded by the surroundingcounties.
The lack of a regional transit authority and adequate transit fundinghas hindered the implementation of service connecting MilwaukeeCounty residents to the other counties of Southeastern Wisconsin.
�
�
�
�
Potential Future Direction
0
MCTS is heavily dependent on State funding: the State hashistorically provided about 65 percent to 70 percent of publicoperating funding.
Between 2000 and 2005, the State increased operating assistancefunding by less than 1.5 percent per year (less than inflation).
Milwaukee County annual funding remained about the same($17-18 million).
MCTS reduced service by 15 percent and increased fares 17 to 30percent between 2000 and 2005.
In order to avoid more service cuts and fare hikes, Milwaukee Countytapped into its balance of Federal transit funds (see chart below),drawing them down from $37 million in 2001 to $15 million in 2005.
Milwaukee County’s balance of unspent Federal transit funds maybe expected to be depleted by 2010.
�
�
�
�
DRAWDOWN OF FEDERAL TRANSIT CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FUNDS
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
YEAR
BA
LA
NC
EO
FU
NS
PE
NT
FE
DE
RA
LT
RA
NS
ITC
AP
ITA
LA
SS
IST
AN
CE
(MIL
LIO
NS
OF
DO
LL
AR
S)
Potential Future Direction–
Examples of Possible Service CutsAs part of the evaluation, planning staff developed a potential future for the transitsystem, with the following assumptions:
To illustrate what this forecast 35 percent reduction could mean, two service reductionoptions were developed and are shown below.
�
�
�
�
�
Future Federal funding for capital and operating increases at 4 to 5 percentannually (in accordance with Federal authorizing legislation)
State transit operating assistance increases at 2 percent per year
County property tax levy for MCTS bus and paratransit is held to 2005 levels($17 million)
Bank of Federal funds is depleted, and annual Federal funds received ofabout $21 million must be expended on capital projects ($14 million),leaving $7 million for annual operating funding
Fare increases of 15 to 20 percent over 5 year period
Result: The transit system would need to cut bus service by about 35 percent by theyear 2010. Transit Plus paratransit service could also be affected.
Option A Option B
�
�
�
�
Eliminate weekday and Saturdayservice after 10:00 p.m. and limitSunday service to between 9:00a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Eliminate 7 of 31 local routes
Cut back or restructure service on17 local routes
Eliminate Freeway Flyer andUBUS routes
�
�
�
�
Maintain service hours
Eliminate 10 of 31 local routes
Cut back or restructure serviceon 14 local routes
Eliminate Freeway Flyer andUBUS routes
Your Suggestions For Service
Changes: Vote Your Preference!
Potential Service Improvements or Changes Number of “Votes”
New routes in Milwaukee County
Express bus service
More frequent service
Better transfer connections
Longer service hours/weekend service
Reduce travel time for long trips
Restore services that were cut since the year 2000
Go back to fares charged in the year 2000
New routes in bordering counties
Route extensions in Milwaukee County
Route extensions in bordering counties
Freeway Flyer service
Your Suggestions For Service Changes:
Where do You Have a Problem?
Your Suggestions For
Service Changes: Comments