nwgrc study 3 - whitfield county, georgiacensus commuter data-means of travel to work 24 table 3....

Transit Development and

Coordination Plan

Northwest Georgia Regional Commission

JUNE 2010

www.streetsmarts.us3160 Main St., Suite 100

Duluth, GA 30096Phone: 770.813.0882

TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION PLAN NORTHWEST GEORGIA REGIONAL COMMISSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

TASK 1. STUDY AREA INVENTORY 3

Previous Study Review 3

Existing Provider Profiles 5

Transit Service Beyond the Study Area 6

Park N Ride Lots 9

TASK 2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 10

Demographic Analysis 10

Major Study Area Destinations 22

Employment Commuting Patterns 24

TASK 3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 31

Stakeholder Interviews 31

Public Surveys 32

Public Meetings 34

TASK 4. DEVELOPING COORDINATED ACTIONS-SERVICE STRATEGIES

35

Summary of Transit Potential 35

Potential Demand for Rural Transit Service 36

Transit Needs / Issues 38

Service Options 39

Summary 43

TASK 5. ORGANIZATIONAL AND FUNDING OPTIONS 45

Funding Resources 45

Organizational Issues 49

Implementation Strategies 51

Conclusion 58


Figure 2. Transit Service Beyond the Study Area 9

Figure 3. Elderly Population by Density 12

Figure 4. Youth Population by Density 13

Figure 5. Limited Mobility Population by Density 14

Figure 6. Low Income Population by Density 15

Figure 7. Autoless Household Population by Density 16

Figure 8. Elderly Population 17

Figure 9. Youth Population 18

Figure 10. Limited Mobility Population 19

Figure 11. Low Income Population 20

Figure 12. Autoless Household Population 21

Figure 13. Study Area Destinations 23

Figure 14. Out-of-State Working Population 25

Figure 15. In-State, Out-of-County Working Population 26

Figure 16. Bartow County Commuter Population 27

Figure 17. Gordon County Commuter Population 28

Figure 18. Whitfield County Commuter Population 29

Figure 19. Catoosa County Commuter Population 30

TABLES

Table 1. Census Characteristics for the Study Area 11

Table 2. Census Commuter Data-Means of Travel to Work 24

Table 3. Census Commuter Data-Place of Work 24

Table 4. Public Survey Results 33

Table 5. Top Two Employment Destinations 36

Table 6. Estimated Demand for Section 5311 Trips 38

Table 7. FTA Section 5311 Rural Public Transportation 47

Table 8. Implementation Table 52

Table 9. Mobility Manager’s Projected Budget 56

Figure 1. Study Area 2

FIGURES


INTRODUCTION

The Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (NWGRC) is a multi-county organization

consisting of fifteen (15) Northwest Georgia counties and forty-nine (49) municipalities.

The NWGRC fosters an atmosphere that encourages these counties and municipalities

to work together to identify common problems and opportunities and to seek

countywide solutions through joint plans. In keeping with this principle, a Transit

Development and Coordination (TDCP) has been developed for the four county area in

the region that contains the I-75 corridor from Chattanooga, Tennessee to Cobb County,

Georgia. Specifically, the study area includes Bartow, Catoosa, Gordon and Whitfield

counties, see Figure 1.

Although numerous studies conducted in the four county area have stressed the lack of

alternative transportation options, particularly for those with special needs, there are

currently no public transportation services linking these four counties and no formal local

efforts to encourage ridesharing or carpooling. Existing park-n-ride lot locations and

operations are not conducive to use by the area’s citizens. Additionally, there is a lack of

transfer lots and coordination for the local 5311 transit operations for movement between

counties.

The goal of the TDCP is to provide a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the vision

and mission of public transit for the counties of Catoosa, Whitfield, Gordon and Bartow

including goals and objectives. Public transportation from a regional standpoint was

examined to recommend inter-county and inter-agency cooperation and coordination

in order to provide improved alternative transportation service between and within the

four county study area. A comprehensive inventory of existing conditions in the area and

previously completed studies was conducted to provide the backbone for the needs

assessment and to identify gaps in existing service. A public involvement effort, including

stakeholder meetings, public surveys and public meetings in each county, was also

conducted to document the public perception of existing service and needed service.

This information was then used to develop coordinated actions and strategies to be

pursued in the region. Lastly, an implementation plan was created for the

recommended actions and strategies.


2

Figure 1: Study Area

Study Area Map


3

TASK I. STUDY AREA INVENTORY The portion of the Northwest Georgia Regional Commissions (NWGRC) analyzed for this

study includes Bartow, Catoosa, Gordon, and Whitfield counties, which encompass the

I-75 corridor from Chattanooga, Tennessee to Cobb County, Georgia. Some of the

cities within these counties include Cartersville, Emerson, and Euharlee in Bartow County;

Fairmount, Calhoun and Resaca in Gordon County; Fort Oglethorpe, Indian Springs, and

Ringgold in Catoosa County; and Dalton, Tunnell Hill and Cohutta in Whitfield County.

Previous Study Review

A review of existing studies pertaining to the study area was conducted to obtain transit

related points of interest.

ATLANTA-CHATTANOOGA HIGH SPEED RAIL STUDY

Georgia Department of Transportation (2008) - Tier I Environmental Impact Statement,

Atlanta-Chattanooga High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Study

• “…enhance intercity passenger mobility in northwest Georgia, and part of

Tennessee, by expanding passenger transportation capacity, increasing overall

personal and business mobility and providing an alternative to highway and air

travel in a manner that is safe, reliable, and cost-effective while avoiding,

minimizing, and/or mitigating effects on affected neighborhoods and the

environment.”

BARTOW COUNTY

Bartow County Comprehensive Plan 2007-2027, Community Assessment

• “People lack transportation choices for access to housing, jobs, services, goods,

health care and recreation”

• “The county should promote alternative forms of transportation such as Rideshare

and light rail”

• “The county should develop a long-term transportation model for all modes of

transportation, including alternative forms that are pedestrian friendly, using

compatible adjacent transportation corridors.”


4

• “Without intervention, these areas are likely to evolve with low pedestrian

orientation, little or no alternative transportation options, high to moderate

degree of building separation, predominantly residential development with

scattered civic buildings and varied non-connecting street patterns, often

curvilinear.”

GORDON COUNTY

Gordon County Comprehensive Plan 2006-2026, Community Assessment

• “Planning of our new and reconstructed roadways will include consideration of

whether the roadways can accommodate multiple functions, including

pedestrian facilities, parking, bicycle, routes, public transit (if applicable) as well

as local vehicular circulation.”

• “Prepare a County-wide transit plan to determine ridership need and funding

sources.”

• “Plan for more senior citizens activities such as health care, nutrition, exercise,

transportation options, emergency services, housing availability and codes,

taxation, workforce development, volunteer opportunities, etc.”

• “Coordinate land use planning with bike, pedestrian and transit opportunities.”

CATOOSA COUNTY

Catoosa County Joint City-County Comprehensive Plan Update 2007-2027, Partial

Update

• “Alternatives to transportation by automobile, including mass transit, bicycle

routes, and pedestrian facilities, should be made available in each community.”

• “Greater use of alternate transportation should be encouraged.”

• “There is an imbalance between auto-dependent transportation projects

alternative transportation projects.”

WHITFIELD COUNTY

Whitfield County Joint Comprehensive Plan Update 2008-2018

• “There are sizable numbers of low-income, elderly, disabled, and minority persons

within the county who need non-automobile options to access jobs, medical

care, and shopping needs.”

• “There is the potential to enhance public transportation, especially for special

needs population, building on the currently underutilized on-call bus system or


5

implementing a fixed-route system.”

Existing Provider Profiles

BARTOW COUNTY

Bartow Transit provides limited transit service within Bartow County. Its service includes

transportation for senior citizens throughout the county to local shopping centers and

grocery stores as well as senior citizen centers. There is no intercity bus service in Bartow

County. There is one park-n-ride lot in Bartow County, which is located on SR 3 in

Adairsville. Overall, most Bartow County residents must rely on automobiles for normal

daily transportation needs, although residents in some areas of the city of Cartersville

may be able to walk to many of their most popular destinations.

GORDON COUNTY

Local transit service is provided by a federally-funded public transportation service for

non-urbanized areas that is administered by GDOT. The Section 5311 grant program

facilitates a dial-a-ride bus service that is available to residents for various trip purposes

from their home to their desired location. Trip purposes include medical, nutrition,

shopping, education, and recreation. This 8 vehicle demand responsive transit service

within Gordon County is provided by Mountain Area Transportation Services (MATS),

which is operated by the non-profit North Georgia Community Action Program through

a Third Party Operator agreement with Gordon County.

WHITFIELD COUNTY

Local transit service is provided by a federally-funded public transportation service for

non-urbanized areas that is administered by GDOT. The Section 5311 grant program

facilitates a dial-a-ride bus service that is available to residents for various trip purposes

from their home to their desired location. Trip purposes include medical, nutrition,

shopping, education, and recreation. This demand responsive transit service within

Whitfield County is provided by Mountain Area Transportation Services (MATS), which is

operated by the non-profit North Georgia Community Action Program through a Third

Party Operator agreement Whitfield County. MATS’ major client groups are senior

citizens and those with physical or mental disabilities that inhibit them from using private

transportation. MATS operates a total of eight vehicles, including three ambulatory

vehicles and five ADA-capable vehicles from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through


6

Friday with 24 hours notice generally required. Service is provided primarily to shopping

centers and doctors’ offices. Greyhound provides inter-city bus service to Whitfield

County. There are also eleven taxicab services operating within the county.

CATOOSA COUNTY

Catoosa County offers free transportation service to any resident of the county through

the Catoosa Trans-aid program. All transportation must remain in Catoosa County

except for the following: Medical trips are provided to the Chattanooga area

surrounding the three major hospitals. These trips are scheduled between the hours of

9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday. Catoosa Trans-aid offers door to door

transportation. This mean that they will come to the passengers door to assist them to

the bus if needed, but will not go inside the home. They will drop the passenger off at

the front entrance of the desired location, but will not go inside the building.

Transit Service Beyond the Study Area

In addition to transit services within the four county study area, there are regional transit

services that are accessible to residents within the study area. The Georgia Regional

Transportation Authority (GRTA) as well as Cobb County Transit (CCT) have bus routes

extending as far north as Cherokee Road (SR 92) in Acworth, Cobb County, Georgia

near the Cobb-Bartow County border. This transit stop also serves as the location of the

Acworth park-n-ride Lot at Lake Acworth Drive. The Chattanooga Area Regional

Transportation Authority (CARTA) has at least two bus routes located within two miles of

the Georgia-Tennessee border. Figure 2 shows the transit service locations beyond the

study area. Details of each existing transit service are as follows:

GEORGIA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (GRTA) XPRESS

GRTA is the State of Georgia authority working to improve Georgia’s mobility, air quality,

and land use practices. One component of this organization is Xpress. Xpress is a public

commuter transportation service, available Monday through Friday, designed to

provide work-day commuters an alternative to driving their vehicles alone to work while

improving air quality and enhancing the quality of life for all of metropolitan Atlanta.

Xpress partners with the following 12 metro Atlanta counties: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb,

Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Forsyth, Henry, Gwinnett, Paulding, and Rockdale.


7

COBB COMMUNITY TRANSIT (CCT)

Cobb Community Transit provides transit throughout Cobb County and to Downtown

Atlanta via Fixed, Express or Paratransit services. CCT operates from 5 a.m. until mid-to-

late evening Monday through Saturday depending on the route. There is not service on

Sunday or on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day,

Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Transfers are valid for up to 3 hours on a different

route than issued. If the rider is using both CCT and MARTA, they pay the one-way CCT

fare and transfer free to MARTA. For the return trip, pay the MARTA fare and transfer free

to CCT.

Curb to curb paratransit service is provided to individuals who cannot use the regular

bus. Passengers must be certified to use paratransit service. CCT also offers the

Guaranteed Ride Home Program, which provides commuters who carpool, vanpool,

walk, bike or take transit to work with up to 5 free rides home or to their car from work

annually. The program is administered under the RideSmart program at the Atlanta

Regional Commission and is open to commuters who use alternative forms of

transportation.

CHATTANOOGA AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (CARTA)

CARTA is a public authority which operates the public transportation system providing

fixed route transit to Hamilton County, Tennessee. Additionally, CARTA operates Care-A-

Van (a curb-to-curb service for people with disabilities), a Downtown Electric Shuttle with

one of the largest fleets of electric buses in the United States and parking garages in

Downtown Chattanooga, and the Lookout Mountain Incline Railway (the steepest

passenger railway in the world).

GROOME TRANSPORTATION

Groome Transportation is a professional transportation provider that serves several

regions including Atlanta, GA and Chattanooga, TN. Shuttle service operates nineteen

(19) hourly trips a day between Chattanooga, TN and Atlanta, GA with stops, by

reservation only, in Dalton, GA, Calhoun, GA and Marietta, GA. Fares from

Chattanooga, TN to the Atlanta Airport are $39 one-way and $73 roundtrip.


8

GREYHOUND LINES, INC.

Greyhound Lines, Inc. is the largest provider of intercity bus transportation, serving more

than 2,300 destinations with 13,000 departures across North America. Included in these

destinations are three stations in the Atlanta area, one station in Dalton, GA and one

station in Chattanooga, TN.

Park-N-Ride Lots

There are four park-n-ride lots within the study area, all of which are located in Bartow

and Gordon counties. There are no park-n-ride lots in Catoosa and Whitfield Counties

and Chattanooga, TN does not currently offer a rideshare program.

Bartow County has one park-n-ride lot located at SR 3 at milepost 29 in Adairsville,

Georgia. This lot is in the northwest part of the county and is near the Folsom Road (SR

140) exit on I-75. There are twenty (20) spaces located at this lot with 35% being utilized.

Bartow County is also served by three vanpool routes through the RideSmart program.

These routes all travel from Cartersville, GA to Atlanta, GA.

Gordon County has three park-n-ride lots. The first is located at US 41 at SR 136 in the

northwest part of Gordon county in Resaca, Georgia The Resaca lost is near the Resaca

Lafayette Road (SR 136) exit on I-75. There are six (6) spaces located at this lot with 50%

being utilized. The second Gordon county park-n-ride lot is located at the public square

in Fairmount, Georgia. This lost is just under 14 miles to the east of I-75 and is near the

intersection of SR 61 and SR 53 in the southeast part of Gordon County. The Fairmont

Square park-n-ride lot has ten (10) spaces with 30% being utilized. The final Gordon

County park-n-ride lost is located at the courthouse in Calhoun, Georgia. It is

approximately 2.5 miles to the west of I-75 and is near the intersection of US 41 and SR 53

in the central part of Gordon County. The Calhoun park-n-ride lot has forty-seven (47)

spaces with 66% being utilized.


9

Figure 2: Transit Service Beyond the Study Area


10

TASK II. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Demographic Analysis

As part of a public transportation study, it is important to develop a geographically-based

understanding of the demographic patterns of the study area. These data are collected

from the 2000 US Census by block group and then mapped using Geographic Information

Systems (GIS) software. This analysis includes a mapping of the population and household

densities, along with demographic attributes that are linked to public transportation

dependency (elderly population, disabled population, low income population, etc.). The

ability to identify higher concentrations of potential public transportation users

geographically allows for the identification of areas where public transportation service

should be focused. These attributes are:

• Elderly Population: The elderly population (persons 65 and over) is a category of

individuals that have a higher dependence on public transportation, as the ability

to drive diminishes as individuals become older. Availability of transportation

services for the elderly is certainly a quality of life issue, as elderly residents who

can access public transportation are able to more fully participate in the

community.

• Youth Population: The youth population (persons 17 and under) is another group

that tend to use public transportation extensively where it is available, as they have

either not yet reached driving age or an automobile is not readily available, and

public transportation offers a degree of independence from parents in accessing

after school programs and recreational activities.

• Persons that fall below the poverty line: Another strong indicator of public

transportation dependency within an area is income, as low-income households

are less able to purchase and maintain an automobile.

• Persons with a mobility limitation: Disabled persons typically rely on a higher number

of public transportation trips, since many persons’ disabilities deny them of the

ability to operate an automobile. In addition, many disabled individuals require

public transportation vehicles with specialized equipment and many require “door-

to-door” service with special assistance.


11

• Households with no vehicle available: Autoless households demonstrate a higher

likelihood of using public transportation because of their limited access to private

travel options. It is not uncommon to find the highest concentration of these

households in areas where there are high concentrations of people living below

the poverty line.

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics for the study area. A number of these

characteristics will help identify populations who are more inclined to use public

transportation.

Table 1: Census Characteristics for the Study Area

There are multiple methods to view and analyze the available census data. For the

purpose of this study, raw population volumes in each geographic area and the density

per square mile of each population type were both used to identify potential public

transportation users. Figures 3 through 7 illustrate the areas with the highest

concentrations of transit-dependent persons, which may be used to identify locations for

fixed-route transit and/or commuter transfer stations. Specifically, clusters consistently

appear around Fort Oglethorpe in Catoosa County, Dalton in Whitfield County, Calhoun

in Gordon County and Cartersville in Bartow County. Additionally, Figures 8 through 12

illustrate areas with high raw populations volumes, which may be used to identify areas

with a more significant need for demand-response service.

Bartow County

% Catoosa County

% Gordon County

% Whitfield County

%

Total Population 76,019 53,282 44,104 - 83,525 - Urban vs. Rural

Urban Population 44,676 59 37,823 71 15,072 34 57,143 68 Rural Population 31,343 41 15,459 29 29,032 66 26,282 32

Age Breakdown Age 17 & younger 21,166 28 13,766 26 11,515 26 22,671 27

Age 18 to 64 47,741 63 33,207 62 27,992 64 52,189 63 Age 65 and over 7,112 9 6,309 12 4,597 10 8,665 10

Other Attributes Persons Below Poverty

Line 6,445 9 4,966 9 4,293 10 9,494 11

Mobility Limited 5,981 8 4,762 9 3,746 9 6,747 8 Autoless Households 1,422 5 804 4 977 6 1,951 7


12

Figure 3: Elderly Population


13

Figure 4: Youth Population


14

Figure 5: Limited Mobility


15

Figure 6: Low Income


16

Figure 7: Autoless Households


17

Figure 8: Elderly Population


18

Figure 9: Youth Population


19

Figure 10: Limited Mobility


20

Figure 11: Low Income


21

Figure 12: Autoless Households


22

Major Study Area Destinations

Figure 13 illustrates the location of major destinations within the study area. These include:

• Employment

− Major Employers

− Industrial Parks

• Shopping

− Regional Retail (Malls, Wal-Mart, etc.)

− Community Retail (Grocery Stores)

• Medical

− Hospitals

• Public Service

− Human Service Agencies

− Assisted Housing

• Education

− Colleges and Universities

− High Schools

The combination of this information along with the demographic attributes analyzed for

the study area will allow for a determination of where public transportation would operate

best and what could be the most effective type(s) of service.


23

Figure 13: Study Area Destinations


24

Employment Commuting Patterns

Commuter data was obtained from the 2000 US Census to determine where people

work and how they get to/from work. Currently, only 0.5% of the working population in

the study area use public transportation as a means of getting to/from work while 15.6%

carpooled and 80.1% drove alone. The average travel time to work is about 20-24

minutes. Table 2 shows a comparison of means of travel to work for all workers over 16

years of age. Table 3 shows a comparison of place of work for all workers over the age

of 16 within the four county study area.

Table 2: Census Commuter Data - Means of Travel to Work

Table 3: Census Commuter Data - Place of Work

The data listed in Table 3 was also mapped using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

software. Figure 14 illustrates the percentage of out-of-state workers in the study area

and Figure 15 illustrates the percentage of in-state, out-of-county workers in the study

area. Figures 16 through 19 further illustrate county commuter data by identifying the

percentage of workers that remain in county, the percentage of workers that travel

outside of the county and the top five commuter destinations by county.

Bartow County

% Catoosa County

% Gordon County

% Whitfield County

%

Drove Alone 28,908 80.4% 22,855 85.6% 17,258 78.4% 29,972 77.0%

Carpooled 5,365 14.9% 3,047 11.4% 3,850 17.5% 7,072 18.2%

Public Trans. 181 0.5% 65 0.2% 163 0.7% 217 0.6%

Other 681 1.9% 374 1.4% 371 1.7% 974 2.5%

Worked at Home

818 2.3% 369 1.4% 375 1.7% 674 1.7%

Bartow County

% Catoosa County

% Gordon County

% Whitfield County

%

Total Working Population

35,953 - 26,710 - 22,017 - 38,909 -

Out of State 347 1% 12,848 48% 196 1% 1,145 3%

In State 35,606 99% 13,862 52% 21,821 99% 37,764 97%

Outside County 14,914 41% 6,695 25% 6,649 30% 3,968 10%

Inside County 20,692 58% 7,167 27% 15,172 69% 33,796 87%


25

Figure 14: Out-of-State Working Population


26

Figure 15: In-State, Out-of-County Working Population


27

Figure 16: Bartow County Commuter Population


28

Figure 17: Gordon County Commuter Population


29

Figure 18: Whitfield County Commuter Population


30

Figure 19: Catoosa County Commuter Population


31

TASK III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Stakeholder Interviews

An important step in determining the need for a public transportation service was to

consult with community stakeholders. Stakeholders interviewed included county and

regional officials and transportation professionals. The discussions provided valuable input

to assessing the issues surrounding the transportation needs and trends in the study area.

STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESULTS ANALYSIS

Stakeholders had varied responses depending on which city or county they were

representing. In general, most of the stakeholders representing the study area agreed

that:

• Elderly citizens would benefit from public transportation in the region.

• Most users rely on public transportation for medical purposes such as getting to/

from the hospital or doctor visits.

• Public transportation is extremely important to people with disabilities and to senior

citizens, not very important to teenagers, and somewhat to extremely important to

people with limited economic means.

• Their local government should provide matching funds for public and specialized

transportation services.

There were, however, some stakeholders with varying opinions. Some of the various

comments are detailed below:

• The City of Dalton / Whitfield County has a college age population that would

benefit from public transportation, especially between the downtown area and

the college.

• There is a large commuter population that would use transit in North Georgia.

• Transit would be considered more important for teenagers if it was available and

frequently used, but it is not in their mindset.


32

Public Surveys

To ensure that the needs and wants of the populace pertaining to public transportation

were addressed, a survey to gather input from the general public was carried out over

the course of several months throughout the study area. The goal of the survey was to

determine the need for public transportation and commuting options within the study

area as well to gather input from the public on the best ways to support such options.

Information was also collected on the potential frequency of use, trip purpose, and key

origin and destination points of public options. Surveys were collected at various events

throughout the four (4) counties as well as at public meetings held in each county. The

key results from the survey are listed in Table 4 below and on the following page.

When respondents were asked to provide what they felt was the greatest transportation

need or problem area in the NWGRC area, a variety of responses were given:

• Rail access to Atlanta

• Rail access between Atlanta and Chattanooga

• Less development

• Extend MARTA service into surrounding counties

• Increased mobility for elderly people

• Increased mobility for disabled people

• Access to public transportation for medical purposes

• Accessibility to buses

• More buses

• Less vehicular traffic, more pedestrian trips

• More sidewalks needed

• HOV lanes north of Atlanta along I-75

The public had a variety of answers as to who should provide the additional public

transportation options, ranging from local governments (cities and counties) to the State

of Georgia, the Federal Government, or private companies. Additionally, several

participants suggested that a public/private partnership could be explored as a potential

means to expand public transportation within the NWGRC area.


33

Table 4: Public Survey Results

Data / Question # of Responses %

Employment Status

Employed—Full Time 153 52%

Retired 55 19%

Unemployed 30 10%

Employed—Part Time 21 7%

Work at Home 21 7%

Student 8 3%

Self Employed 3 1%

Primary Means To Get To Work

Drive Alone 235 91%

Drive with Someone Else 10 4%

Walk 5 2%

Ride in Car with Someone Else 5 2%

Other 2 1%

Bicycle 2 1%

Yes 27 9%

No 262 89%

Are there special transportation needs in your household?

How many times in the past year have you needed or wanted some type of public transportation?

Never 177 60%

Weekly 28 10%

More than Twice, less than Monthly 22 8%

Twice 20 7%

Daily 21 7%

Monthly 15 5%

Once 8 3%

Would you be willing to pay a fare to use public transportation?

Yes 261 89%

No 22 8%

What amount would you be willing to pay per trip?

Minimum $1

Maximum $30 *

Average $3.35 *

Note: *The maximum fare includes users willing to pay for transport to/from Atlanta, which was often greater than $20. For

the average though, only fares under $20 were included in the calculations.


34

Public Meetings

A series of public meetings, facilitated by NWGRC and Street Smarts staff and local

officials, were held in May 2010. The meetings occurred on May 12th, May 18th, May 19th

and May 26th in Catoosa, Whitfield, Gordon and Bartow Counties respectively. The

purpose of the meetings was to present a summary of existing public transportation

options in the NWGRC area and to determine the level of demand and support for

changes to those options.

Attendees cited several reasons for establishing public transportation service, including

providing travel options for the elderly and disabled, promoting more viable growth

patterns, and to improve air quality in the region.

The attendees gave responses similar to the public survey participants when asked to

name the greatest transportation need in the NWGRC area (access to and from Atlanta

via rail, rail access through Georgia and to Chattanooga, medical transportation, etc.)

and who should provide the service (the county, state, and public/private partnership).


35

TASK IV. DEVELOPING COORDINATION ACTIONS-SERVICE

STRATEGIES

This section presents basic service strategies/options based on the analyses documented

in this plan regarding the transit needs and major trip generators in Catoosa, Whitfield,

Gordon, and Bartow Counties. These service options demonstrate a number of potential

structures that link the most likely origin areas with the key destinations. Several service

alternative concepts were initially reviewed by Northwest Georgia Regional Commission

(NWGRC) and presented during a series of public meetings in May. All service strategies

are reviewed below, after a recap of the region’s transit need and potential.

Summary of Transit Potential

The results of the needs analysis and identification of major trips generators were used as

the foundation for developing service options. Several of the key findings of the needs

assessment that affected the development of alternatives are summarized below.

WHERE PEOPLE WHO NEED TRANSIT LIVE

While all each of the county’s needs analysis maps indicated specific high relative transit

need, predominantly the highest concentration of transit-dependent persons clustered

around the Cities of Cartersville, Calhoun, Dalton, and Fort Oglethorpe. These data

included the youth population (persons 17 and under), older persons over age 65, low-

income households, disabled persons, and autoless households.

WHERE PEOPLE NEED TO GO ON TRANSIT

Major trip generators in the region are were also detailed. Services are concentrated

within the same four areas – Dalton, Calhoun, and Cartersville and to a lesser extent Fort

Oglethorpe. The smaller concentration of trip generators around Fort Oglethorpe is due

to its close proximity to Chattanooga.

Additionally, employment commuting patterns were analyzed. A summary of the top two

employment destinations (county to county travel) is displayed in Table 5.


36

Table 5: Top Two Employment Destinations

One of the noteworthy findings was that Catoosa County was the only county not to

have intracounty employment trips as the top destination. This information was used to

assist in developing service alternatives to address the most significant trip generators and

employment trip interchanges.

Potential Demand for Rural Transit Service

The idea of new service is a daunting proposal, especially during these tight economic

times. Therefore, an estimate of the potential demand for service would also be needed

to reassure stakeholders that there would be ridership, and to assist in the development of

the plan. Although a wide variety of needs are apparent from the demographic analysis

and the public input, estimating the number of vehicles required and developing an

implementation plan requires some estimate of the potential ridership. The estimated

ridership drives the number of vehicles required, given some assumptions about

productivity. The number of vehicles to be operated is then the key driver of the

operating costs, and cost is generally the first or second question asked when discussing

the potential for regional transportation options. So the next step in the project was the

development of an estimate of ridership.

Fortunately, a rural transit demand model calibrated with data from Georgia’s rural

Section 5311 systems already exists. Previous research in the literature and for the

statewide transportation plan provides us with a rural transit demand model that can be

used to estimate the demand for rural transit service in each county, based on

demographic characteristics. This estimated demand can then be compared to the

actual ridership to estimate the unmet trip demand. The model estimated demand as a

function of:

Major Destination

Bartow County

Catoosa County

Gordon County

Whitfield County

Cobb County

Hamilton County (TN)

Bartow County (35,953) 58% 20%

Catoosa County (26,710) 27% 47%

Gordon County (22,017) 70% 13%

Whitfield County (38,909) 88%

Origin (Total Employed)


37

• Population over 60 years of age,

• Persons with a mobility limitation,

• Persons living below the poverty line, and

• Either the statewide average median miles (of transit service provided) per capita

or the statewide average mean miles (of transit service provided) per capita.

The three population categories are summed to provide a total county “transit-

dependent” population, and that number is multiplied by .8983, and then multiplied by

either the mean or median miles per capita raised to the .822 power.

As can be seen, predicted ridership is primarily a function of the number of persons in a

county that are most likely to need some type of transportation and the amount of

service provided, so the model is not reflecting any “choice” ridership from persons who

could use private vehicles, but might choose not to. The model formulation is based on a

national study, but it was calibrated using data on the Georgia systems so it is in effect a

kind of comparison or analogue to other rural counties in Georgia that have Section 5311

systems. Because the model estimates demand in part based on the amount of service

provided, a forecast was developed using the median miles per capital for the existing

rural services.

This model was applied statewide in Technical Memorandum #1: Draft Strategic Plan,

prepared as part of the Evaluation of the Georgia Section 5311 Rural Transportation

Program. In that report, when applied to counties with existing Section 5311 systems, in a

number of individual counties the reported 2002 ridership was greater than the estimated

demand for general public rural trips. The most likely explanation is that the reported data

in those counties includes client trips as well as general public trips, despite the fact that

the model purports to be estimating only general public demand. Further analysis of

GDOT data suggests that the Section 5311 ridership data used to calibrate the model

includes about 50% agency client trips, based on reports by the providers to GDOT. In

addition, subsequent site reviews by the consulting team indicate that many trips coded

as general public may in fact be client trips, as the providers may not be clear on the

definitions. For these reasons, we would interpret the model demand results as estimates

of the demand for Section 5311 trips, rather than specifically as demand for agency trips

or general public trips. The general validity of the demand calibration of the model can


38

be seen in Table 6, which compares estimates for the four counties with the actual

ridership on the Section 5311 services.

Table 6: Estimated Demand for Section 5311 Trips

1 Rural trips and unmet demand were solely calculated.

Transit Needs / Issues

The four counties within the study area are predominantly rural. Service is designed to

accommodate a low density environment. Demand-response service is provided within

each county, which is a more costly operation that is appropriate based on the low

number of persons per square mile. As a result, general public capacity can often be an

issue. Additional issues that were raised during the outreach effort were:

• Coordination across county/state lines

• Low-income seniors to congregate meals/services

• Human service capacity was voiced as a problem in Gordon County

Commuter needs surfaced as an area for further analysis through our research.

Interestingly, commuter needs were predominantly from the southernmost and

northernmost counties only. Ultimately their needs were different from one another in that

Bartow County’s commuter needs was for travel to Cobb and Fulton County (service

south) and Catoosa and Whitfield commuter needs was for service to Chattanooga

(north).

County

Estimated De-

mand

Trips / Capita

FY 2009 Total S. 5311 Trips

New Unmet Demand

Bartow County 42,384 0.3 17,257 25,127

Catoosa County 30,143 1.1 17,131 13,012

Gordon County 18,421 0.1 6,132 12,289

Whitfield County 1 38,378 0.3 8,367 30,011

TOTAL 129,326 0.3 48,887 80,439


39

The final transit needs assessment centered on local circulation. Only two areas in the

region warrant and justify this potential option – Dalton and Cartersville. This is based on

each localities population density in conjunction with a high number of trip generators.

Service Options

There are two basic considerations in designing an effective and efficient transit system in

the area. The system is effective if it meets the travel needs of the residents. This means

identifying the markets for transit and determining if those markets are served. A system is

efficient if it meets those needs in a manner that maximizes travel while minimizing

resources expended. To the extent possible, services would be scheduled in to maximize

the convenience of transfers between proposed services between counties.

Options for each county and the region have been developed considering the unmet

needs in terms of how well they service under- or un-served areas, major housing origins,

and major employment, medical, educational, human service, and commercial

destinations. The options are focused on the development of services and are presented

in a conceptual way.

OPTIONS FOR CATOOSA COUNTY

This alternative consists of expanding Catoosa Trans-Aid service to address the projected

unmet need for additional rural transit trips. This would require funding for more general

public trips. Potential for expansion of contracted human service trips and potential for

trips outside the County should also be explored.

Additionally, fixed-route, fixed-schedule transit service to Chattanooga may be warranted

based on the population densities, the location of trip generators, and the existences of a

significant number of commuters to Chattanooga. This potential service would travel

along U.S. 27 between Fort Oglethorpe (Hutcheson Medical Center) to Chattanooga.

Another possible corridor for service is between Ringgold at a future park and ride lot on

I-75. This location could serve carpool and vanpool needs, and possible peak-hour

commuter express bus service to the downtown Chattanooga area. A final option for

Catoosa County would be a rideshare program to facilitate car- and van-pool formation

for both Chattanooga-bound commuters and residents headed in other directions for

employment.


40

OPTIONS FOR WHITFIELD COUNTY

This alternative explores expanding Whitfield County Transit Service. Similar to Catoosa

County, additional funding for more general public trips (to meet unmet needs identified

in the rural transit demand estimation), and the potential for expansion of contracted

human service trips would be candidates for new service. Based on the analysis, there is

limited potential need for non-medical trips outside the County.

Local transit service in Dalton and the surrounding area could be feasible, based on the

2006 Public Transportation Needs Study which was adopted by the Dalton-Whitfield

County Metropolitan Planning Organization. Five service option “packages” were

developed as part of this study. Options 1 and 2 were designed as demand-response

options to serve all of Whitfield County (basically expanding upon the existing Whitfield

County Transit Service). Options 3, 4, and 5 were designed to offer various types of

services to serve the urbanized area of Dalton, encompassing a broad range of possible

service levels and their associated costs.

Although there may be limited “rural general public” transportation needs outside the

County, local transit services could provide a connection to the existing intercity services.

A connection to the existing Greyhound services stop at the Pilot Travel Center in Dalton

(142 Carbondale Road Southwest) that provides trips to both Atlanta and Chattanooga

(three departures each way per day). In addition, the Groome Transportation service to

the Atlanta and Chattanooga airports is provided from a stop at Exit 333, which could

also be served by local transit (if implemented). Potential also exists for express bus service

to Chattanooga central business district from a future park and ride facility on I-75 just

north of Dalton.

OPTIONS FOR GORDON COUNTY

Options for Gordon County will look to expand Gordon County Transit, which is operated

under contract by North Georgia Community Action’s Mountain Area Transit System. Like

Whitfield County, one option is providing more funding more general public trips to meet

more local needs (as identified in the rural demand model) and potential for expansion of

contracted human service trips would be explored. Gordon County also exhibits limited

potential need for non-medical related trips outside the County.


41

Vanpool options supported by the County should be explored if demand warrants.

Douglas County in Georgia has a well established program that could be modeled.

Douglas County Rideshare is a commuter-oriented service that operates work-trip

vanpools, provides carpool matching assistance, builds and maintains commuter facilities

and participates in transit and public transportation planning and marketing. The Douglas

County Rideshare program also works closely with the Georgia Regional Transportation

Authority (GRTA), which provides express bus service for Douglas County.

OPTIONS FOR BARTOW COUNTY

Not unlike the alternatives for the other counties, Bartow County Transit could provide

more public trips to address the unmet needs identified using the demand model, if

funding was provided, and it could expand to serve more contracted human service trips

if the human service agencies had the funding. It could also address potential needs for

trips outside of the County. Analysis earlier in the report validates future potential for local

route-deviation service in Cartersville – sufficient population density along with a number

of trip generators. Similar to Gordon County, Bartow County should explore administrative

support for vanpool options if demand warrants (see example in Douglas County). Finally,

future potential for extension of GRTA-type express bus service from Cartersville to Atlanta

should be examined. This would require a park and ride facility to group demand.

OPTIONS FOR THE REGION

Though each county has specific needs pertinent solely to that jurisdiction, there are some

regional service options that would benefit from the economies of scale of a regional

approach. To address the regions’ commuters, a regional ride-sharing agency to serve all

four counties could be designed. This would be comparable to the Douglas County

program, but it could serve commuters in all four counties and would spread the

administrative costs over a larger base of trips. Such an agency could also be a potential

focus for initiatives such as Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) for low-income workers.

JARC is a discretionary grant program of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that

provides funds for projects oriented to provide employment transportation, particularly for

low-income workers. In Georgia it is administered by the Georgia Department of

Transportation (GDOT).

A recent national trend is the advent of Regional Mobility Managers. An individual or


42

agency would be hired to maintain inventory of services in the region. They would also

be responsible for developing arrangements between existing operators to provide out-of

-county or out-of-region trips. Under their purview they could administer a regional

ridesharing program that would serve each county and trips to Atlanta and

Chattanooga. Funding for the administrative costs of a Mobility Manager might be

obtained through another FTA program called New Freedom, also administered by the

GDOT.

A more basic approach for regional transportation could be enhanced communication

between existing operators for out-of-county or out-of-region trip arrangements. Options

to facilitate this include:

• Developing a procedure for scheduled transfers of riders between systems at the

County line (including processes for recording and billing for such trips), or

• Developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among providers for

reciprocal services (e.g. Whitfield takes passengers to Catoosa, Catoosa brings

them back), including any needed agreements regarding the netting of costs and

reporting, or

• Developing contracts for specific long-distance trips both ways (e.g. Gordon picks

up Bartow passengers on the way to Marietta, Bartow pays for those trips).

A Regional Mobility Manager could work with the four systems to develop such

arrangements, and then take on the role of brokering trip requests for regional trips to the

appropriate provider(s), and making needed arrangements for cost accounting and

billing (or fare collection).

The final regional option that this study explored is to develop a Regional Provider. There

are two potential alternatives to manage this approach. The first could be an “overlay”

provider to provide cross-county or out-of-region trips solely. Both human service and

commuter trips would be operated. The second alternative could be a regional system

replacing the local county systems with one system. This could potentially lead to a

provider offering a single regional scheduling/dispatch system.


43

Based on the identified commuter patterns which show that most work trips are internal to

each county, with the major need for regional work trips from Catoosa to Chattanooga

and Bartow to Cobb and Fulton, and the fact that each of the counties has its own major

medical facility and human service destinations, the potential organizational difficulties,

capital and operating costs of a separate regional system did not seem warranted at this

time. Most of the operating funding for the existing Section 5311 system is provided by

the Georgia Department of Human Services (DHS) Coordinated Transportation program

which has separate contracts for service in each of the four counties, and the operators

did not identify significant unmet needs for regional trips or significant administrative

benefits for a restructuring of the contract administration for these four counties (which

are only a portion of the 15 county DHS regional coordinated structure). Creating a new

four-county contractor would require significant restructuring of existing program

arrangements to separate them from the rest of the region, with little apparent benefit. At

the same time there is an unsubsidized private firm, Groome Transportation, offering

frequent service in the I-75 corridor from Atlanta to Chattanooga that could be utilized by

persons needing the occasional trip. Groome primarily serves an airport market, but it

requires reservations and is willing to serve (at least some) alternative destinations (such as

major hospitals) upon request. For these reasons development of a new regional provider

was not explored further in this study.

Summary

The main issues to consider in comparing the service options are as follows:

• Each option covers the majority of physical origins and destinations that have been

identified as major trip generators.

• The main differences between alternatives involves whether riders would have one-

seat rides from residential areas to certain destinations, or if riders would need to

transfer to another provider.

• Options would be contingent upon each county’s preference in terms of their roles

and responsibilities in providing public transportation.


44

• Funding availability at the local, state and federal levels is limited at this time, and

most of the options described would require additional local match funding and or

organizational changes.

These options are meant to be a starting point from which the NWGRC can support future

grant applications and planning efforts to improve existing services, enhance

coordination, or develop new transit services. If and when funding becomes available,

planners and decision-makers may consider these as a menu of transit service

improvements that have been identified as potential options to address the identified

local and regional needs. Certain options may complement each other and fit the needs

of a particular city or county better, and one might develop additional alternatives from

different combinations of the proposed options.


45

TASK V. ORANIZATIONAL AND FUNDING OPTIONS

The purpose of this section is to develop and present organizational issues and funding

options that could be used to implement public transit service in the study areas’ four

counties. The previous sections established potential needs for such a service, and

established that there are a number of possible service options. This section begins with

an analysis of the funding resources available within the region. Following the funding

analysis, information is provided regarding the general organizational issues and local

requirements associated with these service options. Key policy questions have yet to be

decided by the study. These questions are presented, requiring resolutions prior to the

next steps in the possible implementation of new service.

Funding Resources

This study presents a number of different conceptual service options. It is likely that the

final choices will be made in a more iterative fashion if this effort progresses to the point of

developing a specific proposed operating budget. Under the S.5311 program, federal

transit funds are potentially available to fund up to 50% of the net operating deficit. The

net operating deficit is calculated by taking the total operating cost (which in the GDOT

program implementation includes both administrative and operating expenses), and

subtracting farebox revenue. Farebox revenue is the cash that general public riders pay

to ride the system. GDOT imposes a performance standard that requires that the farebox

revenue equal at least 10% of the total operating expense. It enforces this requirement by

taking the 10%t “off the top” in the grant application budget development. Thus GDOT

assumes that the farebox revenue will be either 10% or the actual, whichever is higher. If

the actual is less than 10%, then the applicant must make up the difference with local

cash. From the state perspective, this provides local applicants with some incentive to

attract enough general public riders and charge enough in fares to obtain the 10% from

them. So, the net operating deficit is the total operating expense minus either 10%, or the

actual farebox revenue, whichever is greater. In our examples we have assumed the 10%

level.

This leaves 90% of the operating cost to be funded from other sources. Some portion of it

will be funded with S.5311 dollars at the ratio described above: up to 50% of the net


46

operating deficit. However, there may be other sources of income for the system if it

provides services to other entities. Under the S.5311 guidelines, S.5311 systems can count

income from providing transportation to human service agency clients as either revenue

or match. The expenses of providing this service are included in the system operating

budget. Under the current GDOT S.5311 program, this additional income to the transit

operation for providing agency transportation is considered “Purchase of Service”, or

POS. Currently, all POS for Georgia S.5311 systems is obtained under contracts with

human service agencies. The income from the contract with the human service agency

can be considered as either local operating match, or as revenue.

CAPITAL FUNDING

Federal capital funding, including S.5311 funding, can pay up to 80% of the cost of such

capital items. In Georgia, GDOT matches this federal amount with 15% state funding, so

the local cash contribution for vehicles is only 5%. Under the current GDOT S.5311

program, facilities are not considered an eligible expense, only buses, computers, and

incidental capital. Because these services have always been demand-responsive, only

recently has the state permitted the purchase of fareboxes under this program. Typically

GDOT does the vehicle procurement for all S.5311 systems under a statewide contract,

and the local systems simply select the type of vehicle desired from those available under

the state contract. In all of the cases presented here there is an assumption that the

vehicles for the City/County services would be obtained under the GDOT state contract

at the 95% federal/state match.

FUNDING ISSUES AND STRATEGIES

Transit is funded with a combination of limited user fees, federal funds from several sources

(all requiring local match dollars), and local government funding of the match. As noted

above, human service contract income can be used as either match or revenue under

Georgia’s S.5311 program. The state of Georgia does not provide any operating

assistance, but does provide 10% (of the local 20%) for vehicle capital. Table 7 displays

the current S.5311 operating cost for the four counties in the region and their associated

federal and local funds.


47

Table 7: FTA Section 5311 Rural Public Transportation

OTHER FEDERAL SOURCES

Other federal funding sources have been discussed as a means of supporting the service

options. Some of these funding programs are competitive discretionary programs. Thus

the continuity of the funding is not assured, but they can be a good source of funding for

capital (vehicles, park and ride lots, etc.) or to initiate service and demonstrate a

program’s potential. However, if used for operating assistance or administrative costs

additional local funding is likely to be needed to maintain the program once the initial

grant period has ended. Other federal sources include:

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) is a potential funding source in

non-attainment areas in the region (Catoosa and Bartow Counties). This program

could be used to fund capital that reduces single-occupant auto use (park and

ride lots, transit vehicles, etc.). It can also be used to fund operating deficits on

commuter services for up to three years.

• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 transit funding for small urban ar-

eas (currently Dalton-Whitfield is eligible) is a second potential funding source. This

program allows eligible recipients the opportunity to use funds to buy vehicles (or

other capital including preventive maintenance) up to 80% of costs, or to fund up

to 50% of their net operating deficit. The Fiscal Year 2010 apportionment for Dalton

-Whitfield is $255,346, though there may be unspent previous apportionments

available as well. GDOT administers this program in Georgia.

County

Total

Operating Cost

Farebox Revenue (at 10%)*

Net

Operating Deficit

Federal Share

(at 50%)

Current Local

Match (County)

Bartow County

$473,710 $47,371 $426,339 $213,170 $123,170 $90,000

Catoosa County

$449,936 $44,994 $404,942 $202,471 $172,471 $30,000

Gordon County

$187,070 $18,707 $168,363 $84,182 $54,182 $30,000

Whitfield County

$417,970 $41,797 $376,173 $188,087 $15,287 $172,800

Current DHS Coordinated

Funding


48

• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 formula transit funding for large

urban areas (currently the portion of Catoosa County within the Chattanooga

Urbanized Area is eligible). This federal funding source can be used for capital at

up to 80% federal share. It is allocated directly to a recipient in the Urbanized Area,

and the amount is based on a formula. CARTA, Chattanooga’s transit system, is

the designated recipient for the area, so it is receiving funding in part based on the

inclusion of Catoosa’s population in the formula allocation. However, there are no

CARTA services in Catoosa County.

• FTA Section 5316 (JARC) and Section 5317 (New Freedom) Programs. These two

programs are more supportive of human service transportation. JARC funds can be

used for employment transportation and related trips (to training, day-care, etc.).

New Freedom funds can be used for transportation service above and beyond

that required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Both can be used for

capital, operating, as well as funding of Mobility Managers. Currently New

Freedom is being used in the region to provide additional trips on the DHS

coordinated system by purchase of additional trips (including trips on Section 5311

providers).

• Rideshare receives funding from several different sources. Typically, commuters

who participate in the vanpool program pay a monthly fare that covers costs such

as fuel, maintenance and repairs, insurance and van replacement. Douglas

County, for example, provides funding for administrative costs, and many other

county departments, such as Finance, Purchasing and Personnel, assist Rideshare.

Douglas County, the Federal Transit Administration and Georgia Department of

Transportation share costs of capital projects. Passenger fares will make up about

62% of that amount, with the remainder coming from Douglas County funds.


49

Organizational Issues

To this point it has been assumed that any public transit system developed or modified

would be funded in part with federal transit operating and capital funding from the FTA

S.5311 program of transit assistance for rural areas, which is already utilized in each of the

four counties in the study area. However, to implement many of the proposed options

there would need to be organizational changes or recognition of organizational barriers.

NEED FOR CATOOSA COUNTY TO JOIN CHATTANOOGA AREA REGIONAL TRANS-

PORTATION AUTHORITY (CARTA) TO ACCESS FTA FUNDING

Much of Catoosa County is part of the Chattanooga Urbanized Area. This is significant

since Federal transit funds are apportioned to that region which includes Catoosa,

however Catoosa County is not part of CARTA. In order to access this funding source,

which could be used to fund the proposed transit service from Catoosa to Chattanooga,

Catoosa County would have to join CARTA, which could entail a County commitment to

fund an allocated portion of CARTA’s local costs. If Catoosa were to gain enough

service, this could potentially be worthwhile, and should be investigated to determine

how the transit agency would allocate non-operating and non-capital costs

(administrative) to its members. Not all the eligible Tennessee counties have joined

CARTA, and it may be that there are allocation issues that discourage membership of

suburban communities that may be receiving limited services.

LACK OF A REGIONAL RIDESHARE PROGRAM FOR THE CHATTANOOGA AREA

Ridesharing for commuters in the Atlanta region is well established, with many resources

available to tap into. Bartow County is just outside the Atlanta region and is not a

member jurisdiction of GRTA. However, it is covered by Ridesmart ridesharing program for

the Atlanta region. Unfortunately this is not the case to the north around Chattanooga.

To date, there is no Chattanooga area ridesharing program (or broader Transportation

Demand Management (TDM) program) to support the development of carpools and/or

vanpools (or other transportation options), particularly for commuters into the

Chattanooga area. This lack of an organization typically found in many urban areas

means that any effort to develop ridesharing from the four Georgia counties in the study

area would require a new organizational structure. That is the reason that the Douglas

County program model has been suggested, as it is an example of a rural/exurban


50

County that took on the responsibility of addressing the commuter needs of residents in a

cost-effective, responsive manner (not depending on a distant regional organization).

EXISTING DHS COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION ARRANGEMENTS

Several of the potential options that involve creating a regional transit system serving all

four counties (either as an overlay for regional service or absorbing the four County

systems) would require dismantling the existing contract/funding structure of the DHS

Coordinated Transportation program in DHS Region I. All four of the counties in the study

area are part of DHS Region I, which includes fifteen counties altogether. Separating

these four counties from the DHS region to carve-out a new regional provider would

involve restructuring the layers of program contracts and subcontracts already in place,

many of which involve agencies that service multiple counties outside this four-county

study area. In the absence of identified inefficiencies or problems with the current

coordinated structure, and without significant needs for regional trips (crossing county

lines), the major justification for such a reorganization might be achieving economies of

scale (spreading administrative costs over four systems, rather than each having its own).

However, it is possible that a similar or greater loss of scale would occur by undoing the

existing arrangements. Finally, as can be seen above, the four counties in the study area

all contribute local funding for match for their systems. Whether they would continue to

provide that level of match for a new separate system is questionable, though it has

happened in similar situations elsewhere. For all these reasons, options calling for a new

regional system were not developed at this time.

MULTIPLE REGIONAL PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS

This region is now served by three separate regional planning organizations that include

transportation as a planning function: one for the Chattanooga Urbanized Area, one for

the Dalton-Whitfield Urbanized Area, and one for the nonurbanized portions of Catoosa

plus Gordon and Bartow. This situation is linked to funding, but it means that any effort to

develop or address transportation needs across the region will be more complicated than

if a single planning organization could address the issue.

Implementation Strategies


51

Implementation of the strategies presented previously is obviously dependent on the

actions of numerous organizations over a period of several years. So an implementation

plan that specifies in detail who should do what and when, is not going to be realistic.

However, it is possible to lay out a basic menu of the service options, the likely

implementation party, the possible funding source, and the approximate sequence and

timing that might be required. Table 8 presents a summary of these elements and the

likely actors and funding source. It is recognized that the current economic situation is

having major effects on the ability of state and local governments to address new issues,

and that implementation of any of these projects will be dependent on the ability to

obtain funding. However, most of these elements are potentially funded jointly by users,

federal funds, and limited local match. Also, this plan has been developed to build upon

services in place, assist persons needing transportation with information, and grow

transportation services incrementally in response to demand when it is possible. A key

element in initiating this plan is the development of a Mobility Management program for

the region, and that is discussed below.

MOBILITY MANAGEMENT

This project has reviewed the need for public transportation services in the four-county

region, provided an inventory of existing services, identified near-term unmet needs, and

developed options for meeting these needs using identified funding sources. However,

this region, although linked by I-75, has needs that are more local to each area, and are

potentially addressed by different funding sources. Maintaining information on existing

resources, developing regional rideshare options, promoting additional funding for transit,

and coordinating existing providers to meet regional trip needs are all functions that

could be performed by a regional transportation demand management program.

Currently there is no single organization that could be charged with these functions. So,

one possible implementation option is to apply for funding under the New Freedom

program for a Mobility Manager, to be housed initially in a regional planning agency.


Proj

ect D

escr

iptio

n Lo

catio

n Pa

rtici

patin

g A

genc

ies

Likel

y

App

lican

t/O

pera

tor

Fund

ing

Sour

ces

Estim

ated

Cos

ts

Estim

ated

A

dditi

onal

Ri

ders

hip

Fixed

-Rou

te, F

ixed

-Sc

hedu

le U

rban

Tra

n-sit

serv

ice

from

For

t O

glet

horp

e to

C

hatta

noog

a

Cat

oosa

C

ount

y,

Cha

ttano

oga

CA

RTA

, Ca-

toos

a C

ount

y,

Cha

ttano

oga

MPO

CA

RTA

Ex

istin

g FT

A S

.530

7/9

fund

ing

for

Cha

ttano

oga

Ur

bani

zed

Are

a, l

oca

l sh

are

for o

pera

ting

from

C

atoo

sa C

ount

y

Ann

ual O

pera

ting

Cos

ts: $

366,

840,

Lo

cal S

hare

of

thre

e tra

nsit

coa

ches

: $30

0,00

0

50,0

00-

65,0

00

Peak

-Hou

r Com

mut

er

Expr

ess B

us S

ervi

ce

from

Rin

ggol

d,

Geo

rgia

to d

ownt

own

Cha

ttano

oga

, via

I-75

Cat

oosa

C

ount

y,

Cha

ttano

oga

CA

RTA

, Ca-

toos

a C

ount

y,

Cha

ttano

oga

MPO

CA

RTA

Ex

istin

g FT

A S

.530

7/9

fund

ing

for

Cha

ttano

oga

Ur

bani

zed

Are

a, l

oca

l sh

are

for o

pera

ting

from

C

atoo

sa C

ount

y

Ann

ual O

pera

ting

Cos

ts: $

183,

000,

Lo

cal S

hare

of t

wo

trans

it co

ache

s: $2

00,0

00

25,0

00-

38,0

00

Park

and

Rid

e Lo

t at

Ring

gold

C

atoo

sa

Cou

nty

CA

RTA

, Ca-

toos

a C

ount

y,

Cha

ttano

oga

MPO

, GD

OT

GD

OT

CM

AQ

, Exis

ting

FTA

S.

5307

/9 fu

ndin

g fo

r C

hatta

noog

a Ur

ban-

ized

Are

a, h

ighw

ay

fund

ing

Estim

ated

Cap

ital

Cos

t for

100

spac

e lo

t (ex

clus

ive

of

land

) at $

10,0

00

per s

pace

: $1

,000

,000

25,0

00-

38,0

00

Expa

nded

gen

era

l pu

blic

rura

l tra

nsit

ser-

vice

by

Cat

oosa

C

ount

y Tr

ans-

Aid

Cat

oosa

C

ount

y C

atoo

sa

Cou

nty,

G

DO

T, D

HS

Cat

oosa

C

ount

y Tr

ans-

Aid

FTA

/GD

OT

S. 5

311

Loca

l Ope

ratin

g Sh

are

for 1

3,10

2 ad

ditio

nal t

rips a

t $2

6.26

ea

ch:

$188

,000

; plu

s lo-

cal s

hare

of

vehi

-cl

e ca

pita

l for

two

smal

l bus

es:

$18,

000

13,0

00

Tab

le 8

: Im

ple

me

nta

tio

n T

ab

le

52


53

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

Lo

cal O

ptio

n 4

from

th

e Pu

blic

Tra

nspo

rta-

tion

Nee

ds S

tudy

, in-

clud

es lo

cal f

ixed

-ro

ute

in D

alto

n, A

DA

se

rvic

e, a

nd c

ount

y-w

ide

dem

and

re

spon

se, o

r

Whi

tfiel

d C

ount

y W

hitfi

eld

Cou

nty,

City

of

Dal

ton,

G

DO

T,

Dal

ton-

Whi

tfiel

d M

PO

New

, or

Whi

tfiel

d C

ount

y Tr

ansit

Se

rvic

e

FTA

/GD

OT

S.53

07

and

S.5

311

Fund

ing

Ann

ual T

otal

Ope

rat-

ing

Cos

t: $1

,060

,000

(le

ss fe

dera

l ope

ratin

g fu

nds)

; Ini

tial c

apita

l co

st:

$1,6

10,0

00—

loca

l sha

re $

241,

500

220,

000

Expa

nded

rura

l ge

nera

l pub

lic tr

ansit

by

Whi

tfiel

d C

ount

y Tr

ansit

Ser

vice

(if n

o ad

diti

onal

Dal

ton

ser-

vice

)

Whi

tfiel

d C

ount

y W

hitfi

eld

Cou

nty,

G

DO

T

Whi

tfiel

d C

ount

y Tr

ansit

Se

rvic

e

FTA

/GD

OT

S.53

11

Fund

ing

Loca

l Ope

ratin

g Sh

are

for 3

0,00

0 a

ddi-

tiona

l trip

s at $

25 p

er

trip

(est

imat

ed)

413,

000;

plu

s loc

al

sha

re fo

r veh

icle

ca

pi-

tal f

or se

ven

smal

l b

uses

: $63

,000

30,0

00

Park

and

Rid

e Lo

t at

Dal

ton

Whi

tfiel

d C

ount

y W

hitfi

eld

Cou

nty,

D

alto

n-W

hitfi

eld

MPO

, GD

OT

GD

OT

high

way

fund

ing

Estim

ated

Cap

ital

Cos

t for

50

spac

e lo

t (e

xclu

sive

of la

nd) a

t $1

0,00

0 pe

r sp

ace

: $5

0,00

00

6,40

0

Expa

nded

rura

l ge

nera

l pub

lic tr

ansit

by

Gor

don

Cou

nty

Tran

sit

Gor

don

C

ount

y G

ord

on

Cou

nty,

G

DO

T

Gor

don

C

ount

y Tr

ansit

(M

ount

ain

Are

a

Tran

sit

Syst

em)

FTA

/GD

OT

S.53

11

Fund

ing

Loca

l Ope

ratin

g Sh

are

for 1

2,00

0 a

ddi-

tiona

l trip

s at $

30 p

er

trip

$198

,000

; plu

s lo-

cal s

hare

for v

ehic

le

capi

tal f

or th

ree

smal

l b

uses

: $27

,000

12,0

00

Tab

le 8

: Im

ple

me

nta

tio

n T

ab

le,

co

n’t

.


54

Expa

nded

rura

l gen

-er

al p

ublic

tran

sit b

y Ba

rtow

Cou

nty

Tran

sit

Barto

w C

ount

y Ba

rtow

C

ount

y,

GD

OT

Barto

w C

ount

y Tr

ansit

FT

A/G

DO

T S.

5311

Fu

ndin

g

Loca

l Ope

ratin

g Sh

are

for 2

5,00

0

addi

tiona

l trip

s at

$27.

50 p

er tr

ip-

$378

,125

; plu

s loc

al

sha

re fo

r veh

icle

ca

pita

l for

six

smal

l b

uses

: $54

,000

25,0

00

Park

and

Rid

e Lo

t at

Car

tersv

ille

Barto

w C

ount

y G

RTA

, Bar

tow

C

ount

y, A

RC

or fu

ture

M

PO, G

DO

T

GD

OT

CM

AQ

, hi

ghw

ay

fund

ing

Estim

ated

Cap

ital

Cos

t for

100

spac

e lo

t (ex

clus

ive

of

land

) at $

10,0

00 p

er

spa

ce: $

1,00

0,00

0

25,0

00-

38,0

00

Regi

onal

Mob

ility

M

anag

emen

t/Ri

des

hare

Pro

gram

All f

our c

ount

ies,

Cha

ttano

oga

, C

obb,

Fu

lton

All f

our c

oun-

ties,

citie

s, th

ree

MPO

’s

New

age

ncy,

or

hous

ed in

MPO

(p

erha

ps N

WG

RC)

CM

AQ

, JA

RC, N

ew

Free

dom

$120

,000

per

yea

r fo

r ful

l pro

gram

im-

ple

men

tatio

n

Dep

end

s on

ut

ilizat

ion

Tab

le 8

: Im

ple

me

nta

tio

n T

ab

le,

co

n’t

.


55

This Mobility Manager would be charged with creating a new transportation demand

management organization for the region, coordinating efforts with all three regional

planning organizations, to develop a regional rideshare program, initiate planning for park

and ride lots and other facilities, promoting transit development and funding to

implement the programs with available funding. Such a program could be modeled on

the Douglas County rideshare program, but in this case also including the role of

supporting transportation services for the elderly and disabled, and transportation options

for employment for the low-income workers. Ideally it would also be supported by

additional funds for rideshare programs generally. This Mobility Manager could also

involve the private for-profit carriers (local taxis, Groome Transportation, the Greyhound

agency), providing information about their services to users in the region and directing

trips best served by them to those operators. Other transportation resources, including

volunteer driver programs, or transportation provided by faith-based organizations would

be identified, and the Mobility Manager would be able to link persons with mobility needs

to any of these options if it appeared that the need would best be met by something

other than the current transportation providers. With an advocacy role, such an

organization might well be able to assist with efforts to initiate local transit in Dalton, or

implement transit services in Catoosa, by providing information, finding contract

operators, and developing public interest.

In the near term these efforts could be initiated by the Northwest Georgia Regional

Commission, and it potentially could house the Mobility Management program. Table 9

presents a draft budget for such a program.


56

Table 9: Mobility Manager’s Projected Budget

IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE

Because of the fact that this plan involves many separate decision-making and funding

entities, and the uncertainties regarding funding, only a generalized phasing of the overall

schedule can be provided at this time. A tentative timeline might be:

• FY 2011 or 2012:

− Mobility Management/Rideshare program decisions made, grant applications.

− Dalton-Whitfield decisions on implementation of fixed-route transit plans, grant

applications, organizational structure.

− County decisions regarding incremental expansion for general public trips on

Section 5311 systems as part of annual grant application process.

− Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia TPO/CARTA planning work on

routing, scheduling and refining cost estimates for a Fort Oglethorpe fixed-route.

− Public presentations and outreach to see if there is public interest and support.

• FY 2012-13:

− Start-up of Mobility Management/Rideshare office—hiring, development of

matching programs, database of providers, initial activities including working

out participation agreements with existing providers and human service

agencies.

Project Element Description / Equipment

Cost Local Share (20%)

Federal Share (80%)

Source of Funding

Mobility Manager (12 months salary and benefits @ 25%)

$65,000 $13,000 $52,000

Communications: Blackberry (or similar) and data plan; Landline, 800 number

for regional coverage

$8,500 $1,700 $6,800

Workstation: Desk, Chair, Laptop, Printer, Digital Camera, Landline /

Telephone

$5,500 $1,000 $4,000

Marketing Materials: Brochures, posters, website

$25,000 $5,000 $20,000

Training and Travel Expenses $5,000 $1,000 $4,000

Totals: $108,500 $21,700 $86,800 Local Match Counties


57



− Initiate implementation for Dalton-Whitfield expansion—order vehicles, finalize

routes and schedules.

− Presentation of plans for transit expansion in Catoosa County to local

decision-makers and CARTA Board for consideration, discussion.

• FY 2014-2015:

− Development of JARC vanpool services by Mobility Manager/Rideshare

program.

− Promotion and growth of rideshare options by Mobility Manager/Rideshare

program (potential expansion to cover Chattanooga area?)



− Initiation of services for Dalton-Whitfield.

− Planning for development of route deviation services or fixed-routes in

Cartersville (linked with possible MPO designation following 2010 Census)

− Decision on initial transit route in Catoosa, implementation steps if needed to

include vehicle purchase, location of stops, marketing.

− Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia TPO/CARTA planning work on

routing, scheduling and refining cost estimates for commuter express service

from Ringgold area to Chattanooga. Public presentations and outreach to see

if there is public interest and support. Assessment of potential interim and final

park and ride locations.

• FY 2015-2016:

− Planning work on additional park and ride locations in Cartersville and Dalton

area to be supported by growth of ridesharing. Mobility Manager/Rideshare

program to work with GDOT.

− Evaluation of GRTA expansion to Cartersville, linked to park and ride availability.

− Mobility Manager/Rideshare program to transition funding to ongoing sources.

− Presentation of plans for Ringgold commuter express transit expansion in

Catoosa County to local decision-makers and CARTA Board for consideration,

discussion.


58

• FY 2017-2018:

− Construction of new park and ride facilities in Cartersville and Dalton.

− If Ringgold commuter express service initiated, using interim park and ride or

construct park and ride lot.

− Update regional transit plan.

The effort to implement the vision included in this plan could be done in five years, or it

could spread over a decade or longer. Parts of it may occur quickly, particularly where

there has already been planning and public discussion and there is some funding

available (such as Dalton and Whitfield County). Much depends on economic recovery,

and it is likely that public interest and support would increase dramatically if the cost of

vehicle fuel rises in real terms.

ADDITIONAL LOCAL INPUT WILL BE NEEDED

The most prominent issue requiring local input is that all additional services will require

local match from the Counties (or Cities), as well as additional state and federal funding.

An initial effort to present this vision to local decision-makers might focus on getting

agreement on a vision for non-auto transportation in the region, rather than on funding for

specific projects. This role might well be taken on by the Mobility Manager/Ridesharing

agency. Depending upon the options that move forward, local buy-in to create or

modify existing organizational arrangements is a likely requirement. Finally, continued

coordination between the DHS Coordinated system and the S.5311 providers is critical.

Clearly the final decisions regarding the institutional roles of the major stakeholders remain

to be worked out. It is likely that any funding plan will also affect the final organizational

structure as well.

Conclusion

Following a review of unmet needs and opportunities for improved public transportation in

the region, a number of specific projects have been identified for implementation by the

different jurisdictions and agencies. Needs for regional commuter trips would be ad-

dressed by the creation of a regional Mobility Management/Rideshare program, which

would work with existing providers to meet gaps in regional connectivity, while supporting

the development of car- and vanpool operations to meet longer-distance work trip


59

needs. At the local level there is a need for additional public transportation, with

fixed-route transit services in specific locations in Catoosa County, the City of Dalton, and

Whitfield County.

This plan provides a vision of improved transportation throughout the region, and it

includes plans for both the organizational and physical infrastructure to begin that

improvement. Subsequent development will depend on external events (economic

recovery, population growth, energy prices), and the success of the projects listed in this

plan. Larger and more costly transit visions for the region are possible, but they are not

likely without starting at the beginning to build demand and public support. This plan

provides a place to start.

Better Communities...

Better Lives...

By Design

www.streetsmarts.us3160 Main St., Suite 100

Duluth, GA 30096Phone: 770.813.0882

nwgrc study 3 - whitfield county, georgiacensus commuter data-means of travel to work 24 table 3....

Documents