Reimagine Regina Transit: Revitalization Through Redesign

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

24 MARCH 2016

PJ BELL IGNATIUS BUT PAUL HILLSDON JESSICA MCLENNAN GURTEJ TUNG

ReimaginE Regina TransitRevitalization through redesign

Reimagine Regina Transit: Revitalization Through Redesign was prepared by UBC graduate students for :

Plan 580: Introduction to TransportationSchool of Community and Regional PlanningUniversity of British Columbia

The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect any City of Regina policy or position. The City of Regina has no affiliation with this report.

We would like to thank the City of Regina for providing us with data and TransLink for offering guidance. We also extend a special thank you to all those who took the time to answer our survey on Regina transit. Your answers were insightful and your time is greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions, comments, or if you would like to request the full set of survey results, please contact the authors at [email protected].

mailto:pjonahbell%40gmail.com?subject=Regina%20Transportation%20Project

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary .........................................................................................................5Context ...................................................................................................................................................7 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................8 Policy Framework.............................................................................................................................8 Design Regina (2013) ...........................................................................................................8 Transit Investment Plan (2009) ........................................................................................9 Transportation Master Plan (2015)............................................................................ 10 Current Actions ............................................................................................................................. 10 Our Proposal ................................................................................................................................... 11Survey Analysis ................................................................................................................... 12 Survey Methodology ................................................................................................................... 13 Survey Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 13 Question 1: How often do you ride the bus in Regina? ................................ 13 Question 2: What would make you ride the bus more frequently? ....... 14 Question 3: Would you be willing to pay for better transit service? ..... 15 Question 4: What are your perceptions of transit in Regina? .................... 15Network Redesign .......................................................................................................... 17 Transit Network Design Principles ...................................................................................... 18 Houston, Texas ....................................................................................................................... 18 Auckland, New Zealand ................................................................................................... 18 Current Network Analysis ....................................................................................................... 18 Proposed Network Design Principles ............................................................................... 21 Proposed Network Analysis ................................................................................................... 21 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 22 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 24Supporting Recommendations .................................................................. 25 Bus Stops ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Shelter Case Study: Route 2 to Argyle Park ........................................................ 27 Information Provision .................................................................................................................. 28 Marketing ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Brand and Identity ........................................................................................................................ 30 Marketing Campaign Principles ............................................................................................. 31Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 33Works Cited ............................................................................................................................... 36 Figures .................................................................................................................................................. 38Appendix A: Route Profiles ............................................................................ 39Appendix B: Network Calculations ................................................. 51

Executive Summary

Executive summarySection 1

Regina, Saskatchewan is not a transit city. Transit mode share during peak periods is only 3 percent, well below similarly-sized Canadian cities. The city can be quickly and easily navigated by private vehicle, while auto-oriented suburban development has made many neighbourhoods difficult to serve by transit. However, with both congestion and population on the rise, transit needs to become a competitive mode within the city. The City of Regina recognizes this and has emphasized the importance of transit improvements in both Design Regina, the Official Community Plan, as well as the 2015 Transportation Master Plan. Using this policy context—and deviating from it when necessary—this report lays out recommendations to enhance Regina’s transit network while increasing both ridership and the user experience.

In order to better understand the local context, we conducted an online survey called the “Regina Transit Survey,” which received a total of 513 responses over a one-month period. Sixty-four percent of respondents reported that they rarely, if ever, take transit in Regina. Respondents prioritized higher frequency, more direct routes, and faster trips, while also providing a variety of comments and suggestions about the system. Improved shelters, new destinations, reliable scheduling, and cheaper fares were all expressed as being desirable.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents expressed a willingness to pay for better transit, indicating that Reginans understand the importance of transit and desire better service. The most common negative comments about the transit system were that it is infrequent, unreliable, and slow. It was also revealed that transit has a negative image, especially amongst those who do not ride the bus—it is generally perceived as the transport mode of last resort. Based on these findings, we made a variety of suggestions for improving the transit network.

Regina’s current network is based on a hub and spoke system that channels riders towards downtown, and it contains a number of overlapping and confusing routes with very low average ridership. We have proposed a total network redesign with all-new routes, based on leading industry practices that prioritize frequency over increased coverage. The objectives of our redesign included:

• Providing a service frequency of 15 minutes throughout the day to key destinations;

• Simplifying the route design by placing routes on key corridors in a linear fashion;

• Making routes as direct as possible with a network grid design;

• Increasing speeds and service reliability by consistently placing stops every 400 meters; and

• Providing neighbourhood-oriented transit by locating routes on local roads that serve riders directly.

The proposed network was designed to be within the existing funding envelopes of Regina. Two service frequencies were proposed, using the operating budgets of $31.3 million, and $36.8 million. The first scenario provides 15 minute frequencies during peak periods, 7 days a week, on all routes, decreasing to 30 minutes until 9pm, followed by hourly service until midnight. Three routes would have frequencies of 15 minutes throughout the day until 7pm. The second scenario allowed for 15 minute frequencies on all routes from 7am to 7pm and frequencies of 30 minutes until 9pm, reducing to hourly service until midnight. The proposed network allows of 86 percent of all Reginans to be within a five-minute walk of transit and 97 percent to be within a ten-minute walk of transit.

We also provided a number of supporting recommendations to improve transit, including bus stop design, information provision, and marketing strategies. Approximately 9% of survey respondents mentioned concerns regarding bus shelters, including safety, thermal comfort, accessibility, and integration. In order to assess the current state of bus stops in Regina, we conducted an analysis of the #2 bus route based on standard bus shelter criteria and found that there is definitely room for improvement.

Information provision was also identified by survey respondents as an area in need of improvement. Transit information must be simple yet complete enough for both novice and experienced users to comfortably navigate the transit system. Recent mobile enhancements are appreciated by Reginans, but improvements can still be made to both the TransitLive application and the Regina Transit website. Physical information is also crucial for those who do not have access to mobile devices. Information at bus stops should include route number, a route map, upcoming stops, and a schedule.

Finally, marketing and branding are necessary in order to enhance the public image of the transit agency and increase demand for services. Reginans need to shake their negative perception of transit if they are going to start becoming regular transit riders. Marketing can help to debunk the myth that transit is a mode of last resort amongst users by profiling everyday people that ride the bus. If the network were redesigned, it is also important that the benefits of the redesign are communicated to citizens in order to build excitement for transit and minimize any negative push back as a result of route changes.

The overall objective of this project is to provide a high-level overview of what Regina’s transit network could look like, while providing a few tools for getting there. Further local context and input from transportation planners is necessary in order to flesh out the details of our proposal. However, we believe that by creating a fast, efficient network that is comfortable and convenient for people of all ages and abilities, Regina can become a more attractive, sustainable and prosperous city.

6

REIMAGINE REGINA TRANSIT: REVITALIZATION THROUGH REDESIGN

ContextSection 2

Context

Introduction

Regina, Saskatchewan is a city in transition. The mid-sized prairie city of approximately 200,000 residents experienced relatively low population growth throughout the 1980s and ‘90s, but in the past decade, a thriving resource sector has brought rapid growth and new energy to the Queen City. Over the next 25 years, the city’s population is expected to grow by 100,000 people, largely thanks to international immigration (City of Regina, 2015). With this rapid demographic transition in mind, public transit has the potential to play a pivotal role in Regina’s transportation future. However, bold and strategic improvements to the network, facilities, and overall image of Regina Transit are required in order to fulfill this potential. Currently, public transportation is underutilized in Regina. While the 20 bus routes—with over 1,400 bus stops—provide good coverage of the city, Regina has lower per capita spending on transit, lower rides per capita, and lower transit mode share than other similarly-sized Canadian municipalities (City of Regina, 2015). In 2013, Regina Transit carried approximately 6.2 million passengers—roughly 32 rides per capita—and had a mode share of 3 percent at peak period (see Figure 1) (City of Regina, 2015). In comparison, similarly-sized Canadian cities averaged 45 rides per capita and 7 to 10 percent mode share at peak period—two to three times more than Regina’s mode share (City of Regina, 2015). It is crucial that transit ridership improves in Regina, as congestion in, and around, the downtown core is growing worse; soon, the area may be unable to accommodate additional single occupant vehicles during peak hours, especially if the current mode share trends remain consistent as 100,000 new residents enter the city.

Fortunately, Regina shows potential for increased transit use thanks to a vibrant employment centre in the downtown core that is well connected to the primary north-south and east-west arterial roads. Additionally, major commercial centres exist in the north, south, and east areas of the city, which can act as transit hubs (see Figure 2). The University of Regina is another potential transit hub and is introducing the U-Pass, a

universal bus pass for students that will come into effect in September 2016. This will create a larger pool of potential riders, producing additional revenue. As a comparison, the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon, implemented a U-Pass program in 2009; today, almost 30 percent of all transit riders in Saskatoon are post-secondary students with U-Passes (City of Saskatoon, 2016). Unfortunately, Regina fell behind with regards to U-Pass implementation and watched as Saskatoon’s transit usage expanded. Now, Saskatoon has developed a robust plan for concentrating service on its major corridors using downtown and the university as hubs, with the ultimate goal of implementing two bus rapid transit lines (City of Saskatoon, 2016). Regina should be considering similar transit enhancements.

Policy Framework

Recent policy documents that influence Regina transit planning include Regina’s 2013 Official Community Plan (Design Regina), the 2009 Transit Investment Plan (TIP), and the 2015 Transportation Master Plan (TMP):

Design Regina (2013)

An effective transit system is integral to the ultimate vision outlined in Regina’s Official Community Plan (OCP), Design Regina. Throughout the OCP development process, Reginans identified the need to “[c]reate better, more active ways of getting around” as a community priority and expressed the desire to “make it easier for people of all abilities to travel by investing in public transit in appropriate locations” (City of Regina, 2013, p. 6). “Section D3: Transportation” of the OCP offers five strategic goals for addressing transportation-related community priorities: sustainable transportation choices,

It seems that Regina Transit is trying its best given the circumstances— i.e. trying to run a public transportation system in a city whose citizens and leaders are relatively unaware of contemporary urban transportation issues facing Canada’s big(ger) cities, and the pitfalls of car-oriented city-building. Because Regina is still growing, there is great opportunity to transform the city into one that is oriented around more sustainable modes of transportation, like public and active transportation. Regina Transit needs to play a more vocal, active, and aggressive role in development projects and public infrastructure projects in the city to ensure that public transit is a legitimate player in the city’s transportation network, and not “just an essential service we are required to provide.”

— Survey response from Regina resident

IBI GROUP | CITY OF REGINA

FINAL DRAFT | APRIL 2015 10

Figure 1: Regina Mode Share

8


public transit, integrated transportation and land-use planning, road network capacity, and active transportation. Additionally, the plan recommends “elevating the role of public transit” and offers some land use solutions, such as “planning for and protecting express transit corridors” and “promoting intensification and mixed used development along express transit corridors and transit nodes and potential transit nodes through increased service levels, more direct routes, express services and competitive travel times” (City of Regina, 2013, p. 36). The plan also recommends enhancing transit service in existing neighbourhoods, increasing active transportation connections to transit stations, and enhancing passenger amenities.

It is interesting to note that the OCP’s Growth Plan directs 70 percent of all population growth to new neighbourhoods, with only 30 percent directed towards intensification in existing neighbourhoods. This poses significant challenges for transit network planning, as new neighbourhoods on the edges of the city will need to be serviced as they develop, creating an ever-expanding transit system. In comparison, Metro Vancouver is directing 68 percent of its growth towards transit nodes (Metro Vancouver, 2015), making these areas much easier to serve and providing the critical population density that enables a transit system to thrive. The City of Regina should consider implementing a more aggressive intensification strategy that focuses growth on transit nodes and along key transportation corridors.

Transit Investment Plan (2009)

As described earlier, current transit usage in Regina is below the national average and there have been major concerns regarding reliability, accessibility, and general negative perceptions (City of Regina, 2015). Many of these issues were identified in the Transit Investment Plan (TIP) (AECOM, 2009). Most prevalent were the community’s concerns that the transit network was too indirect; trips by transit were three times as long as identical trips by car. Bus routes and schedules change depending on the day, making it difficult for casual users and tourists to navigate the system. The community also expressed the need for more frequent service during on- and off-peak hours as well as expanded bus services on Sundays and statutory holidays. Major destinations such as the Regina International Airport, Wascana Centre, and newly developed residential areas were not being served. Additional factors that impacted transit use included the lack of bus shelters, lack of information provision in languages other than English, and poor accessibility, particularly for seniors in the winter.

The TIP proposed two different route configurations for public feedback: one that modified the existing “bottom-up” system and one that utilized a “top-down” approach (AECOM, 2009). The “bottom-up” network, as shown in Figure 3 loops into the peripheral neighbourhoods before going downtown, while the “top-down” network is centralized along the main travel corridors and connects into the peripheral neighbourhoods with feeder lines (Figure 4). While the top-down option was

N KM4210

Data Source: City of Regina

Figure 2: Regina Zoning Map

Airport

Commercial

Contract Zone

Industrial

Institutional

Open Space

Railway

Residential Low Density

Residential Medium Density

Residential High Density

Urban Holdings

LEGEND

9

CONTEXT

shown to require more buses and have slightly longer travel times than the bottom-up option, the public preferred the top down option as the routes were easier to understand and service was more direct and provided greater coverage. This revealed three important transit priorities: simplicity, directness, and access.

Transportation Master Plan (2015)

The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) builds off the TIP’s route recommendations and seeks to adopt a service hierarchy model. Both plans also recommended actions to enhance the quality of the transit rider experience. Some of the recommendations included using on-board technologies like stop announcement systems and well as off-board technologies like real-time information provision at stations,

better seating, shelters, garbage receptacles, and enhanced customer information (City of Regina, 2015). Additionally, to address the harsh winter conditions, the TIP calls for the development of a winter travel strategy, which includes the potential installation of heated shelters at select locations. Developing a strong and unique brand for transit and creating promotional and educational programming that targets new immigrants, seniors, and students were also identified as policies that could raise public awareness and support for the transit system.

The TMP also builds on the strategic goals identified in the OCP and recommends more specific policy actions. Over the next 30 years, the TMP strives to limit growth in vehicle miles traveled, increase transit mode share from 3 to 6 percent, and increase mode share of all sustainable modes, including ridesharing, walking, cycling and transit, from 29 to 36 percent. To achieve these stated targets, the TMP is proposing a “top-down” network that is centralized along the main travel corridors and connects into the peripheral neighbourhoods with feeder lines (see Figure 5).

This model has three tiers of service: Neighbourhood Transit with frequencies of 15-30 minutes during peak periods, Primary Transit with frequencies of 15 minutes or less during peak periods, and Express Transit with frequencies of 30 minutes. The TMP is striving to have 90 percent of all residences, schools, and places of employment to be within 400m of a Neighbourhood Transit Line and within 2km of an Express Line. Furthermore, the TMP recommends reinforcing and expanding the role of transit in the city centre and improving service to Saskatchewan Polytechnic and the University of Regina. Land-use and transportation integration is also a major part of the TMP, which proposes densifying around transit nodes and corridors. However, no specific actions or targets were set to facilitate or measure this last objective.

Current Actions

The City of Regina has made numerous policy recommendations based on the TIP, TMP, and OCP, many of which are currently being implemented. Regina is proposing route changes to provide greater, more direct access to the University of Regina and Harbour Landing, a new residential development in the southwest quadrant of the city (City of Regina, 2016). This is being implemented in conjunction with the U-Pass program for University of Regina students, which begins in Fall 2016. Furthermore, as of January 18, 2016, stop announcement systems began operating on conventional buses (City of Regina, 2016). In response to poor accessibility, particularly of seniors during harsh winter conditions, ten locations have been identified as “Winter Maintenance Hot Spots” and will receive high priority snow removal. Furthermore, all routes now have low floor buses, which allows for easier access into and out of the bus (City of Regina, 2016). Finally, the City of

City of Regina

T r a n s i t I n v e s t m e n t P l a n - F i n a l P l a n

AECOM / ENTRA Consultants Page 59

Exhibit 15 – Plan 1 – Bottom-Up Approach as Presented in Web Survey

City of Regina

T r a n s i t I n v e s t m e n t P l a n - F i n a l P l a n

AECOM / ENTRA Consultants Page 60

Exhibit 16 – Plan 2 – Top-Down Approach as Presented in Web Survey

Figures 3 & 4: Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches

10


Regina recently installed four heated bus shelters along 11th avenue in downtown Regina (CBC News, 2015a).

Our Proposal

The aforementioned plans do an excellent job of laying the foundation for Regina’s transportation future. While we agree with the majority of the recommendations put forward in these three plans, we have decided to deviate in one important way: we are not prioritizing the goal of having 90 percent of all residents, workplaces, schools, and postsecondary institutions to be within 400m walking distance of a Neighbourhood Transit line and 2km of an Express line. Instead, our approach aligns with the TMP’s direction of providing more direct, frequent, and time-competitive service. We believe that in a city like Regina, where much of the built form is made up of low-density, “loop and lollipop” suburban development, the goal of total coverage conflicts with the goal of direct, high-frequency routes. This decision will be further explained in coming chapters, however we felt it necessary to explain our deviation from the existing plans before moving forward.

The following section of this report will explain the methodology and results of our “Regina Transit” survey,

which provided valuable local context and helped to shape our proposal. Next, Section 4 will discuss transit network design principles and provide detailed analyses of both the existing network and our proposed network for Regina. Finally, Section 5 will briefly examine supporting recommendations to enhance the transit system as a whole, including bus shelter upgrades, information provision, and marketing strategies.

The overall objective of this project is to allow readers to envision a possible transportation future for Regina. Through our proposed network redesign and supporting recommendations, we are aiming to create a fast, efficient network that is comfortable and convenient for people of all ages and abilities. With that being said, this project is by no means intended to be a comprehensive assessment of Regina’s transportation system, as that is a task for municipal transportation planners and professional consultants. As planning students who are passionate about sustainable, equitable, and enjoyable cities, we believe that Regina—a thriving regional centre in the midst of a rapid demographic transition—deserves an excellent transit system. We hope the recommendations in this report can help to achieve this goal.

Figure 5: Transportation Master Plan Network Vision

I

VICTORIASQUARE MALL

SIAST

REGINA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

STADIUM

PASQUA HOSPITAL

STC

GENERALHOSPITAL

NORMANVIEW CROSSING

WASCANA REHABILITATION

CityCentre

DEWDNEY

COLLEGE

ASSINIBOINE

FLEE

T

CH

UK

A

UN

IVERSITY

PA

RK

PARLIAMENT

GORDON

ALB

ERT

ALB

ERT

ARG

YLE

NORTHGATE

ROCHDALECROSSING

ROCHDALE-PASQUA

VICTORIA EAST

UNIVERSITYGOLDEN MILE

SOUTHLAND

HARBOUR LANDING

SANDRA SCHMIRLER

DEWDNEY

ROCHDALE

VICTORIA

ARCOLA

WASCANA

WIN

NIP

EG

PARK

BRO

AD

MC

INTO

SH

ELPH

INST

ON

E

JAM

ES H

ILL

MCC

ART

HY

4TH AVENUE

ROSS

MCDONALD

HEN

DER

SON

FLEE

T

13TH AVENUE

REGINA

ARGYLE

SHERWOOD

1ST AVENUE N.

6TH AVENUE N.

PRIN

CE O

F W

ALE

S

Express Transit Corridor

Primary Transit Corridor

Potential Primary Transit Corridor

Potential Higher-Order Transit Corridor

Transit

Transit Node

Potential Transit Node

Other Major Transit Destinations

Existing and New Employment Areas (OCP)

New Neighbourhoods (OCP)

NOTE: - Transit Corridors and Transit Nodes in

New Neighbourhoods will be determined through the Concept Plan process.

- Details shown on this map may differ from “Map 5 - Transportation” of the OCP. The OCP will be updated to reflect the TMP in a future amendment.

VERSION DATE: February 5, 2015

Special Study Areas (OCP)

11

CONTEXT

survey analysisSection 3

Survey Analysis

Survey Methodology

In order to gather up-to-date contextual information about the Regina transit system, a survey called the “Regina Transit Survey” was prepared and distributed online via social media and e-mail to current and former Regina residents. The survey contained six simple questions that were aimed at uncovering perceptions of transit in Regina as well as respondents’ willingness to invest in the system (see panel to the right).

Between February 5, 2016 and March 2, 2016, the survey received a total of 513 responses, representing people from a wide range of ages, levels of transit use, and locations within Regina. Survey respondents ranged in age from 15 years old to 86 years old. The mean age was 36, the median age was 33, and the mode age was 24—a large range of respondents but with a bias towards younger residents. This was expected given that the survey was distributed widely amongst university students. Geographically, survey respondents were spread out fairly equally across the city, with a cluster of responses in the Cathedral area and a greater number of responses in the south and east areas of the city as compared to the north end (see Figure 7). A total of 17 responses came from people living outside of Regina, most of which came from nearby municipalities such as Balgonie and Pilot Butte. However, Vancouver, Saskatoon, and Washington State each had one response each, presumably from former Regina residents who were interested in contributing.

Survey distribution relied heavily on the personal networks of the two authors that have lived in Regina, therefore the results may not accurately represent all neighbourhoods or demographics in Regina. However, given the large number of responses, the relatively even geographic spread, and the wide range of ages, we are confident that these results represent a useful source of information about Regina transit. The first set of recipients included family, friends, and former colleagues of the authors. This portion of the distribution included snowball sampling, as survey recipients were asked to share the survey link with others. Next, the survey was sent out to all students, faculty, and staff at the University of Regina via their campus listserv. Finally, various environment- and planning-focused organizations shared the survey via social media, including Regina Advocates for Design, Bike Regina, Regina Green Ride Transit Network, and Regina Green Drinks. These groups were chosen because, based on the group themes, members would likely care about transit in Regina.

Survey Analysis

Question 1: How often do you ride the bus in Regina?

As Figure 6 indicates, a significant number of survey respondents (38.3%) never ride the bus in Regina. When this is grouped with respondents who only ride once or twice per

How often do you ride the bus in Regina?• Daily• Weekly• Once or twice per month• Once or twice per year• Never

What would make you ride the bus more frequently? Choose all that apply.• Higher frequency buses (lower wait times)• Faster trips• More reliable scheduling• More direct routes (fewer transfers)• New route destinations• Cheaper fares• Improved bus shelters• Increased safety• More on-bus amenities (e.g. Wi-Fi)• More comfortable experience• More convenient experience• Other

Would you be willing to pay for better transit service? If so, which payment method would you prefer? Choose all that apply.• Yes, through increased transit fares• Yes, through increased gasoline tax• Yes, through increased property tax• No, I am unwilling to pay for better transit• Other

What are your perceptions of transit in Regina?Write as much or as little as you want. Even if you’ve never ridden a bus in Regina, what are your thoughts on the transit system?

What is your age?

What is your postal code?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Regina Transit Survey Questions

38.8%

17.5%

9.5%9.3%

25.4%

DailyWeeklyOnce or twice per monthOnce or twice per yearNever

Figure 6: Q1: How often do you ride the bus in Regina?

13

SURVEY ANALYSIS

year (25.4%), well over half of respondents (63.7%) almost never take transit. This result is unsurprising given the well-established car culture in the city, but on the positive side, it represents a large untapped market of potential transit users. The 9.3 percent of users who take transit once or twice per month represent users that could be converted into more frequent riders, as do the 9.5 percent who ride the bus weekly, to an extent. Finally, the 89 daily riders who responded to the survey (17.5%) provide very valuable data, because as frequent users of the system, they are likely to be very familiar with its strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.

Question 2: What would make you ride the bus more frequently?

Figure 8 shows that the main priorities for respondents are higher frequency buses and more direct routes. Additionally, almost 50 percent of respondents desire faster trips. More reliable scheduling, new route destinations, and more convenient experiences were also popular choices, which all point to the need to reassess the network as a whole. Respondents also seem to want better value for their dollar, as 37.3 percent want cheaper fares. Finally, nearly 30 percent of respondents want improved bus shelters, which emphasizes their importance within the transit network.

The most common “other” answer was “nothing,” as almost 3 percent of respondents indicated that no improvement would get them onto a bus. Another 1.4 percent indicated that they would only ride if forced to do so (e.g. if they lost their driver’s

N KM4210


Figure 7: Survey Response Locations

LEGENDSurvey Response Locations

Higher frequency buses (lower wait times)

Faster tripsMore reliable scheduling

More direct routes (fewer transfers)

New route destinations

Cheaper fares

Improved bus shelters

Increased safetyMore on-bus amenities (e.g. Wi-Fi)

More comfortable experience

More convenient experience

Other

372 (72%)

251 (49%)216 (42%)

336 (65%)

120 (23%)

192 (37%)

145 (28%)

88 (17%)93 (18%)

71 (14%)

148 (29%)

74 (14%)

Figure 8: Q2: What would make you ride the bus more frequently?

14


license or parking spot). Nine respondents indicated wanting expanded service on evenings and weekends, while a handful of respondents requested better system information, either at stops or on the bus itself.

Question 3: Would you be willing to pay for better transit service? If so, which payment method would you prefer?

There was a fairly even split for each transit funding option, as each had about 30 percent support. Somewhat surprisingly, only 23 percent of respondents were unwilling to pay. Interestingly, of the 228 respondents (63.7%) who either never take transit or only ride one to two times per year, only 93 (40%) said they would be unwilling to pay for better transit. This means that 60 percent of respondents who rarely or never ride transit would still be willing to invest in better transit. This indicates that many respondents understand the value of a well-functioning transit system. It could also mean that a significant number of people are interested in riding transit but currently do not because the system does not meet their needs, so they are willing to invest in making it better.

Of the “other” responses, the most common was that the transit is already overpriced and is bad value, providing sub-par service for relatively high transit fares. Others expressed that they would be willing to pay more, but only if there was a guarantee that the increased fees/taxes/etc. would actually go back into improving the transit system, not into general revenue streams. A total of eight respondents thought that drivers of private vehicles should pay more in one way or another in order to fund transit. As the majority of Regina residents travel by personal automobile every day, it is unsurprising that only eight people suggested this.

Question 4: What are your perceptions of transit in Regina?

This question received a wide variety of responses ranging from a few words to multiple paragraphs that described positive experiences, frustrations, comparisons to transit systems in other cities, and suggestions for improvements. A selection of particularly insightful responses can be seen in Figure 10. Upon analysis, certain patterns and recommendations have emerged.

On the positive side, many people mentioned that the system is “fairly good,” “decent,” “adequate,” and “improving,” saying that while improvements are needed, it gets the job done,

especially for a city of Regina’s size. Respondents understood that comparisons to larger, more urban cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, and Calgary are not generally valid, as the context is too different. Specialty services such as the high school “Special Bus” system and shuttles to Saskatchewan Roughriders football games are appreciated, as are improvements such as the TransitLive application and the new bike racks on each bus. A few students expressed excitement about the upcoming U-Pass system, with hopes that it will help improve the transit network overall. Respondents indicated that service is generally good if one is traveling downtown and that the express service to the university works well if the rider lives close to one of these routes. There is interest in taking transit if improvements are made, as many respondents stated: “I would take the bus, but…”. Finally, cold weather as a hindrance to transit use was mentioned only about 25 times and long walks to a bus stop were only mentioned about 20 times. This means that harsh winter weather is generally not perceived as a barrier and can be dealt with by improving accessibility to bus stops, adding additional bus shelters, and improving frequencies so that wait times are reduced.

The top negative comments were that the Regina system is infrequent, unreliable, and slow. Generally, transit is seen as inconvenient and overly time consuming with complicated, circuitous routes, long wait times, and frequent transfers. The routes are seen as unintuitive and poorly coordinated, resulting in long waits at transfer points. Many respondents disliked having to go downtown in order to connect to different routes, as this often took them well out of their way and added significant time to their journeys. Reliability is particularly low in the winter months, and respondents complained that buses often fail to meet their schedules and occasionally skip stops in order to catch up, leaving riders stranded. Many respondents expressed general frustration with the system, often comparing it unfavourably to other cities; for example, it was indicated multiple times that transit is superior in Saskatoon.

Car culture is ingrained in the Regina’s fabric, with private vehicles almost ubiquitous. A large number of respondents indicated that it is much faster and more convenient to drive a private vehicle than to take transit. Many indicated that the city has been planned and designed with the automobile in mind, which is why transit is not competitive with private vehicles. Additionally, some respondents felt that the transit system is underfunded and is not given enough political or economic support from the City.

63 (12%)119 (23%)

156 (30%)165 (32%)

185 (36%) Yes, through increased transit faresYes, through increased gasoline taxYes, through increased property taxNo, I am unwilling to pay for better transitOther

Figure 9: Q3: Would you be willing to pay for better transit service?

15

SURVEY ANALYSIS

Moreover, the transit system was seen by some respondents as bad value for money; fares have been increasing, but riders have not perceived a significant improvement in service. While things like TransitLive and bicycle racks have been added to the system, riders’ greatest priorities—speed and frequency—have not been addressed, leaving riders unsatisfied. Another issue is the lack of service during non-peak hours. Many respondents mentioned poor Sunday service as well as early morning and evening schedules. They expressed the fact that many jobs do not follow the typical Monday to Friday, 9 to 5 work week, and these potential riders need to be accommodated.

Respondents also revealed that Regina transit has an image problem; many citizens, especially those who do not ride the bus, perceive it as a transportation system of last resort for the poor, those with mental health issues, and those who have lost their driver’s licenses. These negative perceptions likely dissuades ridership. Interestingly, younger respondents (under 33 years of age) were much more critical of the transit system than older respondents (over 33) and were more likely to find the bus dirty or uncomfortable. Generally, older respondents found the system to be more reliable and useful. Therefore, correcting this image problem is key in order to persuade the new, young riders who will form the core of future transit ridership.

Finally, there were many practical suggestions for enhancing the rider experience, both on and off the bus. Multiple respondents wanted better information provision, including an improved mobile application as well as better information on buses and at stops. Some respondents complained of poor customer service, but just as many indicated having safe and friendly drivers. Certain stops were considered unsafe, including the current downtown hub. A few respondents mentioned the need for more shelters and safer bus stops. There are many stops without shelters or benches, and some do not even have sidewalks, putting pedestrians in an unsafe and uncomfortable situation. These survey results correlate well with the findings of the Regina Transit Investment Plan mentioned earlier (AECOM, 2009). This helps to validate the results of this survey, but it also reveals an unfortunate trend: many of the negative themes that were identified in the 2009 TIP survey remain a concern today. While there have certainly been improvements, it is evident that not enough has been done in the past seven years to enhance transit services in Regina. The following sections of this report will attempt to address the concerns raised in the survey by applying modern transportation principles to Regina’s transit network.

T

It is fairly efficient for our population base. We can't expect to have the frequency of service that a larger centre has.

It's too difficult to schedule your life around the bus schedule. We are used to driving cars in Regina and the bus is (from my experience) used by people who can't afford a car, are trying very hard to "go green," or who work downtown where parking and rush hour make the bus a more viable option (and most routes go through the downtown core too, so their options are a lot better) but your typical person living/working in the "suburbs" can't make it work very well. We're spoiled, those of us that have cars, there's no waiting in the cold or the rain, it takes 15-20 minutes to get anywhere in the city we need to go, and there's no worry about running late, missing a bus, and having to wait an additional half hour until the next bus comes along.

Transport of last resort.

For a small city like Regina, it takes too long to get anywhere. Routes are very limited, inflexible and inconvenient with transfers.

...The cost is higher than most public transit in much larger cities. Regina needs to recognize the benefit of improving transit, which will not happen without making transit more affordable, more convenient and more pleasant. The city is small enough that it could have an efficient system that would have great benefits (less congestion, greater transit equality, less need to increase road capacity, etc.).

Regina’s Perception of Transit

...Many people have the impression that the only people who ride transit are old, Aboriginal, people under the influence of various substances and students. When I ride bus the passengers are mostly business people going to and from work. Change perceptions and you are on the road to making transit more acceptable.

sample responses from the regina transit survey

“

”

” ”

””

”

“

“

“

“

“

Figure 10: Q4: What are your perceptions of transit in Regina?

16


network redesignSection 4

Network Redesign

Transit Network Design Principles

A transit network can be designed in a variety of ways, depending on its key goals. For the City of Regina, the stated goal is to have 90 percent of residents within a five-minute walking distance (400m) of a bus stop. In this regard, Regina strives for service coverage and not necessarily other goals, such as frequency of service, reliability, or route connectivity. In a system with limited resources, making choices about the primary goals of the network’s design can greatly impact the total number of people who can utilize the transit service, as well as the service quality.

Leading practice in transit network design is shifting away from the primary goal of coverage towards maximizing ridership. This network design philosophy emphasizes several key components that are associated with increased ridership: direct routes, frequent service, and easy connections and transfers. By simplifying the network’s legibility along a basic grid and redeploying service to secure frequencies of 15 minutes or lower through the day, ridership increases, as do fare revenues. This creates a virtuous cycle which enable the transit provider to ultimately help the greatest number of people get to where they need to go. One champion of this philosophy, Jarrett Walker, a transit planner from Portland, Oregon, has led network redesigns in cities as diverse as Houston, Texas and Auckland, New Zealand; these redesigns are presented as case studies below.

Houston, Texas

Houston, Texas undertook a network redesign in order to address integration with new light rail lines and adapt to shifting customer demands. Since 2001, bus ridership had dropped by 20 percent (Stephens, 2015). Due to economic restructuring, the downtown was no longer the primary centre of employment but was still the hub of the transit network. With the rise of work in non-traditional hours, customers were seeking improved service at night and on weekends—an issue that was also raised in the Regina Transit Survey. In addition, many buses faced regular delays due to road crossings with railways. To respond to all these pressures, Metro Transit (2015) undertook a comprehensive analysis of the bus network to redeploy services in a more cost-effective and efficient method.

After extensive public consultation about the network’s primary goal of ridership or coverage, Metro Transit ultimately decided to dedicate 80 percent of resources to achieve maximum ridership, with the remaining 20 percent allocated to service coverage. Prior to the network redesign, resources were distributed 50-50. With the changes, 94 percent of riders maintained service at existing stops. Access to frequent service, defined as every fifteen minutes, seven days a week, increased from 25 percent of riders to 72 percent of riders (Preciado,

2016). The revised network anticipates a reduction in delays due to rail crossings by almost 30 percent. The network was based on a non-growth revenue principle, meaning the proposal would not cost any additional dollars to implement. Since its implementation in summer 2015, the new network has seen ridership increase 4 percent (Schmitt, 2016).

Auckland, New Zealand

With new rail lines opening, Auckland, New Zealand undertook an analysis of their bus system to reorient service and reduce duplication. With a new priority focus on frequent service, the network was redesigned from a direct service model—which features many overlapping and infrequent routes-- to a connective network model that features fewer routes but higher frequencies. As a result, the new network features more frequent service, from 7am to 7pm everyday, with simpler routing. In South Auckland, the new network increased the number of residents within walking distance of frequent service from 12 percent to 30 percent.

To accommodate the new network, Auckland Transport (2016) has invested in new exchanges to ease transfers, introduced integrated ticketing across all modes, and improved real time information at key stops and stations. The network changes have been rolling out, regionally, since 2015, with anticipated completion by 2017.

Current Network Analysis

Regina’s network is a perfect candidate to undergo a similar network redesign. The 2015 Regina Transit Network consisted of twenty bus routes, with service to virtually all neighbourhoods in the city as well as most “key destinations,” which will be further explained later in this section (see Figure 11). Although the city has already implemented several changes to increase ridership, such as the express routes, the network is still primarily based on an inefficient hub and spoke system

Regina should be an easy city to cover with a fast, cheap transit system. The terrain is flat, streets are a simple grid, and the weather, though very cold in winter, is usually light on precipitation so traffic flows are uninterrupted. But the current system, though not terrible, is mediocre and, because expensive and slow, is ridiculously underused. The current thinking seems to be to try to get an infrequent bus past everyone’s door instead of having regular, fast, cheap, integrated service down major arteries. At weekends and holidays the service is rudimentary. Incredibly, there is no public transit to the airport!


18


designed to bring riders into and out of the core, and there are a number of circuitous routes intersecting both the core and the suburban neighbourhoods. Of the city’s five busiest routes, none have mid-day frequencies greater than every half hour and several shift to hourly service as early as 7:00pm. The five routes with the lowest ridership have, on average, only nine riders per hour—an inefficient use of resources for buses with a standing capacity of nearly 70 passengers. Under the current network, 96 percent of the population is within a five minute walking distance (400m) of a transit route (see Figure 12).

Nine primary routes deliver service over eighteen hours per day, while the remaining eleven routes operate on limited schedules, usually at peak hours only. With the nine primary routes, service is typically every half hour during the day and every hour after 7pm. Five of these primary routes—routes 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9—increase their peak morning and evening rush hour service to frequencies of once every fifteen minutes. Seventy-two percent of the population is within a five minute walking distance of these five “frequent at peak period” routes (see Figure 13).

The network design is primarily a hub-and-spoke system, with most routes coming through the downtown core along the Cornwall Centre transit mall. Buses typically do not follow a linear or logical path, nor do they necessarily travel the same roadways when doing their return route. Some buses, particularly in the north and east ends of the city, follow very

circuitous routing, due in part to the suburban street design of these areas. Routes 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 had the highest ridership on the network, with route 2 averaging 132 riders per hour on a weekday. Routes 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21 had the lowest ridership, with route 16 averaging only 16 riders per hour on a weekday. The routes with the highest ridership are all crosstown routes designed to connect one area of the city to another. The routes with the lowest ridership tended only to tour around a local neighbourhood, acting as a feeder system to the crosstown routes.

Although the current network provides nearby access to transit for almost all Reginans, outside of peak hours, service frequencies are insufficient and routes are not direct enough for many current and choice riders. The result begs the

It is slowly getting better (eg. service to and from the downtown) but has a long way to go. Transit is grossly under funded in Regina. The excuse is that hardly anyone uses it so why invest but it won’t improve if we don’t invest. The routes need to be completely rethought; they are circuitous - need to be more direct and frequent. The recently introduced “express routes” have few stops but they are not frequent enough. I live and work downtown so thankfully I’m able to walk or bike for most trips.


N KM4210


Figure 11: Current Transit Network with Key Destinations

Commercial CentresMajor AttractionsPost-Secondary Institutions

Regina International AirportSTC Bus Terminal

Hospitals

1

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

14

15

16

17

18

21

30

40

50

2

3

4

Varsity Park – Mount Royal

Windsor Park – Spruce Meadows

Heritage

Lakeridge – Hawkstone

Mapleridge

Harbour Landing – University

Glencairn – University

Rochdale – University Express

Albert North – Albert South Express Victoria East – Victoria Downtown Express

Dieppe – Broad North

Argyle Park – Woodland Grove

University – Sherwood Estates

Hillsdale – Walsh Acres

Uplands – Downtown

Westhill – Ross Industrial

Glencairn – Whitmore Park

Eastview – Normandy Heights

Parkridge – Albert Park

RCMP – Normanview

LEGEND

19

NETWORK REDESIGN

N KM4210


Figure 12: 400m Buffer around Current Transit Network

1

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

14

15

16

17

18

21

30

40

50

2

3

4

Varsity Park – Mount Royal

Windsor Park – Spruce Meadows

Heritage

Lakeridge – Hawkstone

Mapleridge

Harbour Landing – University

Glencairn – University

Rochdale – University Express

Albert North – Albert South Express Victoria East – Victoria Downtown Express




Hillsdale – Walsh Acres

Uplands – Downtown

Westhill – Ross Industrial


Eastview – Normandy Heights


RCMP – Normanview

400m BufferLEGEND

N KM4210


Figure 13: 400m Buffer around Current Routes with 15-minute Frequencies at Peak Hours

1

7

9

2

3






400m BufferLEGEND

20


question: how useful is having a bus stop at your door if the bus only comes once an hour and the destination takes two to four times as long to reach by bus as it does compared to driving?

Proposed Network Design Principles

As our survey discovered, the top three requests among Reginans were improved frequencies, more direct routes, and faster trips. These results echo the feedback the City recently received during the development of the 2015 Transportation Master Plan. Therefore, in our network redesign, our primary goal was to deliver a network that could provide frequent bus service of at least 15 minutes, throughout the day, 7 days a week, to key destinations.

Our second goal was to introduce legibility to the network by simplifying route design. Rather than the non-linear and circuitous approach of the existing network, we strove to place routes on key corridors in as linear a fashion as possible. Doing so makes route planning and system navigation easier for both captive and choice riders.

Our third goal was to make routes as direct as possible. The current hub-and-spoke system is only direct if traveling downtown. In the new network’s grid design, we connected key corridors with major destinations in an effort to reduce unnecessary transfers wherever possible. For example, instead of simply running a bus north-south along Albert St., connecting that route in the north to Rochdale and in the south to Harbour Landing were logical extensions of the route.

Our fourth goal was to design a network that lent itself to greater speeds and service reliability. We can accomplish this by consistently placing bus stops every 400m, or a 5-minute walking distance, which can reduce the number of times a bus needs to stop along its route. The City of Regina has recently led a project to rationalize existing bus stops at a distance of 400m, instead of the current 200m, along the Albert St, Broad Street, and Victoria Avenue, removing a total of 44 bus stops.

Our fifth goal was to provide neighbourhood-oriented transit. Unlike the City’s Transportation Master Plan, which locates frequent transit along highway-style, limited-access roads like Lewvan Drive or Arcola Avenue, we deliberately avoided these corridors, opting to instead place service along local neighbourhood roads that serve riders directly. Locating frequent transit on highway-style corridors could greatly decrease accessibility, increase walk times, and does not create a transit- or people-friendly urban environment.

Finally, to confirm our proposal’s feasibility, we ensured that our network’s operations were fully costed and could be realized within existing funding envelopes dedicated by the

City. This important limitation forced us to make strategic trade-offs regarding routing and frequencies, grounding our proposal in the real world, rather than merely being a wish list or “fantasy” network.

Proposed Network Analysis

The new network features 11 routes, the majority of which are designed as crosstown routes (see Figure 14). Most of the routes travel down key north-south or east-west roads. The new network provides access to all of the key destinations that we identified within the city:

• The primary malls and shopping areas: Cornwall Centre, Golden Mile, Northgate, Victoria Square, Rochdale, Southland, Grasslands (Harbour Landing), and 13th Avenue

• The University of Regina and the Saskatchewan Polytechnic University

• The Regina General Hospital and the Pasqua Hospital• The Royal Saskatchewan Museum, the RCMP Heritage

Museum, the Saskatchewan Science Centre, and the Conexus Arts Centre

• Mosaic Stadium (new 2017 site) and Evraz Place

The new network also introduces service, for the first time ever, to Regina International Airport, via two routes. Additionally, it connects to the STC Bus Terminal for out-of-town trips. The network eliminates the Cornwall Centre transit mall in favour of providing service along all four major roads bordering the downtown: Victoria Avenue, Albert Street, Broad Street, and Saskatchewan Drive. Appendix A contains a detailed description of each route, showing major streets, key destinations, and transfer points along the route.

To determine service frequencies, we utilized the proposed Regina Transit operational budgets within the City’s approved Transportation Master Plan. The short term annual operating budget, from 2016 to 2019, is set at $32.2 million. The medium term annual operating budget, from 2020 to 2029, is set at $40.9 million. We have proposed two transit scenarios, one based on each budget.

The first scenario, utilizing the short term operating budget of $32.2 million, provides 15 minute frequencies during the morning and evening rush hours, 7 days a week, on all routes. Routes number 5, 6, and 11, which travel on the key corridors of Victoria Avenue, Albert Street, Wascana Parkway, and McCarthy Boulevard, also provide 15-minute service throughout the day, from 7am to 7pm. All other routes receive 30 minute frequencies outside of peak periods. All routes are reduced to hourly service from 9pm to midnight. The total operating estimate for this level of service is $31.3 million,

21

NETWORK REDESIGN

providing 320,200 service hours.

The second scenario, utilizing the medium term operating budget of $40.9 million, provides 15 minute frequencies on all routes from 7am to 7pm, 7 days a week. Frequencies of every 30 minutes are provided in the early mornings and evenings, reducing to every hour from 9pm to midnight. The total operating estimate for this level of service is $36.8 million, providing 376,000 service hours.

In each of the two proposed network scenarios, 86 percent of all Regina residents are within a five-minute walk of transit (see Figure 15). This is 10 percent lower than the 5-minute coverage provided by the current network (96%). Figure 16 shows where the gains and losses in coverage are located, highlighting more losses (red) than gains (blue). This was expected due to our prioritization of frequency and directness over maximum coverage. As a comparison, Figure 17 shows the gains and losses in 5-minute walking distance coverage between the existing routes that have 15 minute frequencies at peak hours and the proposed network, all of which have 15 minute frequencies at peak hours and throughout the day. The gains in high-frequency coverage (blue) are evident in Figure 17. Table 1 also emphasizes the differences in 15-minute frequency coverage between the various network designs.

N KM4210


Figure 14: Proposed Transit Network with Key Destinations

Commercial CentresMajor AttractionsPost-Secondary Institutions

Regina International AirportSTC Bus Terminal

Hospitals

1

2

3

5

4

6

7

8

9

10

11 Victoria

Northgate – Golden Mile

Glencairn – Southland

Sherwood – Ross Industrial

Walsh Acres – Southland

Rochdale – University

Albert

Northgate – Harbour Landing

Rochdale – Ross Industrial

Rosemont – Arcola East

Northgate – Airport

LEGEND

% of Population within 400m of 15-min service

Current Network

Proposed Network (Scenario A)

Proposed Network (Scenario B)

Weekday Peak Hours 72% 86% 86%

Mid-day on Weekdays 0% 45% 86%

Weekends 0% 0% 86%

Table 1: Comparison of routes based on 15-minute frequency service

Methodology

Utilizing a basic model provided by TransLink, Metro Vancouver’s transit agency, along with 2015 operational data from Regina Transit, we estimated that Regina provided roughly 266,000 service hours over 2015 at a cost of $26.1 million. These numbers are quite close to the official statistics in the City’s budget, which state that Regina Transit provided 256,000 service hours at a cost of $26.4 million. The service hour estimate was determined in the following way:

Each route timetable was deconstructed to provide service hours within three categories: peak, off-peak, and PM off-peak, along with the frequencies for each category. The route length was multiplied by the operating speed of each route, which provided the total running time. Based on the running time, the

22


N KM4210


Figure 15: 400m Buffer around Proposed Transit Network

1

2

3

5

4

6

7

8

9

10

11 Victoria

Northgate – Golden Mile

Glencairn – Southland

Sherwood – Ross Industrial

Walsh Acres – Southland

Rochdale – University

Albert

Northgate – Harbour Landing

Rochdale – Ross Industrial

Rosemont – Arcola East

Northgate – Airport

400m Buffer

LEGEND

N KM4210


Figure 16: Difference in 400m Coverage between Current and Proposed Transit Networks

Coverage Gained *Coverage Lost *

Coverage is defined as areas that are located within 400m of a transit route.

For example, in the proposed transit network scenario, areas in blue are now within 400m of a transit route, whereas currently they are not.

*

LEGEND

23

NETWORK REDESIGN

number of vehicles needed by each time category was estimated. The frequencies multiplied by the number of vehicles needed provided the service hours. The service hours are then multiplied by 365 days to determine the total service hours per annum, while the service cost of $98 per service hour provides the estimated operational costs.

These calculations can be viewed in Appendix B. Once the model was corroborated with the final service hours and operational costs stated by the City, the model was then used to input the new network’s routes, route lengths, and frequencies.

Limitations

The new network, as proposed, is a high-level vision of a possible transit future. The recommendations in this report should be treated conceptually, especially considering that the authors are neither professional transportation planners nor are we based in Regina. Local expertise would be required in order to adjust the routing and frequencies in a way that meets the specific needs of each neighbourhood and resident. In order to simplify our analysis, we limited our set of “key destinations” to those listed above; we recognize that many other locations, such as secondary schools, community centres, libraries, medical clinics, sport fields, and numerous other important destinations are also in need of service.

Additionally, when we calculated a 400m buffer from transit routes, we considered only residences and not schools and places of employment, as called for in the TMP. As a result, the percentages could potentially be slightly inaccurate.

We were also limited in our capacity to achieve the goals of frequent, direct, and simple service due to the design of the road network. Service in the north, and most prominently in the east, was difficult to design due to the poor connectivity of the roads and the general layout of the neighbourhoods. While it may not be possible to improve the road network in these areas, ensuring that growth occurs in a more grid-like and transit-friendly design will support the network’s expansion in the future.

We view our new network proposal as a concept of what could be possible if the City reallocated its transit service along new principles to achieve maximum ridership. This proposal may not be a satisfactory solution for all residents. However, we are confident that the majority of residents would benefit from the improved service our proposal delivers.

N KM4210


Figure 17: Difference in 400m Coverage between Current Routes with 15-minute Frequencies at Peak Hours and Proposed Transit Network

Coverage Gained *Coverage Lost *

Coverage is defined as areas that are located within 400m of a transit route.

For example, in the proposed transit network scenario, areas in blue are now within 400m of a transit route, whereas currently they are not.

*

LEGEND

24


supporting recommendations

Section 5

Supporting Recom-mendations

In addition to redesigning the network, there are numerous supporting changes that could improve Regina Transit and increase ridership. Our survey identified a number of issues, but we have chosen to touch on three in particular : bus stops, information provision, and marketing.

Bus Stops

All transit trips are inherently multi-modal; unless the bus stop is directly outside the door, a transit user will need to travel to that stop by foot, bicycle, or some other means. Therefore, access to bus stops is a crucial part of transit network planning. This includes providing safe sidewalks or paths leading to the stop and ensuring that these paths are cleared of debris as well as snow and ice in the winter months. The bus stop itself is also plays a key role in encouraging people to use transit; studies have shown that in general, people are more likely to take transit after bus shelter improvements (Zhang, 2012; Transit Cooperative Research Program, n.d.). In Regina, only 18% (259/1472) of bus stops have shelters, and due to the climate, waiting for a bus without adequate shelter can be very unpleasant (Figures 18 and 19) (City of Regina, 2015). In the winter, average temperatures range from -10 to -16°C (The Weather Network, 2016). Additionally, wind chill—something that can be mitigated by enclosed shelters—can make these outdoor waits feel significantly colder, with temperatures reaching the -30 to -40°C range, and even lower in extreme cases. Therefore, providing adequate bus shelters is one of the many ways to increase the rider experience—and likely ridership—in Regina.

Zhang (2012) highlights seven key aspects that should be taken into consideration with regards to bus shelter design. First of all, there are actual and perceived safety considerations. Actual safety concerns include ensuring that the bus shelter is located back from heavy traffic, that it does not obstruct bicyclists and pedestrians, that it is structurally sound, and that it does not contain any slippery surfaces. Moreover, it is important

to ensure that bus shelters feel safe for all. Ensuring that adequate sight lines are present where riders can see into and be seen in shelters, that riders can see where other activity is occurring around the shelter area (i.e. the bus shelter is not isolated), and that there is, if appropriate, some surveillance (transit police or cameras) can all alleviate perceived safety concerns (Zhang, 2012; Translink UK, n.d).

Second, thermal comfort is an important consideration when waiting for a bus, especially in Regina’s cold winters. As highlighted in Guide to Selecting Features (Transportation Cooperative Research Program, n.d, p. 3), “shelters with heat were among the highest ranking feature in terms of their ability to induce additional transit rides, compared with shelters with just a roof or walls and a roof.” Thermal comfort becomes even more important the longer riders have to wait for a bus. For short wait times, individuals can exercise adaptive behaviour such as wearing extra clothes, but for long wait times, extra clothes may not be enough (Zhang, 2012).

Acoustic comfort is the third component of good bus shelter design. People can accept noise levels between 40-70 dB in public, but this is dependent on the type of noise (pleasant versus unpleasant) and the individual. Situating and designing a bus shelter that takes noise into consideration could increase user comfort. Furthermore, by examining prevailing wind directions, strategic shelter design can make wind less of a concern for potential riders, which is especially important considering the wind chill factor in Regina (Zhang, 2012).

As well, sometimes safe sidewalk access doesn’t exist. I think the city of Regina would make its transit system better if all the streets on bus routes had sidewalks for pedestrians to use, especially on the East side of Rae Street behind the Golden Mile, which is a well-used transit hub that really needs safe pedestrian access to 25th Ave and to Albert Street.


Figure 18: Standard Regina Bus Shelter Figure 19: Regina Bus Stop with No Shelter

26


Fourth, bus shelter accessibility for all is important. Can a wheelchair or a family of five conveniently fit in it? Is there secure bike parking around for those connecting to transit with a bike? As well, a bus shelter should integrate with its surroundings and be contextually relevant. For example, a bus shelter located outside of a grocery store could have a place to put your groceries while waiting (Zhang, 2012).

Finally, a bus stop should be visually appealing. Ideally, the bus shelter should open up to a point of interest that people can enjoy. In other words, while waiting at a bus shelter, one should not be staring at a brick wall but instead a crowd of people at a café, as an example (Zhang, 2012). Understandably, this is not always possible, but by trying to make the waiting experience more visually engaging is another step towards making transit more appealing overall.

Shelter Case Study: Route 2 to Argyle Park

In order to assess Regina’s current bus shelter quality with respect to these seven criteria, we used Google Street View to examine the bus stops along Regina’s most popular route: Route 2 from Argyle Park to Woodland Grove. Each stop has been rated from 1 (very poor) to 10 (very good) (see Table 2).

As indicated in Table 1, bus shelter quality along Route 2 varies significantly. Relatively speaking, many of the stops scored well in terms of accessibility and integration. These stops were located near major destinations, such as Superstore, and were

#0528

#1038

#1047

#1057

#1545

#0166

#0144

#0152

#1423

Superstore East

Victoria Square Mall

Cochrane HS(14th Ave & Vaughn St WB)

Miller HS(College Ave & Quebec St WB)

Cornwall Centre (11th Ave & Lorne St WB)

Northgate Mall (Smith St & 7th Ave N SB)

Sangster Blvd & Stern Bay EB

North Walmart

Superstore North (Stockton St & Child Ave NB)

DESCRIPTION SAFETYTHERMAL COMFO

RT

ACCESSIBILITY & IN

TEGRATION

ACOUSTIC & WIND PROTECTION

VISUAL COMFO

RT

TOTAL SCORE (/5

0)

BUS STOP & ID

6 6 7 7 3 29

5 1 1 6 5 18

5 1 1 7 5 18

8 1 3 5 7 24

6 1 1 7 3 18

5 6 8 6 4 29

2 1 1 6 3 13

5 8 9 6 4 32

6 7 8 8 5 34

Table 2: Bus Shelter Analysis

27

SUPPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS

reasonably accessible with sidewalk connectivity. Having said that, there were some noteworthy barriers, such as large parking lots that transit users would have to traverse or ill-placed crossing lights which encourage jay-walking to the bus stop.

Thermal comfort scored the lowest across this route. Many stops were simply missing bus shelters, while those that had them did not offer thermal and wind protection on all sides. A good example of bus shelter design is the one at the North Walmart Stop (#0152), as it is roofed with seating and coverage on three sides. However, the shelter’s design is such that wheelchair or stroller accessibility is poor, so the shelter itself could be made larger to accommodate these users.

Approximately 9 percent of our survey respondents had concerns regarding bus shelters. Generally speaking, these concerns fell into one of the seven aforementioned categories of safety, thermal comfort, acoustic comfort and wind protection, accessibility, integration, and visual comfort. For instance, as one respondent put it, “I also dislike having to walk to the stops I need, and also knowing there is no bus shelter. This prevents me from using more public transit.” Or as another one expressed regarding thermal comfort; “[t]he weather has posed an insurmountable barrier for so long, when combined with the poor routes, frequent transfers, and infrequent buses, that I am not sure it can be remedied.” Bus shelters may not be the primary concern for Regina transit users, but they are a key cog in the transit network and can make the overall transit experience more enjoyable and comfortable.

It is recommended that there be an increase in basic (roof, glass walls on 3 sides) bus shelters along major routes, especially in densely-populated areas and at key destinations. Understandably, the largest impediment to wide-scale bus shelter implementation is cost. The four heated bus shelters that were recently installed along 11th avenue in downtown Regina cost a total of $275,000, which equates to approximately $70,000 per heated shelter (CBC News, 2015a). Unheated shelters with transparent glass on three sides would cost much less, approximately $15,000 from anecdotal reports, and offer many of the same benefits as heated shelters in terms of wind, thermal, and acoustic protection. Often when new shelters are proposed, concerns about vandalism and misuse are raised. To address these concerns, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles should be adopted to ensure clear sight lines and adequate lighting and visibility. This would produce safer and more accessible shelters for all.

Information Provision

Providing clear, concise, and reliable information at transit stops enables users to easily navigate the city, but it also increases the perception that the transit network as a whole is reliable. When a person does not have access to a bus schedule, they are more likely to think that the bus is late, even if it is

not (Hall, 2001). However, there can be too much of a good thing; route timetables have a tendency to inundate people with information and can be too complicated for some users to understand (Embarq, n.d.). Ensuring that the information provided is simple yet complete enough for both novice and experienced users will ensure that everyone is able to comfortably navigate the transit system.

When developing information for the public, issues to consider are:

• What information will a user need at key points before and during their journey?

• Can those without access to a smartphone with mobile data still successfully navigate the system?

• Is the most basic information conveyed in a way that eliminates language and literacy barriers?

• Is the information conveyed in accessible ways for children, the elderly, and those with disabilities?

Information provision for buses can be categorized as either “at-stop,” “on bus,” or “online/mobile.” At-stop information generally consists of the name of the stop, route numbers, and ideally, a route map, schedule, and real-time information (RTI). On-bus information should include route number, upcoming stops, and preferably a map. Online information, which is easily accessed using a smartphone, is the most comprehensive and can include route maps, schedules, journey planning, RTI, and more. Nationally, smartphone usage has been steadily increasing, growing from 62 percent in 2013 to 67 percent in 2014 (CBC News, 2015b). However, assuming that smartphone usage in Regina is similar to the national trend, that leaves approximately 30 percent of the population without access to a smartphone, meaning that currently, they cannot access information while waiting at a bus stop. Therefore, providing physical information remains essential for providing accessible and equitable service. Each bus stop should have an easy-to-read schedule that shows the route (potentially including key destinations), pick up times, and locations of upcoming stops. This schedule should be placed at eye-level and would be used in conjunction with the existing signage at stops in Regina (see Figure 20). Figure 21 is an example of what a new sign could look like, based off of one of our proposed Regina routes. Highlights include

I used to live in a very large city. Every stop had a ‘you are here’ sign as well as a colour coded map indicating the route you’re on, as well as alternate routes close by (for planning/transferring). Our signs have nothing helpful. You stand there not knowing where or when your bus is coming or where it stops.


28


a “You Are Here” arrow, travel direction, an overview of the schedule, colour-coded transfers, key destinations, and the major streets covered by the route. On the bus, providing a small booklet or guide that explains the schedule could help clear up confusion for new users and tourists. The new audible stop announcement system that the Regina Transit has recently installed is an excellent step, as it increases accessibility for those with disabilities and generally makes riding the bus easier.

The mobile experience in Regina is relatively good, as TransitLive is a useful tool that shows the locations of upcoming buses using GPS. Survey respondents indicated that TransitLive is useful but could be improved. When used in conjunction with the Google Maps Trip Planner and the CityApp, which provides a list of all bus stops and routes in the city, a user with mobile data can effectively navigate the transit network. Although Google Maps is easy to use, the tutorial video of the City of Regina’s website uses New York City as a trip planning example. Creating a tutorial video featuring Regina—perhaps starring prominent local residents in order to make it more attention-grabbing—would improve the perception of accessibility and provide some local context.

Regina Transit currently updates their Facebook and Twitter feeds regarding delays and detours. Although delay updates can be valuable, they can cause frustration and alienate users if they inundate their mailboxes. Allowing users to sign up to receive information only on specific routes can alleviate

this issue, as can using geolocation information from a users’ mobile phone to send them only geographically pertinent information.

While serviceable, the Regina Transit website—an important source of information, especially for prospective users who are looking to learn more about the system—could be updated. It is currently a sub-section of the City of Regina website and provides bus schedules, paratransit service information, fare information, a link to TransitLive, trip planning information, and other information; however, this information is not intuitive or easily navigable. Important links, such as schedules and trip planning, are mixed into text.

Updating the website to take into account navigability and visual appearance would improve accessibility and usefulness. It may be valuable to create a website that is separate from that of the City of Regina—this will be discussed further in the marketing section below. Calgary Transit provides an example of a well-laid out transit website that is clean, modern, and uncluttered, with important links clearly visible (see Figure 22) (Calgary Transit, 2016). It also does an excellent job of promoting a brand and relating to users, as it features a happy family on their way to a Calgary Flames hockey game. It is easy to imagine an image like this, only with Saskatchewan Roughriders jerseys, featuring prominently on an updated Regina Transit website. This branding and marketing will be further discussed in the following section.

Figure 20: Current Regina Bus Sign Figure 21: Proposed Bus Sign (Additional to Current Sign)

10

11

2

3

3

8

107

5 97

75

6

7

10

Northgate Mall

Golden Mile MallUniversity of Regina

Conexus Arts Centre

Regina General Hospital

UNIVERSITY DR. S

WIN

NIP

EG S

T.

N B

ROAD

ST.

15TH AVE.

BRO

AD S

T.

23RD AVE.

HILL

SDAL

E ST

.

ALBE

RT S

T.

7TH AVE. N

1ST AVE. N

ROSS AVE.

SASKATCHEWAN DR.

2 DEWDNEY AVE.

VICTORIA AVE.

WA

SCA

NA

PKW

Y.

RODENBUSH DR.

KRAMER BLVD.

LAKESHORE DR.

25TH AVE.

9TH AVE. N

15TH AVE.

Total Route Length: 35kmEnd to End Time: 49mins

Time Frequency

5:50 – 7:007:00 – 19:0019:00 – 21:0021:00 – 23:50

30 minutes15 minutes30 minutes60 minutes

DESCRIPTION:

www.insertwebsite.comMORE INFO:

TRANSFERS:2

10 113

85

976

1 Northgate – Golden Mile

NB Winnipeg St. @ Ross Ave.CURRENT STOP:

ROUTE DIAGRAM: SCHEDULE:

YOU ARE HERE

Curr

ent T

rave

l Dire

ctio

n

N

29


Marketing

Before, during, and after the implementation of the aforementioned improvements—network redesign, bus shelters, and information provision—Regina Transit needs to find a way to effectively communicate the reasons behind each change while building excitement for transit. The development of a successful marketing campaign is a very important for transit agencies and should be treated as a core investment, not just a small side project (Embarq, n.d.). Improving the public image of a transit company and network can attract riders and increase demand for services, which in turn raises revenues and increases the likelihood of service expansion. Ultimately, this can attract even more riders—in effect, “marketing can lead to a virtuous cycle of ever growing demand and service” (Embarq, n.d.).

Marketing is not only used to attract new riders; it also helps to retain existing transit users who might feel frustrated and compelled to purchase a private vehicle, and it can also help to build political and financial support from council and other government officials (Embarq, n.d.). Embarq (n.d) outlines eight key components to effective transit marketing:

• Brand and identity• Internal communication• User education• User information systems• Marketing campaigns• Public relations and external communication

• User feedback systems • Online engagementThe development of a full marketing campaign for Regina is outside of the scope of this report, as each of these sections requires extensive insights. However, we would like to offer a few simple suggestions that could get Regina Transit moving in the right direction.

Brand and Identity

Branding is crucial to shaping the perception of a transit agency, as it defines the personality of the agency and represents the promise of a certain level of service. It also reflects the core values of the organization and helps build a relationship with the customer (Embarq, n.d.). This is essential in a city like Regina where, as our survey indicated, the transit network suffers from negative perceptions. If Regina Transit’s brand was viewed as modern, efficient, rapid, reliable, convenient, comfortable, and safe, then ridership would likely increase, especially when combined with actual service improvements.

Consistency across all platforms is key when establishing a brand: using tools such as logos, colour schemes, slogans, and typeface will help potential users to recognize a coherent message and become familiar with the brand. Embarq (n.d.) explains that a transit agency must embed their core values into every part of the system: “[y]our bus (and station, map, signage, etc.) is your mission statement, your billboard and your annual report; everything about it represents your brand to the public, from the way it looks, to the way it runs, to the quality of service it provides”.

Figure 22: The Calgary Transit website is uncluttered and modern

30


In a city where the car is king, it is important that transit stands out as a competitive and compelling alternative. One example of this comes from Los Angeles—another car-dominated city—where the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) underwent a re-branding exercise in the early 2000’s. They began with repainting the buses bright, eye-catching colours. The next step was changing the agency name from MTA to Metro, along with a new logo. When the city’s first Bus Rapid Transit line—the Orange Line—was introduced, Metro ensured that it had a distinctive identity by using the colour orange throughout its marketing campaign (see Figure 23) (Embarq, n.d.). It is felt that developing their brand was instrumental in passing Measure R, a half-cent sales tax increase to pay for transit improvements (Stephens, 2014).

In today’s society, having a strong and user-friendly online presence is very important. Currently, the Regina Transit website is hosted as a subsection of the City of Regina’s website, identifying transit as a city service and linking them together. If City services are perceived to be efficient, convenient, and reliable, this can convey a similar connotation to transit. There is a risk, however, that if the City is not perceived with the same characteristics that Regina Transit wishes to project, potential users will not view transit in the desired manner. Therefore, it could be useful for Regina Transit to differentiate itself by developing its own branding and creating a fresh new image.

Marketing Campaign Principles

In order to run a successful marketing campaign, a transit agency must have a complete understanding of how their agency and services are perceived by the public. Our survey provides a glimpse of some of these perceptions and reveals some of the key factors that influence user perceptions, such as frequency and directness of routes. These findings correlate with the five common factors that influence perceptions of transit: reliability, frequent service, safety and cleanliness, service house, and cost (Embarq, n.d.). Marketing cannot be a substitute for a good quality product or service so, first of all, these aspects need to be addressed. Once they are, a marketing campaign can be as simple as letting people know what you have done—as Embarq (n.d.) explains, good marketing is when you “do something good and tell people about it.”

For example, our proposed new transit network brings 15 minute frequencies to each and every route in the city, something which is new and highly-desired by survey respondents. A simple advertisement at a bus stop along Route 2 could state: “Fun Fact: Route 2 now comes every 15 minutes!” This message of increased frequency would be extremely important in the months surrounding the network redesign, as there will undoubtedly be push-back from changing routes and reducing coverage. There will always be people that will be upset at a change in their daily routines, especially if that change results in a greater walking distance to a bus stop. The benefits of the new system—frequency, speed, and directness—need to be emphasized in order to ensure that the network redesign is widely accepted by residents.

While this message of increased frequency is key for certain segments of the population, it will not necessarily appeal to everyone. Marketing needs to be tailored to different

There seems to be a perception in the city that transit is too expensive for the level of service received. But it is my observation that the people who say this are not the ones who ride the buses regularly, or they have chosen to live way out in the suburbs rather than closer to downtown, and need a car to do basic errands. I observe that the buses are well-used throughout the day, especially by new immigrants, the low income and students. I think Regina Transit actually has a Public Relations challenge, and that they need to help change the perception of the convenience of transit in order to create a culture where more people are choosing to live downtown or close to downtown, and are choosing not to purchase a car at all, or to join programs like the Regina Car Share. This is tied intimately to a healthy downtown shopping/restaurant pedestrian culture.


10 emBArQ From Here to There emBArQ From Here to There 11

Brand and identity

loS ANgeleS metro

Through a unified brand and clear messaging, Metro has proven that it can capture the attention of riders in the most style-conscious of cities.

Brand and identity

PUttiNg Brt oN tHe mAP

Los Angeles Metro includes the Orange Line on its system map, sending the message that it provides the same quality of service as rail.

Figure 23: Branding for the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line

31


audiences so that everyone feels included and is offered something to make them support the transit network, either through ridership, funding, or positive stories in the media. Figure 24 demonstrates the different messages that may be required in order to appeal to various groups.

Furthermore, an effective marketing campaign has to make taking transit the norm. As McKenzie-Mohr (2013) discusses, establishing norms is an effective way to change behaviour, and these principles have been used to encourage people to recycle more, smoke less, and wear seatbelts. In Regina’s case, this could involve a campaign that profiles local, everyday people that use the bus, debunking the myth that Regina transit is only used by lower class citizens. Douglas College in British Columbia has produced an interesting campaign demonstrating how average yet innovative people attend their institution (see Figure 25). These advertisements are prominently placed around rapid transit stations in Metro Vancouver. Although the establishment of norms can take time, it can ultimately lead to significant gains as transit becomes the accepted and “normal” way to travel.

The other side of norm-making is to turn existing norms—in this case, driving private automobiles—into uncool and unacceptable actions. In a city with a well-established car culture, this kind of advertising could be dangerous, as it could risk labeling Regina Transit as “anti-car” and alienating it. However, this sort of approach could potentially be used in the future after support has already grown for the transit system in order to further establish transit as a clean, efficient

alternative to private vehicles. LA Metro in Los Angeles, a city with its own powerful car culture, created the “Opposites” campaign, which presented transit as a solution to the problems of private vehicles. It was able to spread the message in a fun yet edgy way.

On that note, a successful marketing campaign needs to be fun and engaging. A bus advertisement from Danish transit authority Midttrafik toys around with the notion of the bus being “cool.” The advertisement, entitled “The Bus,” has cinematic flare and self-deprecating humour which grabs your attention and strongly encourages you to consider taking transit (flixxydotcom, 2012). Fun campaigns that show an agency is not taking itself too seriously can give the agency a “human” feel, making it more relatable for the general public.

Another way to integrate fun into a campaign is to link transit use with contextually-relevant local attractions. For example, it would be logical to capitalize on the popularity of the Saskatchewan Roughriders by creating football-themed advertisements that are simultaneously fun and entertaining. Transit-related cost savings could be communicated by demonstrating in the following way: “taking the bus for one month can save you enough money to attend four Rider games!” Regina Transit could also work with the Roughriders to coordinate contests and giveaways, such as autograph sessions and free tickets. Associating transit with popular local figures could go a long way towards improving the perception of transit.

30 emBArQ From Here to There emBArQ From Here to There 31

meSSAgeS

Jump on, jump off! It’s the quickest commute.

Worried about parking? Avoid the hassle.

The city’s economic lifeline.

Accessible to all!

The best spot to live is near the station.

Your ticket to the hottest acts in town.

Once you know your audiences, you can begin tailoring your messages to them.

Students

Women

Major employers

Elderly

Sport/music/theater fans

People with disabilities

Religious organizations

Tourists

Non-native language speakers

Corridor business owners

Property developers

Public officials

Non-users

Voting public at large

Car drivers

Motorbike riders

Delivery companies

Media

Corridor residentstransit Agency

Marketing campaignsMarketing campaigns

YoUr life oN trACk

The Phoenix/Tempe area METRO Light Rail in the United States reaches beyond typical commuters with this ad campaign promoting nightlife options along its corridor.

Figure 24: Marketing should be tailored to your audience Figure 25: Douglas College Advertisement

32


https://youtu.be/75F3CSZcCFs

CONCLUSIONSection 6

Conclusion

ConclusionRegina has the potential to be a great transit city, but strategic and innovative changes will be required in order to fulfill this potential. We hope that the recommendations in this report will provide the necessary inspiration to kickstart these changes. Our proposed network redesign responds to the top priorities of Regina residents as identified in our Regina Transit Survey; it forgoes maximum coverage in exchange for greatly increased frequencies, more direct routes, and faster overall trip times. While large changes like this will undoubtedly invite criticism and feedback from some users, we believe that the benefits outweigh the negatives and that once users adjust to the new system, they will find it fast, convenient, and easy to navigate.

Furthermore, our supporting recommendations regarding bus stops, information provision, and marketing strategy are meant to provide additional means of increasing ridership and general rider experience. Improved bus shelters can help combat cold Regina winters, while more thorough information provision can help both new and experienced riders navigate the system with ease. Finally, creating a strong brand and effectively communicating that brand to the public is very important for getting transit buy-in.

Improving the transit network in any city, and particularly in Regina, is crucial for a number of reasons. Transit is a core service that a city must provide, as it grants all residents mobility, regardless of their age, social status, or health. Equity is an extremely important concept to consider when designing a city; people with the means and ability to drive a car should not be the only ones who can move about the city. An effective transit network allows everyone to find work, engage in social activities, and enjoy their city. Additionally, transit use encourages physical activity, as every trip begins and ends on foot or some other active mode. This has significant public health benefits, which is increasingly important as more and more North Americans are starting to live inactive lifestyles.

An efficient transit network can also improve the environmental sustainability of a city, as it allows more citizens to leave their cars at home (or forgo car ownership altogether). With climate change occurring already, cities around the world need to step up and make positive changes. Increasing Regina’s transit mode share is a crucial step in “greening” the city. Regina has the opportunity to enhance its green reputation; by implementing projects like this one, the City could take a large step towards becoming a regional leader in sustainability while providing an extremely important service to its residents.

Figure 26: Regina’s roads are ready for a new transit network


34

Works Cited

Works Cited

Works Cited

Works Cited

AECOM. (2009). City of Regina Transit Investment Plan. Retrieved from http://www.regina.ca/opencms/export/sites/regina.ca/residents/transit-services/.media/pdf/transit-investment-plan.pdf

Auckland Transport. (2016). New public transport network. Retrieved from https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/new-public-transport-network/

Calgary Transit. (2015). Plan a Trip. Retrieved from http://www.calgarytransit.com/plan-a-trip

CBC News. (2015a, January 23). Regina building heated bus shelters. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-building-heated-bus-shelters-1.2929558

CBC News. (2015b, October 27). CRTC report shows more Canadians going mobile. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-telecom-report-1.3290603

City of Regina. (2013). Design Regina: Official Community Plan. Retrieved from http://www.designregina.ca/official-community-plan-3/

City of Regina. (2015). Transportation Master Plan. Retrieved from http://www.designregina.ca/wp-content/uploads/TMPFinalDraft.pdf

City of Regina. (2016). Transit Services. Retrieved from http://www.regina.ca/residents/transit-services/

City of Saskatoon. (2016). Growth Plan Technical Report. Retrieved from http://www.growingfwd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Growth-Plan-Technical-Report_February-2016.pdf

Currie, G., & Wallis, I. (2008). Effective ways to grow urban bus markets - a synthesis of evidence. Journal of Transport Geography, 16, 419–429. Retrieved from http://geography.upol.cz/soubory/lide/hercik/SEDOP/Effective_ways_to_grow_urban_bus_markets_a_synthesis_of_evidence.pdf

Dziekan, K., & Kottenhoff, K. (2007). Dynamic at-stop real-time information displays for public transport: effects on customers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41, 489–501. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856406001431

Easter Seals Project Action. (2014). Toolkit for the Assessment Bus Stop Accessibility and Safety. Retrieved from http://www.projectaction.org/resourcespublications/BrowseOurResourceLibrary/ResourceSearchResults.aspx?org=a2GSpnDbruI=&query=Toolkit%20for%20the%20Assessment%20of%20Bus%20Stop%20Accessibility%20and%20Safety

Embarq. (n.d). From here to there: A creative guide to making public transport the way to go. Retrieved from http://www.wrirosscities.org/sites/default/files/From-Here-to-There-EMBARQ.pdf

Flixxydotcom. (September 13, 2012). Epic Bus Ad from Denmark (English Subtitles - HTML5) Midttrafik - “The Bus”. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75F3CSZcCFs

Hall, R. W. (2001). Passenger waiting time and information acquisition using automatic vehicle location for verification. Transportation Planning and Technology, 24(3), 249–269. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081060108717670

Johnson, B. (n.d.). Modern Transit Marketing Part II: How to Pull it Together. Retrieved from http://www.majicconsulting.com/user/Modern Transit Marketing Part II.pdf

McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2013). Fostering sustainable behavior : An introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Metro Transit. (2015). System Reimagining FAQs. Retrieved from http://ridemetro.org/Pages/Reimagining-FAQs.aspx

Metro Vancouver. (2015). Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future. Retrieved from http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/RGSAdoptedbyGVRDBoard.pdf

Preciado, C. (2016, January). Houston - the next great (transit) city? Retrieved from http://blog.getremix.com/houston-the-next-great-transit-city/

Saskatchewan Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Saskatchewan Population: Components of Growth. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.sk.ca/pop/stats/population/pop2.pdf

Schmitt, A. (2016, January 4). Ridership on the Upswing After Houston’s Bus Network Redesign. Retrieved from http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/01/04/ridership-on-the-upswing-after-houstons-bus-network-redesign/

37

WORKS CITED

https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/new-public-transport-network/

https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/new-public-transport-network/

http://www.calgarytransit.com/plan-a-trip

http://www.calgarytransit.com/plan-a-trip

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-building-heated-bus-shelters-1.2929558



http://geography.upol.cz/soubory/lide/hercik/SEDOP/Effective_ways_to_grow_urban_bus_markets_a_synthesis_of_evidence.pdf



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856406001431

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856406001431

http://www.projectaction.org/resourcespublications/BrowseOurResourceLibrary/ResourceSearchResults.aspx?org=a2GSpnDbruI=&query=Toolkit%20for%20the%20Assessment%20of%20Bus%20Stop%20Accessibility%20and%20Safety





http://www.wrirosscities.org/sites/default/files/From-Here-to-There-EMBARQ.pdf

http://www.wrirosscities.org/sites/default/files/From-Here-to-There-EMBARQ.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75F3CSZcCFs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75F3CSZcCFs

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081060108717670

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081060108717670

http://ridemetro.org/Pages/Reimagining-FAQs.aspx

http://blog.getremix.com/houston-the-next-great-transit-city/

http://blog.getremix.com/houston-the-next-great-transit-city/

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/01/04/ridership-on-the-upswing-after-houstons-bus-network-redesign/



Schweiger, C. (2003). TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_48.pdf

Stephens, J. (2014). Smart Branding Attracts the Masses to Mass Transit. Intransition Magazine: Transportation Planning, Practice and Progress. Retrieved from http://www.intransitionmag.org/fall_2014/transit_branding_and_marketing.aspx

Stephens, J. (2015, July 24). How One City Will Change Its Entire Bus System Overnight. Next City. Retrieved from https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/houston-change-entire-bus-system-overnight

The Weather Network. (2016a). Regina Int’l A, SK, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.theweathernetwork.com/forecasts/statistics/cask1402

Transit Cooperative Research Program. (n.d). Guide to Selecting Features. Retrieved from http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP%20RPT%2046-F.pdf

Translink UK. (n.d). Bus Stop Design Guide. Retrieved from http://www.planningni.gov.uk/downloads/busstop-designguide.pdf

TransLink. (2012). Managing the Transit Network, A Primer on Key Concepts. Retrieved from http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/Managing_the_Network_Primer.pdf

Yglesias, M. (2016, January 28). Here’s how Houston boosted mass transit ridership by improving service without spending a dime. Vox. Retrieved from http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10852884/houston-bus-ridership

Zhang, K. (2012). Bus Stop Urban Design: Nine Techniques for Enhancing Bus Stops and Neighbourhoods and their Application in Metro Vancouver. Retrieved from http://www.mediafire.com/view/?2ijv5o0jr43h931

Figures

1: City of Regina (2015)2: Data from City of Regina; Map by PJ Bell & Paul Hillsdon3: AECOM (2009)4: AECOM (2009)5: City of Regina (2015)6: PJ Bell (2016)7: Data from City of Regina; Map by PJ Bell & Paul Hillsdon8: PJ Bell (2016)9: PJ Bell (2016)10: PJ Bell (2016)11: Data from City of Regina; Map by PJ Bell & Paul Hillsdon12: Data from City of Regina; Map by PJ Bell & Paul Hillsdon13: Data from City of Regina; Map by PJ Bell & Paul Hillsdon14: Data from City of Regina; Map by PJ Bell & Paul Hillsdon15: Data from City of Regina; Map by PJ Bell & Paul Hillsdon16: Data from City of Regina; Map by PJ Bell & Paul Hillsdon17: Data from City of Regina; Map by PJ Bell & Paul Hillsdon19: Quinn Bell (2016)20: Quinn Bell (2016)21: Quinn Bell (2016)22: PJ Bell & Jessica McLennan23: Calgary Transit (2015)24: Embarq (n.d.)25: Embarq (n.d.)26: Gurtej Tung (2016)27: Quinn Bell (2016)

Introductory Image (p. 5): Quinn Bell (2016)Closing Image (p. 35): Quinn Bell (2016)Report Graphic Design: PJ Bell

38


http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_48.pdf

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_48.pdf

http://www.intransitionmag.org/fall_2014/transit_branding_and_marketing.aspx



https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/houston-change-entire-bus-system-overnight

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/houston-change-entire-bus-system-overnight

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/forecasts/statistics/cask1402

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/forecasts/statistics/cask1402

http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP%20RPT%2046-F.pdf

http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP%20RPT%2046-F.pdf

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/downloads/busstop-designguide.pdf

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/downloads/busstop-designguide.pdf

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/Managing_the_Network_Primer.pdf



Appendix A: Route Profiles

Appendix Aroute profiles

40


10

11

2

3

3

8

107

5 97

75

6

7

10

Northgate Mall

Golden Mile MallUniversity of Regina

Conexus Arts Centre

Regina General Hospital

UNIVERSITY DR. S

WIN

NIP

EG S

T.

N B

ROAD

ST.

15TH AVE.

BRO

AD S

T.

23RD AVE.

HILL

SDAL

E ST

.

ALBE

RT S

T.

7TH AVE. N

1ST AVE. N

ROSS AVE.

SASKATCHEWAN DR.

2 DEWDNEY AVE.

VICTORIA AVE.

WAS

CA

NA

PKW

Y.

RODEN BUSH DR.

KRAMER BLVD.

LAKESHORE DR.

25TH AVE.

9TH AVE. N

ROUTE DESCRIPTIONTotal Length: 35kmTime from End to End: 49mins

SCHEDULE OVERVIEWTime Frequency5:50 – 7:007:00 – 19:0019:00 – 21:0021:00 – 23:50


*Schedule based on budget scenario 2 ($40.9M)

1 Northgate – Golden Mile

41

APPENDIX A: ROUTE PROFILES

11

975

6

7

106

11114

10

4

Golden Mile Mall

Corn

wall

Cen

tre

STC

Bus T

erm

inal

Evra

z Plac

e

Southland Mall

Mos

aic S

tadi

um

13th

Ave

nue

Victoria Square Mall East Victoria Commercial


GORDON RD.

MO

NTA

GU

E ST

.

REGINA AVE.

DEWDNEY AVE.

SASKATCHEWAN DR.

1

1

1PARLIAMENT AVE.

PRIN

CE O

F WAL

ES D

R.7TH AVE. E

UN

IVER

SITY

PARK

DR.

WIN

NIP

EG S

T.

PARK

ST.BR

OAD

ST.

ALBE

RT S

T.

13TH AVE.

ELPH

INST

ON

E ST

.

VICTORIA AVE.

25TH AVE.

LOCK

WO

OD

RD.

MO

NTA

GU

E ST

.

ARG

YLE R

D.

PRIN

CE O

F WAL

ES D

R.

QUANCE ST. QUANCE ST.




Glencairn – Southland2

42


9

7

5

10

64

1010

8 888

8

4

6

88

Sherwood – Ross Industrial3

1

1

WIN

NIP

EG S

T.

PARK

ST.

BRO

AD S

T.

ALBE

RT S

T.

1ST AVE. N

ELPH

INST

ON

E ST

.

RINK AVE.

ROSS AVE.

MCDO

NALD

ST.

HEN

DER

SON

DR.

MCD

ON

ALD

ST.

SIOU

X S

T.

MCI

NTO

SH S

T. N

MCC

ARTH

Y BL

VD.

DO

ROTH

Y ST

.

ROCHDALE BLVD.

COU

RTN

EY S

T.

SHERWOO D DR.

PARK ST.

HENDERSON DR.





43


9

7

5 6863

3

8

5

211

10

6 27

Evra

z Plac

e

Southland Mall

Mos

aic S

tadi

um

4 Walsh Acres – Southland

GORDON RD.

7TH AVE.

REGINA AVE.

DEWDNEY AVE.

PARLIAMENT AVE.

ELPH

INST

ON

E ST

.

RINK AVE.

LOCK

WO

OD

RD.

MCI

NTO

SH S

T. N

MCC

ARTH

Y BL

VD.

LINCOLN DR.

PASQ

UA S

T.

13TH AVE.

VICTORIA AVE.

4TH AVE.

AVONHURST DR.

ARG

YLE

ST. N

RING RD.

SANGSTER BLVD.

PASQ

UA S

T.

COU

RTN

EY S

T.





44


9

7

10

64

8

4

6

2

7

2 4

7

710

3

9

6

97

97

9

11

6

University of Regina

STC Bus Terminal

Evra

z Plac

e

Southland Mall

Mos

aic S

tadi

um

Corn

wall

Cen

tre

Saskatchewan Polytechnic

Conexus Arts Centre

Pasq

ua H

ospi

tal

RCM

P H

erita

ge C

entre

Rochdale Commercial

5 Rochdale – University

DEWDNEY AVE.SASKATCHEWAN DR.

WAS

CA

NA

PKW

Y.

1

BRO

AD S

T.

ALBE

RT S

T.

ELPH

INST

ON

E ST

.

RINK AVE.

COU

RTN

EY S

T.

MCC

ARTH

Y BL

VD.

PASQ

UA S

T.

ROCHDALE BLVD.

1

1

DIEFENBAKER DR.

SHERWOOD DR.

MIKKELSON DR.

8TH AVE.

6TH AVE.

VICTORIA AVE.

COLLEGE AVE.

BROADWAY AVE.

GRANT R

D.

MCC

ARTH

Y BL

VD.

WASCANA PKWY.

UNIVERSITY DR. S

LAKESHORE DR.

GORDON RD.

ROCHDALE BLVD.





45


9

7

5

104

8

8

43

5

3

52

11

10

10

72

2 544

7

Golden Mile Mall

Royal Saskatchewan Museum

Southland MallGrasslands Commercial

Northgate Mall

Rochdale Commercial

6 Albert

DEWDNEY AVE.

SASKATCHEWAN DR.

1

1

PARLIAMENT AVE.

ALBE

RT S

T.

1ST AVE. N

PASQUA GATE

ARG

YLE

ST.

MCC

ARTH

Y BL

VD.

COU

RTN

EY S

T.

1

RO CHDALE BLVD.

PASQ

UA S

T.

RING RD.

4TH AVE.

7TH AVE.

VICTORIA AVE.

REGINA AVE.

COLLEGE AVE.

23RD AVE.

GORDON RD.

PASQ

UA S

T.

GORDON RD.

9TH AVE. N

ROCHDALE BLVD.





46


9

106

4

8

10

3

5 92

5 9 11

5 105 10

562

6

Cornwall Centre STC Bus TerminalG

olde

n M

ile M

all

Grasslands Commercial

7 Northgate – Harbour Landing

Northgate MallALBERT ST.

Conexus Arts CentreLAKESHORE DR.

University of ReginaUNIVERSITY DR. S

25TH

AVE

.

GORDON RD.

MO

NTA

GU

E ST

.

PASQ

UA S

T.

JAM

ES H

ILL R

D.

PARLIAMENT AVE.

KRAMER BLVD.

WAS

CA

NA

PKW

Y.

11

BRO

AD S

T.

1ST AVE. N

911

11

9TH AVE. N

7TH AVE. N

SASKATCHEWAN DR.

4TH AVE.

7TH AVE.

VICTORIA AVE.

COLLEGE DR.

BROADWAY AVE.





47


7

5

1064

6

3333

33 10103

4

Rochdale CommercialROCHDALE BLVD.6

8 Rochdale – Ross Industrial

1

WIN

NIP

EG S

T.

PARK

ST.

BRO

AD S

T.

ALBE

RT S

T.

1ST AVE. N

ELPH

INST

ON

E ST

.

RINK AVE.

MCD

ON

ALD

ST.

SIOU

X S

T.

MCI

NTO

SH S

T. N

PARK ST.

HENDERSON DR.

SHERWOOD DR.

LEW

VAN

DR.

4TH AVE.

ROSS AVE.

HENDERSON DR.





48


7

5

10

64

1111

11

5 11 VICTORIA AVE.

5 101COLLEGE DR.

52 SASKATCHEWAN DR.7

7

7

3

5 7 DEWDNEY AVE.

COLLEGE DR.

PARK

ST.

ARCOLA AVE.

TRUESDALE DR.

TRUESDALE DR.

E ARENS RD.

UNIVE

RSITY

PARK

DR.

E ARENS RD.

ASSINIBOINE AVE. E

PRIN

CE O

F WAL

ES D

R.

Cornwall Centre STC Bus Terminal

9 Rosemont – Arcola East

BRO

AD S

T.

ALBE

RT S

T.

SHERWOOD DR.

ELPH

INST

ON

E ST

.

7TH AVE.

MCC

ARTH

Y BL

VD.

DO

ROTH

Y ST

.

NW BLVD.

MIKKELSON DR.





49


76

4

8

211

5

9

1

COLLEGE DR.

7

9

11

2

33

7

6 7

8

3

REGINA AVE.

Sask

atch

ewan

Scie

nce

Cent

re

Regin

a In

tern

atio

nal A

irpor

t

Roya

l Sas

katc

hew

an M

useu

mNorthgate Mall

10 Northgate – Airport

1

PARK

ST.

N B

ROAD

ST.

ROSS AVE.

MCDONAL

D ST.

51

BROADWAY AVE.

1HENDERSON DR.

PASQ

UA S

T.

MO

NTA

GU

E ST

.

ALBE

RT S

T.

BRO

AD S

T.BR

OAD

ST.

DOUGLAS AVE. E

ARCOLA AVE.

VICTORIA AVE.

DEWDNEY AVE. E

9TH AVE. N

WIN

NIP

EG S

T.

ALBERT ST. 7TH AVE. N





50


7

10

64

22

9

9

2

109

5

Corn

wall

Cen

tre

STC

Bus T

erm

inal

13th

Ave

nue

Vict

oria

Squa

re M

all

East

Vict

ora

Reta

il

Regin

a G

ener

al H

ospi

tal

Regina International Airport

11Victoria

1

WIN

NIP

EG S

T.

PARK

ST.

BRO

AD S

T.

ALBE

RT S

T.

13TH AVE.

ELPH

INST

ON

E ST

.

UN

IVER

SITY

PARK

DR.

PASQ

UA S

T.

SAND

RA SC

HMIRL

ER W

AY

E ARENS RD.

UNIV

ERSIT

Y PA

RK D

R.

QUANCE ST.

TRU

ESD

ALE

DR.

TRUESDALE DR.

PRIN

CE O

F WAL

ES D

R.

QUANCE ST.

VICTORIA AVE.





Appendix B: Network Calculations

Appendix Bnetwork calculations

$26

,125

,869

.00

2665

90.5

Hou

rs o

f Ope

ratio

n

Rou

te

Leng

th

(km

)Fr

eque

ncy

Spee

dR

unni

ng T

ime

Cyc

le T

ime

Off

Peak

PM O

ff Pe

akPe

akR

even

ue H

ours

Serv

ice

Cos

tTo

tal A

nnua

l Se

rvic

e C

ost

Tota

l R

even

ue

Hou

rs

Rou

teN

ame

Tim

e Pe

riod

Serv

ice

Hou

rsO

ff-Pe

akPM

Off

Peak

Peak

Off-

Peak

PM

Off-

Peak

Peak

Min

/km

Term

inus

1#

Veh

i-cl

esTy

pe#

Veh

i-cl

esTy

pe#

Veh

i-cl

esTy

peTO

TAL

Peak

MB

Dai

lyM

B A

nnua

lCB

Dai

lyC

B A

nnua

lAnn

ual

(MB)

Ann

ual (

CB)

Mon

day

to

Frid

ay25

025

0 $

61

$98

1Broa

d N

orth

- D

ieppe

5:52

23:49

17:57

1812

33

26.76

3060

153

80.28

80.28

32C

B6

660

1500

0 $

1,470

,000.0

$

1,470

,000.0

15

000

2Argy

le Pa

rk

- Woo

dlan

d G

rove

5:37

23:41

18:04

1811

34

43.4

3060

153

130

130

53C

B9

910

025

000

$2,4

50,00

0 $

2,450

,000

2500

0

3Univ

ersit

y -

Sher

woo

d Es

tate

s5:3

723

:4118

:0418

123

337

.730

6015

311

311

34

2CB

88

7819

500

$1,9

11,00

0 $

1,911

,000

1950

0

4Wals

h Ac

res -

H

illsda

le5:2

923

:4018

:1118

153

42.3

3060

03

127

127

53

00

8421

000

$2,0

58,00

0 $

2,058

,000

2100

0

5Upl

ands

- D

ownt

own

6:10

17:40

11:30

11.5

7.50

422

.160

030

2.964

642

03

327

6750

$66

1,500

$

661,5

00

6750

6Wes

thill

- Ros

s In

dustr

ial6:2

117

:5111

:3011

.54.5

07

25.9

600

302.3

5959

10

22

18.5

4625

$45

3,250

$

453,2

50

4625

7Glen

cairn

- Whit

-m

ore

Park

5:35

23:40

18:05

1813

32

46.4

3060

153

139

139

53

1010

9423

500

$2,3

03,00

0 $

2,303

,000

2350

0

8Nor

man

dy

Heig

hts -

Eas

t-vie

w5:3

223

:4518

:1318

126

041

.530

602.7

112

112

42

66

6015

000

$1,4

70,00

0 $

1,470

,000

1500

0

9Park

ridge

- Al

bert

Par

k5:2

723

:1717

:5017

.511

.54

246

.430

6015

313

913

95

310

1089

.522

375

$2,1

92,75

0 $

2,192

,750

2237

5

10RC

MP

- Nor

-m

anvie

w5:5

723

:5217

:5518

311

428

.145

6030

3.290

902

23

340

1000

0 $

980,0

00

$98

0,000

10

000

12Va

rsity

- M

ount

Ro

yal

5:42

23:42

18:00

186

1253

.160

302.7

143

143

03

55

7819

500

$1,9

11,00

0 $

1,911

,000

1950

0

14

Wind

sor

Park

- Sp

ruce

M

eado

ws

0:00

5.55.5

9.830

2.424

240

01

15.5

1375

$13

4,750

$

134,7

50

1375

15H

erita

ge8:

2317

:28

9:05

5.5

5.5

11.1

453.

741

410

01

15.

513

75 $

134,

750

$13

4,75

0 13

75

16La

kerid

ge -

Haw

ksto

ne0:

005.

55.

58.

730

3.4

3030

00

11

5.5

1375

$13

4,75

0 $

134,

750

1375

Cur

rent

Ann

ual S

ervi

ce C

ost

(wee

kday

s, e

stim

ated

, no

layo

ver)

Red

Tex

t =

Inpu

tB

lack

Tex

t =

Cal

cula

tion

52


Hou

rs o

f Ope

ratio

n

Rou

te

Leng

th

(km

)Fr

eque

ncy

Spee

dR

unni

ng T

ime

Off

Peak

Ve

hicl

esPM

Off

Peak

Ve

hicl

esPe

ak V

ehic

les

Rev

enue

Hou

rsSe

rvic

e C

ost

Tota

l Ann

ual

Serv

ice

Cos

t

Tota

l A

nnua

l R

even

ue

Hou

rs

Rou

teN

ame

Tim

e Pe

riod

Serv

ice

Hou

rsO

ff-Pe

akPM

Off

Peak

Peak

Off-

Peak

PM

Off-

Peak

Peak

Min

/km

Term

inus

1C

ycle

T

ime

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

TOTA

L Pe

akM

B D

aily

MB

Ann

ualC

B D

aily

CB

Ann

ualA

nnua

l (M

B)A

nnua

l (C

B)

Wee

kend

s58

58 $

61

$98

1Broa

d N

orth

- D

ieppe

(Sat

-ur

day)

6:22

23:52

17:30

17.5

413

.526

.860

302.8

7575

20

33

40.5

2349

$23

0,202

$

230,2

02

2349

1Broa

d N

orth

- D

ieppe

(Sun

day)

8:07

18:07

10:00

1010

26.8

602.8

7575

00

22

2011

60 $

113,6

80

$11

3,680

11

60

2Argy

le Pa

rk

- Woo

dlan

d G

rove

(Sat

urda

y)6:0

723

:4117

:3417

.53

14.5

43.4

6030

2.812

212

23

05

572

.542

05 $

412,0

90

$41

2,090

42

05

2Argy

le Pa

rk

- Woo

dlan

d G

rove

(Sun

day)

7:56

17:56

10:00

1010

43.4

602.8

122

122

00

33

3017

40 $

170,5

20

$17

0,520

17

40

3Univ

ersit

y -

Sher

woo

d Es

tate

s (Sa

t-ur

day)

6:09

23:41

17:32

17.5

314

.537

.760

302.8

106

106

20

44

5833

64 $

329,6

72

$32

9,672

33

64

3Univ

ersit

y -

Sher

woo

d Es

tate

s (Su

nday

)8:0

018

:0010

:0010

1037

.760

2.810

610

60

02

220

1160

$11

3,680

$

113,6

80

1160

4Wals

h Ac

res -

H

illsda

le6:1

523

:4017

:2517

.253

14.25

42.3

6030

2.811

811

80

24

463

3654

$35

8,092

$

358,0

92

3654

4Wals

h Ac

res -

H

illsda

le7:5

517

:5510

:0010

1042

.360

2.811

811

80

02

220

1160

$11

3,680

$

113,6

80

1160

5Upl

ands

- D

ownt

own

(Sat

urda

y)7:0

018

:0011

:0011

1122

.160

2.862

620

02

222

1276

$12

5,048

$

125,0

48

1276

7Glen

cairn

- W

hitm

ore

Park

(S

atur

day)

6:03

23:40

17:37

17.5

13

13.5

46.4

6060

302.8

130

130

33

55

79.5

4611

$45

1,878

$

451,8

78

4611

7Glen

cairn

- W

hitm

ore

Park

(S

unda

y)7:5

517

:5510

:0010

1046

.460

2.813

013

00

03

330

1740

$17

0,520

$

170,5

20

1740

8Nor

man

dy

Heig

hts -

Eas

t-vie

w (S

atur

day)

6:17

23:4

517

:28

17.5

26

9.5

41.5

6060

302.

811

611

62

24

454

3132

$30

6,93

6 $

306,

936

3132

8Nor

man

dy

Heig

hts -

Eas

t-vie

w (S

unda

y)8:

0018

:00

10:0

010

1041

.560

2.8

116

116

00

22

2011

60 $

113,

680

$11

3,68

0 11

60

Cur

rent

Ann

ual S

ervi

ce C

ost

(wee

kend

s, e

stim

ated

, no

layo

ver)

Red

Tex

t =

Inpu

tB

lack

Tex

t =

Cal

cula

tion

53

APPENDIX B: NETWORK CALCULATIONS

$31

,379

,600

.00

3202

00

Hou

rs o

f Ope

ratio

n

Rou

te

Leng

th

(km

)Fr

eque

ncy

Spee

dR

unni

ng T

ime

Off

Peak

PM O

ff Pe

akPe

akR

even

ue H

ours

Serv

ice

Cos

tTo

tal A

nnua

l Se

rvic

e C

ost

Tota

l R

even

ue

Hou

rs

Rou

teN

ame

Tim

e Pe

riod

Serv

ice

Hou

rsO

ff-Pe

akPM

Off

Peak

Peak

Off-

Peak

PM

Off-

Peak

Peak

Min

/km

Term

inus

1C

ycle

T

ime

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

TOTA

L Pe

akM

B D

aily

MB

Ann

ualC

B D

aily

CB

Ann

ualA

nnua

l (M

B)A

nnua

l (C

B)

Mon

day

to

Frid

ay25

025

0 $

61

$98

1Winn

ipeg

- G

olde

n M

ile5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

535

.030

6015

2.898

984

2CB

77

8120

250

$1,9

84,50

0 $

1,984

,500

2025

0

2Glen

cairn

- So

uthla

nd5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

535

.230

6015

2.899

994

27

781

2025

0 $

1,984

,500

$1,9

84,50

0 20

250

3Roch

dale

- N

orm

anvie

w5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

523

.730

6015

2.866

663

25

561

1525

0 $

1,494

,500

$1,4

94,50

0 15

250

4Wals

h Ac

res -

Pa

squa

Sou

th5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

531

.830

6015

2.889

893

26

666

1650

0 $

1,617

,000

$1,6

17,00

0 16

500

5Roch

dale

- Uni-

vers

ity S

outh

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

51.4

3060

152.8

144

144

53

1010

144

3600

0 $

3,528

,000

$3,5

28,00

0 36

000

6Alb

ert

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

34.6

3060

152.8

9797

42

77

102

2550

0 $

2,499

,000

$2,4

99,00

0 25

500

7Broa

d - H

arbo

ur

Land

ing5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

532

.030

6015

2.890

903

26

666

1650

0 $

1,617

,000

$1,6

17,00

0 16

500

8Roch

dale

- Ros

s In

dustr

ial5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

524

.930

6015

2.870

703

25

561

1525

0 $

1,494

,500

$1,4

94,50

0 15

250

9Sher

woo

d -

Arco

la5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

533

.030

6015

2.892

924

27

781

2025

0 $

1,984

,500

$1,9

84,50

0 20

250

10Ai

rpor

t - R

oss

Indu

strial

5:50

23:50

18:00

1810

35

33.0

3060

152.8

9292

42

77

8120

250

$1,9

84,50

0 $

1,984

,500

2025

0

11Vi

ctor

ia Ea

st5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1222

.030

6015

2.862

623

25

575

1875

0 $

1,837

,500

$1,8

37,50

0 18

750

72

Futu

re A

nnua

l Ser

vice

Cos

t, S

cena

rio

A (

wee

kday

s, e

stim

ated

, no

layo

ver)

Red

Tex

t =

Inpu

tB

lack

Tex

t =

Cal

cula

tion

54


Hou

rs o

f Ope

ratio

n

Rou

te

Leng

th

(km

)Fr

eque

ncy

Spee

dR

unni

ng T

ime

Off

Peak

Ve

hicl

esPM

Off

Peak

Ve

hicl

esPe

ak V

ehic

les

Rev

enue

Hou

rsSe

rvic

e C

ost

Tota

l Ann

ual

Serv

ice

Cos

t

Tota

l A

nnua

l R

even

ue

Hou

rs

Rou

teN

ame

Tim

e Pe

riod

Serv

ice

Hou

rsO

ff-Pe

akPM

Off

Peak

Peak

Off-

Peak

PM

Off-

Peak

Peak

Min

/km

Term

inus

1C

ycle

T

ime

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

TOTA

L Pe

akM

B D

aily

MB

Ann

ualC

B D

aily

CB

Ann

ualA

nnua

l (M

B)A

nnua

l (C

B)

Wee

kend

s11

511

5 $

61

$98

1Winn

ipeg

- G

olde

n M

ile5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

535

.030

6015

2.898

984

07

775

8625

$84

5,250

$

845,2

50

8625

2Glen

cairn

- So

uthla

nd5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

535

.230

6015

2.899

994

07

775

8625

$84

5,250

$

845,2

50

8625

3Roch

dale

- N

orm

anvie

w5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

523

.730

6015

2.866

663

05

555

6325

$61

9,850

$

619,8

50

6325

4Wals

h Ac

res -

Pa

squa

Sou

th5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

531

.830

6015

2.889

893

06

660

6900

$67

6,200

$

676,2

00

6900

5Roch

dale

- Uni-

vers

ity S

outh

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

51.4

3060

152.8

144

144

50

1010

135

1552

5 $

1,521

,450

$1,5

21,45

0 15

525

6Alb

ert

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

34.6

3060

152.8

9797

40

77

9611

040

$1,0

81,92

0 $

1,081

,920

1104

0

7Broa

d - H

arbo

ur

Land

ing5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

532

.030

6015

2.890

903

06

660

6900

$67

6,200

$

676,2

00

6900

8Roch

dale

- Ros

s In

dustr

ial5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

524

.930

6015

2.870

703

05

555

6325

$61

9,850

$

619,8

50

6325

9Sher

woo

d -

Arco

la5:5

023

:5018

:0018

103

533

.030

6015

2.892

924

07

775

8625

$84

5,250

$

845,2

50

8625

10Ai

rpor

t - R

oss

Indu

strial

5:50

23:50

18:00

1810

35

33.0

3060

152.8

9292

40

77

7586

25 $

845,2

50

$84

5,250

86

25

11Vi

ctor

ia Ea

st5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1222

.030

6015

2.862

623

05

569

7935

$77

7,630

$

777,6

30

7935

Futu

re A

nnua

l Ser

vice

Cos

t, S

cena

rio

A (

wee

kend

s, e

stim

ated

, no

layo

ver)

Red

Tex

t =

Inpu

tB

lack

Tex

t =

Cal

cula

tion

55


$36

,888

,180

.00

3764

10

Hou

rs o

f Ope

ratio

n

Rou

te

Leng

th

(km

)Fr

eque

ncy

Spee

dR

unni

ng T

ime

Off

Peak

PM O

ff Pe

akPe

akR

even

ue H

ours

Serv

ice

Cos

tTo

tal A

nnua

l Se

rvic

e C

ost

Tota

l R

even

ue

Hou

rs

Rou

teN

ame

Tim

e Pe

riod

Serv

ice

Hou

rsO

ff-Pe

akPM

Off

Peak

Peak

Off-

Peak

PM

Off-

Peak

Peak

Min

/km

Term

inus

1C

ycle

T

ime

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

TOTA

L Pe

akM

B D

aily

MB

Ann

ualC

B D

aily

CB

Ann

ualA

nnua

l (M

B)A

nnua

l (C

B)

Mon

day

to

Frid

ay25

025

0 $

61

$98

1Winn

ipeg

- G

olde

n M

ile5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1235

.030

6015

2.898

984

2CB

77

102

2550

0 $

2,499

,000

$2,4

99,00

0 25

500

2Glen

cairn

- So

uthla

nd5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1235

.230

6015

2.899

994

27

710

225

500

$2,4

99,00

0 $

2,499

,000

2550

0

3Roch

dale

- N

orm

anvie

w5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1223

.730

6015

2.866

663

25

575

1875

0 $

1,837

,500

$1,8

37,50

0 18

750

4Wals

h Ac

res -

Pa

squa

Sou

th5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1231

.830

6015

2.889

893

26

687

2175

0 $

2,131

,500

$2,1

31,50

0 21

750

5Roch

dale

- Uni-

vers

ity S

outh

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

51.4

3060

152.8

144

144

53

1010

144

3600

0 $

3,528

,000

$3,5

28,00

0 36

000

6Alb

ert

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

34.6

3060

152.8

9797

42

77

102

2550

0 $

2,499

,000

$2,4

99,00

0 25

500

7Broa

d - H

arbo

ur

Land

ing5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1232

.030

6015

2.890

903

26

687

2175

0 $

2,131

,500

$2,1

31,50

0 21

750

8Roch

dale

- Ros

s In

dustr

ial5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1224

.930

6015

2.870

703

25

575

1875

0 $

1,837

,500

$1,8

37,50

0 18

750

9Sher

woo

d -

Arco

la5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1233

.030

6015

2.892

924

27

710

225

500

$2,4

99,00

0 $

2,499

,000

2550

0

10Ai

rpor

t - R

oss

Indu

strial

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

33.0

3060

152.8

9292

42

77

102

2550

0 $

2,499

,000

$2,4

99,00

0 25

500

11Vi

ctor

ia Ea

st5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1222

.030

6015

2.862

623

25

575

1875

0 $

1,837

,500

$1,8

37,50

0 18

750

72

Futu

re A

nnua

l Ser

vice

Cos

t, S

cena

rio

B (

wee

kday

s, e

stim

ated

, no

layo

ver)

Red

Tex

t =

Inpu

tB

lack

Tex

t =

Cal

cula

tion

56


Hou

rs o

f Ope

ratio

n

Rou

te

Leng

th

(km

)Fr

eque

ncy

Spee

dR

unni

ng T

ime

Off

Peak

Ve

hicl

esPM

Off

Peak

Ve

hicl

esPe

ak V

ehic

les

Rev

enue

Hou

rsSe

rvic

e C

ost

Tota

l Ann

ual

Serv

ice

Cos

t

Tota

l A

nnua

l R

even

ue

Hou

rs

Rou

teN

ame

Tim

e Pe

riod

Serv

ice

Hou

rsO

ff-Pe

akPM

Off

Peak

Peak

Off-

Peak

PM

Off-

Peak

Peak

Min

/km

Term

inus

1C

ycle

T

ime

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

# V

ehi-

cles

Type

TOTA

L Pe

akM

B D

aily

MB

Ann

ualC

B D

aily

CB

Ann

ualA

nnua

l (M

B)A

nnua

l (C

B)

Wee

kend

s11

511

5 $

61

$98

1Winn

ipeg

- G

olde

n M

ile5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1235

.030

6015

2.898

984

07

796

1104

0 $

1,081

,920

$1,0

81,92

0 11

040

2Glen

cairn

- So

uthla

nd5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1235

.230

6015

2.899

994

07

796

1104

0 $

1,081

,920

$1,0

81,92

0 11

040

3Roch

dale

- N

orm

anvie

w5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1223

.730

6015

2.866

663

05

569

7935

$77

7,630

$

777,6

30

7935

4Wals

h Ac

res -

Pa

squa

Sou

th5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1231

.830

6015

2.889

893

06

681

9315

$91

2,870

$

912,8

70

9315

5Roch

dale

- Uni-

vers

ity S

outh

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

51.4

3060

152.8

144

144

50

1010

135

1552

5 $

1,521

,450

$1,5

21,45

0 15

525

6Alb

ert

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

34.6

3060

152.8

9797

40

77

9611

040

$1,0

81,92

0 $

1,081

,920

1104

0

7Broa

d - H

arbo

ur

Land

ing5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1232

.030

6015

2.890

903

06

681

9315

$91

2,870

$

912,8

70

9315

8Roch

dale

- Ros

s In

dustr

ial5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1224

.930

6015

2.870

703

05

569

7935

$77

7,630

$

777,6

30

7935

9Sher

woo

d -

Arco

la5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1233

.030

6015

2.892

924

07

796

1104

0 $

1,081

,920

$1,0

81,92

0 11

040

10Ai

rpor

t - R

oss

Indu

strial

5:50

23:50

18:00

183

312

33.0

3060

152.8

9292

40

77

9611

040

$1,0

81,92

0 $

1,081

,920

1104

0

11Vi

ctor

ia Ea

st5:5

023

:5018

:0018

33

1222

.030

6015

2.862

623

05

569

7935

$77

7,630

$

777,6

30

7935

Futu

re A

nnua

l Ser

vice

Cos

t, S

cena

rio

B (

wee

kend

s, e

stim

ated

, no

layo

ver)

Red

Tex

t =

Inpu

tB

lack

Tex

t =

Cal

cula

tion

57


Reimagine Regina Transit: Revitalization Through Redesign

Documents

Transcript of Reimagine Regina Transit: Revitalization Through Redesign