GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
APPENDIX A: GRTC ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS
BLUE ROUTES (LOCAL)
Routes 1 & 2 – Monument/Patterson/Church Hill
Routes 1 and 2 provide local service along Broad Street, Monument Avenue, and Patterson Avenue
between the Church Hill area east of downtown and Regency Square Mall west of downtown. Both
routes serve the Church Hill area, but east of downtown, the routes diverge with Route 1 providing
service along Monument Avenue to the Shops at Willow Lawn and St. Mary’s Hospital while Route 2
provides service along Patterson Avenue to Regency Square Mall, as shown in Figure A-1.
Figure A-1: Route 1/2 – Monument/Patterson/Church Hill
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Routes 1 and 2 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of
day in Table A-1.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:06am – 12:54am
Saturday and Sunday: 5:42am – 1:00am
A-1 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Table A-1: Route 1/2 Headways
Wk
12
AM Peak
Sat
20
Sun
20
Wk
16.5
Base
Sat
20
Sun
20
Wk
12
PM Peak
Sat
20
Sun
20
Wk
30
Evening
Sat
30
Sun
30
Routes 3 & 4 – Robinson/Fairmount
Routes 3 and 3PP provide local service between the Maymont area southwest of downtown and the
Fairfield Court area east of downtown, while Routes 4 and 4P provide service between the area around
the University of Richmond Stadium near the West End and the Whitcomb Court area east of
downtown. All routes travel along Broad Street between Robinson Street and 21st Street. As shown on
Figure A-2, Route 3 operates to the Maymont area, Route 3PP operates to Fairfield Court, Route 4
operates to the University of Richmond Stadium, and Route 4P operates to Whitcomb Court.
Figure A-2: Route 3/4 – Robinson Fairmount
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Routes 3 and 4 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of
day in Table A-2.
A-2 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:22am – 12:34am
Saturday and Sunday: 5:25am – 12:38am
Table A-2: Route 3/4 Headways
Wk
9
AM Peak
Sat
15
Sun
15
Wk
16.5
Base
Sat
15
Sun
15
Wk
9
PM Peak
Sat
15
Sun
15
Wk
22.5
Evening
Sat
30
Sun
30
Route 6 – Broad Street/Main Street
Route 6 provides local service along Broad Street from Willow Lawn Mall to downtown Richmond.
Select trips continue via Main Street to the Montrose Area (Montrose Heights Route) and the Fulton
Area (Darbytown Route), as shown in Figure A-3.
Figure A-3: Route 6 – Broad Street/Main Street
A-3 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 6 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day in
Table A-3.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:10am – 11:52pm
Saturday: 5:17am – 11:52pm
Sunday: 5:55am – 11:53pm
Table A-3: Route 6 Headways
Wk
9
AM Peak
Sat
18
Sun
18
Wk
12
Base
Sat
18
Sun
18
Wk
10
PM Peak
Sat
18
Sun
18
Wk
30
Evening
Sat
30
Sun
30
Route 10 – Riverview/Jefferson
Route 10 provides local service between the Riverview Area west of downtown and the area around
Richmond Community Hospital east of downtown via Broad Street, as shown in Figure A-4.
Figure A-4: Route 10 – Riverview/Jefferson
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 10 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-4.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:17am – 12:53am
Saturday: 6:05am – 1:02am
Sunday: 6:05am – 12:55am
A-4 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Table A-4: Route 10 Headways
Wk
17
AM Peak
Sat
27
Sun
27
Wk
21
Base
Sat
27
Sun
27
Wk
17
PM Peak
Sat
27
Sun
27
Wk
18
Evening
Sat
25
Sun
25
Service Changes
Beginning in May 2011, Route 10 will be split into 2 routes – Route 10 and Route 45. The Route 10
(Riverview) will operate north on Allen Avenue, west on Idlewood Avenue, north on Meadow Street,
east on Cary Street, and south on Allen Avenue to return to Idlewood Avenue. The route will continue
east on Idlewood Avenue, north on Harrison Street, east on Broad Street, south on 14th Street, west on
Main Street, north on 15th Street, east on Franklin Street, and north on 14th Street to return to Broad
Street and travel back to Riverview.
Route 45 (Jefferson) will operate east on Broad Street from 1st Street, travel north on 21st Street,
northeast on Jefferson Avenue, east on M Street, north on 30th Street, west on O Street, and north on
29th Street to Newbourne Street. The route will continue west on Newbourne Street, northeast on
Fairfield Avenue, southeast on Kane Street, south on Creighton Road, southwest on Nine Mile Road,
south on 28th Street past Richmond Community Hospital, east on U Street, south on 30 th Street, west on
M Street, and southwest on Jefferson Avenue to return to Broad Street.
Route 11 – Oliver Hill-17th Street-Mosby Court
Route 11 provides local service between the downtown area near the Capitol along Main Street, the 17 th
Street area north of Broad Street, and the Mosby Court Area in the East End, as shown in Figure A-5.
Figure A-5: Route 11 – Oliver Hill-17th Street-Mosby Court
A-5 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 11 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-5.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 6:30am – 5:30pm
Saturday: 9:20am – 3:34pm
Sunday: No Service
Table A-5: Route 11 Headways
Wk
30
AM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
30
Base
Sat
4 trips
Sun
--
Wk
30
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
Route 16 – Grove
Route 16 provides local weekday service between the University of Richmond and downtown near the
Capitol via Grove Avenue, Franklin Street, and Grace Street, as shown in Figure A-6. This route services
Retreat Hospital, the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, and Carpenter Center for the Performing Arts.
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 16 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-6.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:30am – 7:42pm
Saturday: No Service
Sunday: No Service
Table A-6: Route 16 Headways
Wk
20
AM Peak
Sat
--
A-6 | P a g e
Sun
--
Wk
60
Base
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
15
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
15
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Figure A-6: Route 16 – Grove
A-7 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
PURPLE ROUTES (LOCAL)
Route 7 – Seven Pines
Route 7 provides local weekday service from the City Hall area in downtown to the Seven Pines area
east of the City via Broad Street and Nine Mile Road or Williamsburg Road, as shown in Figure A-7. This
route services City Hall, Fairfield Commons and the Shops at White Oak Village.
Figure A-7: Route 7 – Seven Pines
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 7 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day in
Table A-7.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:45am – 8:17pm
Saturday: No Service
Sunday: No Service
Table A-7: Route 7 Headways
Wk
20
AM Peak
Sat
--
A-8 | P a g e
Sun
--
Wk
37
Base
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
35
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
47
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Route 56 – South Laburnum
Route 56 provides local weekday service between downtown and Richmond International Airport, as
shown in Figure A-8. This route also services the White Oak Village Park-and-Ride.
Figure A-8: Route 56 – South Laburnum
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 56 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-8.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:59am – 5:21pm
Saturday: No Service
Sunday: No Service
Table A-8: Route 56 Headways
Wk
1 trip
AM Peak
Sat
--
A-9 | P a g e
Sun
--
Wk
--
Base
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
1 trip
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Route 91 – Laburnum Connector
Route 91 provides local weekday service between the Willow Lawn area in West End and the Shops at
White Oak Village east of Richmond via Laburnum Avenue, as shown in Figure A-9.
Figure A-9: Route 91 – Laburnum Connector
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 91 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-9.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 6:45am – 6:40pm
Saturday: No Service
Sunday: No Service
Table A-9: Route 91 Headways
Wk
55
AM Peak
Sat
--
A-10 | P a g e
Sun
--
Wk
55
Base
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
55
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Route 93 – Azalea Connector
Route 93 provides local service between the area around the intersection of Azalea Avenue and
Chamberlayne Avenue and the intersection of Azalea Avenue and Wilkinson Road on the north side of
Richmond, as shown in Figure A-10. This route serves the Richfield Place Apartments on Chamberlayne
Avenue; Henrico High School and the Virginia Department of the Blind and Vision Impaired on Azalea
Avenue; and the Treehouse Apartments on Pony Farm Drive.
Figure A-10: Route 93 – Azalea Connector
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 93 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-10.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 6:50am – 6:50pm
Saturday: No Service
Sunday: No Service
Table A-10: Route 93 Headways
Wk
30
AM Peak
Sat
--
A-11 | P a g e
Sun
--
Wk
40
Base
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
40
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
ORANGE ROUTES (LOCAL)
Route 18 – Henrico Shuttle
Route 18 provides local service between the Henrico Government Center on Parham Road in West End
and Willow Lawn Shopping Center on Broad Street, as shown in Figure A-11.
Figure A-11: Route 18 – Henrico Shuttle
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 18 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-11.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 6:40am – 7:00pm
Saturday: No Service
Sunday: No Service
Table A-11: Route 18 Headways
Wk
55
AM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
55
Base
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
55
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
Route 19 – Pemberton
Route 19 provides weekday local service between the West End near the intersection of Broad Street
and Gaskins Road and the intersection of Broad Street and 14th Street in downtown. This route services
several shopping centers in West End, as shown in Figure A-12. This route has several connections with
Route 29 (Gaskins Express Route) at the Pemberton and Broad timepoint.
A-12 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Figure A-12: Route 19 – Pemberton
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 19 is identified below. Headways are not presented for this route because
they vary throughout the day.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 6:10am – 7:57pm
Saturday: No Service
Sunday: No Service
A-13 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
BLACK ROUTES (LOCAL)
Route 22 – Hermitage
Route 22 provides local service between the area near Westbrook and Hermitage on the Northside and
downtown near Broad Street and 14th Street. Major roads traveled by this route include Westbrook,
Hermitage, Brook, Lombardy, and Broad, as shown in Figure A-13.
Figure A-13: Route 22 – Hermitage
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 22 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-12.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:32am – 7:16pm
Saturday: 6:05am – 5:40pm
Sunday: 6:05am – 5:40pm
A-14 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Table A-12: Route 22 Headways
Wk
65
AM Peak
Sat
60
Sun
60
Wk
65
Base
Sat
65
Sun
65
Wk
65
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
Route 24 – Crestwood/Westbrook
Route 24 provides local service between the intersection of Crestwood and Westbrook on the Northside
and downtown near Broad Street and 14th Street via Hermitage Road, N Boulevard, and Broad Street, as
shown in Figure A-14. This route serves the Richmond Technical Center.
Figure A-14: Route 24 – Crestwood/Westbrook
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 24 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-13.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:31am – 11:00pm
Saturday: 5:59am – 9:11pm
A-15 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Sunday: 5:59am – 9:11pm
Table A-13: Route 24 Headways
Wk
35
AM Peak
Sat
60
Sun
60
Wk
32
Base
Sat
60
Sun
60
Wk
30
PM Peak
Sat
60
Sun
60
Wk
60
Evening
Sat
60
Sun
60
Route 32 – Ginter Park
Route 32 provides local service between the intersection of Akron and Moss Side on the Northside,
north of Laburnum, and downtown in the area of 8th Street and Canal Street, as shown in Figure A-15.
Between Laburnum and Brookland Park, the “W” route operates along Fendall Avenue and the “E” route
operates along North Avenue. The last two evening trips serve 11th and Broad.
Figure A-15: Route 32 – Ginter Park
A-16 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 32 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-14.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:15am – 12:34am
Saturday: 5:15am – 12:52am
Sunday: 5:23am – 12:47am
Table A-14: Route 32 Headways
Wk
10
AM Peak
Sat
15
Sun
15
Wk
20
Base
Sat
20
Sun
20
Wk
10
PM Peak
Sat
12
Sun
12
Wk
18
Evening
Sat
14
Sun
14
Route 34 – Highland Park
Route 34 provides local service between the Highland Park area on the Northside and the intersection of
8th and Canal in downtown, via Meadowbridge, 4th Avenue, and 8th Avenue, as shown in Figure A-16.
Figure A-16: Route 34 – Highland Park
A-17 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 34 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-15.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:05am – 12:10am
Saturday: 5:20am – 12:19am
Sunday: 5:42am – 12:11am
Table A-15: Route 34 Headways
Wk
10
AM Peak
Sat
25
Sun
23
Wk
20
Base
Sat
20
Sun
23
Wk
10
PM Peak
Sat
20
Sun
23
Wk
18
Evening
Sat
25
Sun
23
Route 37 – Chamberlayne
Route 37 provides local service between Azalea Avenue and Brook Road on the Northside and 14 th and
Main in downtown via Chamberlayne Avenue and Broad Street, as shown in Figure A-17.
Figure A-17: Route 37 – Chamberlayne
A-18 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 37 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-16.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:24am – 12:29am
Saturday: 5:52am – 12:33am
Sunday: 6:30am – 1:01am
Table A-16: Route 37 Headways
Wk
18
AM Peak
Sat
33
Sun
45
Wk
18
Base
Sat
33
Sun
30
Wk
18
PM Peak
Sat
33
Sun
30
Wk
30
Evening
Sat
33
Sun
30
GREEN ROUTES (LOCAL)
Routes 62 and 63 – Hull Street/Midlothian
As shown in Figure A-18, Routes 62 and 63 both begin at Hull Street and Cowardin Avenue on the south
side of downtown, travel northeast on Hull Street across the James River to Main Street, travel
northwest on Main Street, northeast on 7th Street, southeast on Marshall Street, southwest on 8th
Street, southeast on Cary Street, northeast on 12th Street, southeast on Main Street, and southwest on
Hull Street back across the James River. After crossing Cowardin Avenue, the routes diverge with Route
62 continuing southwest on Hull Street and Route 63 traveling southwest on Midlothian Turnpike.
After the routes diverge, Route 62 buses marked 62HW serve Hull Street and Warwick Road; buses
marked 62HS serve Hull Street and Southwood Parkway; buses marked 62CM/CS serve Chippenham
Mall via Hull Street; and buses marked 62BD serve Banton Street and Dupont Avenue via Broad Rock
Boulevard and Walmsley Boulevard. Route 63 buses marked 63CSQ serve Chippenham Square via the
Midlothian Turnpike and buses marked 63CWB serve Crutchfield Street and Westover Hills Boulevard via
the Midlothian Turnpike.
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Routes 62 and 63 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time
of day in Table A-17.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:00am – 12:45am
Saturday: 5:09am – 12:03am
Sunday: 5:17am – 12:07am
Table A-17: Route 62/63 Headways
Wk
9
AM Peak
Sat
30
A-19 | P a g e
Sun
60
Wk
10
Base
Sat
40
Sun
60
Wk
8
PM Peak
Sat
33
Sun
60
Wk
25
Evening
Sat
60
Sun
60
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Figure A-18: Route 63/63 – Hull Street/Midlothian
Route 67 – Chippenham
Route 67 provides local service between Chippenham Mall on the south side of Richmond and the Broad
Street area between 7th Street and 14th Street via Hull Street, Bainbridge Street, Commerce Road, and 9th
Street, as shown in Figure A-19.
A-20 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Figure A-19: Route 67 – Chippenham
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 67 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-18.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:00am – 12:45am
Saturday: No Service
Sunday: No Service
Table A-18: Route 67 Headways
Wk
3 trips
AM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
Base
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
3 trips
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
Routes 70 and 71 – Forest Hill
Routes 70 and 71 provide local service between downtown areas along Broad Street and Canal Street
between 4th Street and 8th Street and areas west and southwest of downtown, as shown in Figure A-20.
Both routes begin at the intersection of Forest Hill Avenue and Jahnke Road southwest of downtown,
travel east on Forest Hill Avenue, northeast on Semmes Avenue, northwest on 22 nd Street, northeast on
Spring Hill Road, northwest on 20th Street, north on Riverside Drive across the James River, southeast on
Byrd Street, northeast on 2nd Street, southeast on Cary Street, northeast on 4th Street, southeast on
Broad Street, southwest on 8th Street, northwest on Canal Street, and south on Riverside Drive to follow
the reverse route back to the Forest Hill/Jahnke intersection. From this point, the routes diverge with
Route 70 traveling west along Forest Hill Avenue and Route 71 traveling south along Jahnke Road.
After the routes diverge, Route 70 buses marked 70FHSPN travel to Stony Point via Forest Hill Avenue
and Chippenham Parkway; buses marked 70FHSPW travel to Stony Point via Forest Hill Avenue and WalA-21 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Mart; buses marked 70HS travel to Huguenot High School via Forest Hill Avenue and Wal-Mart; buses
marked 70N travel from Stony Point via Chippenham Parkway and Forest Hill Avenue; and buses marked
70W travel from Stony Point via Forest Hill Avenue and Wal-Mart. Route 71 buses marked 71CH travel
to Chippenham Hospital via Jahnke Road and buses marked 71KM travel to K-Mart via Jahnke Road,
Chippenham Hospital, Hioaks Road, Carnation Street, and the Midlothian Turnpike.
Figure A-20: Route 70/71 – Forest Hill
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Routes 70 and 71 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time
of day in Table A-19.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:36am – 11:31pm
Saturday: 6:06am – 11:28pm
Sunday: 6:11am – 10:57pm
A-22 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Table A-19: Route 70/71 Headways
Wk
20
AM Peak
Sat
62
Sun
65
Wk
40
Base
Sat
62
Sun
65
Wk
20
PM Peak
Sat
67
Sun
60
Wk
45
Evening
Sat
67
Sun
65
Routes 72 and 73 – Ruffin Road/Ampthill
Routes 72 and 73 provide local service between the downtown area along Grace Street and Cary Street
between 5th Street and 9th Street and areas south of downtown along Jefferson Davis Highway and
Commerce Road, including Philip Morris and Dupont, as shown in Figure A-21. Route 73 begins at the
Food Lion on Jefferson Davis Highway near Chippenham Parkway, travels north on Jefferson Davis
(becomes Cowardin Avenue) to the intersection of Cowardin Avenue and Hull Street. Route 72 begins at
Maxxim Medical on Commerce Road, travels north on Commerce Road, serves the Philip Morris Plant,
and continues north on Commerce Road, west on Ruffin Road, and north on Jefferson Davis Highway to
the intersection of Cowardin Avenue and Hull Street.
From the intersection of Cowardin Avenue and Hull Street, both routes travel north on Cowardin
Avenue, northeast on Semmes Avenue, continue northeast on 9th Street across the James River, travel
northwest on Grace Street, southwest on 5th Street, southeast on Cary Street, and southwest on 9th
Street for the return trip.
Figure A-21: Route 72/73 – Ruffin Road/Ampthill
A-23 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Routes 72 and 73 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time
of day in Table A-20. Route 72 does not operate on Saturday or Sunday.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:13am – 1:13am
Saturday: 5:59am – 1:06am
Sunday: 5:59am – 1:06am
Table A-20: Route 72/73 Headways
Wk
20
AM Peak
Sat
30
Sun
30
Wk
30
Base
Sat
30
Sun
30
Wk
20
PM Peak
Sat
30
Sun
30
Wk
60
Evening
Sat
60
Sun
60
Route 74 – Oak Grove
Route 74 provides local service between downtown around the Belvidere Street/Broad Street
intersection and the intersection of Lynhaven and Brady on the Southside, as shown in Figure A-22.
Figure A-22: Route 74 – Oak Grove
A-24 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 74 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-21.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 5:47am – 1:14am
Saturday: 6:21am – 12:25am
Sunday: 6:21am – 12:25am
Table A-21: Route 74 Headways
Wk
28
AM Peak
Sat
30
Sun
30
Wk
33
Base
Sat
30
Sun
30
Wk
33
PM Peak
Sat
30
Sun
30
Wk
25
Evening
Sat
60
Sun
60
Route 101 – Southside Plaza/Belt Boulevard Connector
Route 101 provides local weekday service from Southside Plaza Shopping Center at Hull Street and Belt
Boulevard, travels northwest along Belt Boulevard, east on Forest Hill Boulevard, south on Roanoke
Street, and west on Crutchfield Street back to Belt Boulevard, as shown in Figure A-23.
Figure A-23: Route 101 – Southside Plaza/Belt Boulevard Connector
Service Characteristics
The span of service for Route 101 is identified below, followed by the service frequencies by time of day
in Table A-22.
Service Hours
Weekdays: 9:50am – 3:10pm
Saturday: No Service
Sunday: No Service
A-25 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Table A-22: Route 101 Headways
Wk
--
AM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
25
Base
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
PM Peak
Sat
--
Sun
--
Wk
--
Evening
Sat
--
Sun
--
EXPRESS ROUTES
Route 21 – Mechanicsville Express
Route 21 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond and the Mechanicsville Parkand Ride in Mechanicsville, northeast of downtown. The southbound trips are operated from the parkand-ride in the morning peak hours and three northbound trips are operated from 9th and Broad Street
in the afternoon peak hours.
Route 23 – Glenside/Parham Express
Route 23 provides weekday express service between downtown at 14th and Bank Street, the Glenside
Park-and-Ride at Cloverdale and Glenside Drive, and the Parham Park-and-Ride at Fordson and Parham
Road northwest of downtown. This route operates 2 westbound trips in the afternoon peak hours.
Route 26 – Parham Express
Route 26 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond at 14th and Bank Street and
the Parham Park-and-Ride at Fordson and Parham Road northwest of downtown via Interstate 64. The
route operates 7 eastbound trips from the Parham Park-and-Ride during the morning peak hours and 4
eastbound trips during the afternoon peak hours. For westbound trips from 9th and Broad Street, the
route operates 4 trips during the morning peak hours and 6 trips during the afternoon peak hours.
Route 27 – Glenside Express
Route 27 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond at 14th and Bank Street and
the Glenside Park-and-Ride at Cloverdale and Glenside Drive northwest of downtown via Interstate 64.
The route operates 6 eastbound trips from the Glenside Park-and-Ride during the morning peak hours
and 3 eastbound trips during the afternoon peak hours. For westbound trips from 9 th and Broad Street,
the route operates 3 trips during the morning peak hours and 7 trips during the afternoon peak hours.
Route 28 – White Oak Village Express
Route 28 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond and the White Oaks Village
Park-and-Ride on Laburnum Avenue east of downtown via Interstate 64. The route operates 2
westbound trips from the White Oaks Village Park-and-Ride during the morning peak hours and 2
eastbound trips from 9th and Broad Street during the afternoon peak hours.
Route 29 – Gaskins Express
Route 29 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond and the Gaskins Park-andRide at Mayland and Gaskins Road northwest of downtown via Interstate 64. The route operates 11
A-26 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
eastbound trips from the Gaskins Park-and-Ride during the morning peak hours and 2 eastbound trips
during the afternoon peak hours. For westbound trips from downtown, the route operates 6 trips
during the morning peak hours and 8 trips during the afternoon peak hours.
Route 64 – Stony Point Express
Route 64 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond and the intersection of Old
Gun Road and Duryea Drive west of downtown via Forest Hill Avenue and Huguenot Road. The route
operates 6 northbound trips from Southside to downtown during the morning peak hours and 6
northbound trips during the afternoon peak hours. For southbound trips from downtown, the route
operates 6 trips during the morning peak hours and 6 trips during the afternoon peak hours.
Route 66 – Spring Rock Garden Express
Route 66 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond and Rock Spring Green Mall
on the Midlothian Turnpike southwest of downtown via Powhite Parkway. The route operates 3
northbound trips from Southside to downtown during the morning peak hours and one northbound trip
during the afternoon peak hours. For southbound trips from downtown, the route operates 2 trips
during the morning peak hours and 3 trips during the afternoon peak hours.
Route 81 – Chesterfield Express
Route 81 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond and Chesterfield Plaza on
Koger Center Boulevard west of downtown via Powhite Parkway and the Midlothian Turnpike. The
route operates 4 eastbound trips from Chesterfield to downtown during the morning peak hours and 2
eastbound trips during the afternoon peak hours. For westbound trips from downtown, the route
operates 2 trips during the morning peak hours and 3 trips during the afternoon peak hours.
Route 82 – Commonwealth 20/Swift Creek Express
Route 82 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond, the Commonwealth Centre
Parkway Park-and-Ride on Commonwealth Center Parkway, and the Swift Creek Baptist Church Parkand-Ride on Hull Street Road southwest of downtown via Powhite Parkway and Route 288. The route
operates 5 northbound trips from Swift Creek Church to downtown during the morning peak hours and
one northbound trip during the afternoon peak hours. For southbound trips from downtown, the route
operates 5 trips during the afternoon peak hours.
Route 95 – Petersburg Express
Route 95 provides weekday express service between downtown Richmond, John Tyler Community
College (Chester Campus), and the City Hall Annex at Tabb and Market in Petersburg. The route
operates 5 southbound trips from downtown to Petersburg during the morning peak hours, one midday
southbound trip, and 5 southbound trips during the afternoon peak hours. For northbound trips from
Petersburg to downtown, the route operates 6 trips during the morning peak hours, one midday
northbound trip, and 5 northbound trips during the afternoon peak hours.
A-27 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
VCU ROUTES
Route 84 – VCU Campus Connector
Route 84 operates from the intersection of Laurel Street and Main Street north along Laurel Street, east
along W. Franklin Street, north on 9th Street, east on Broad Street, north on 11th Street, west on Leigh
Street, south on 8th Street, and west on Main Street back to Laurel Street, as shown in Figure A-25. This
route operates during the summer schedule on weekdays between 7:00am and 7:00pm, and during the
winter schedule between 6:30am and 2:00am on weekdays and between 10:00am and 9:00pm on
weekends. The route operates every 10-15 minutes.
Figure A-25: Route 84 – Monroe Campus Connector
A-28 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Route 86 – VCU Medical Campus – I Lot
Route 86 operates south on N. 7th Street from just north of I-95, east on E. Duval Street, south on N. 8th
Street, east on E. Broad Street, north on N. 11th Street, west on E. Leigh Street, north on N. 8th Street,
west on E. Jackson Street, and north on N. 7th Street back to the parking area just north of I-95, as shown
in Figure A-26. This route operates every 10 minutes on weekdays between 5:30am and 8:00pm.
Figure A-26: Route 86 – VCU Medical Campus – I Lot
A-29 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix A – GRTC Route Descriptions
Route 87 – VCU Gateway – Sanger Express to A Lot
Route 87 operates from Sanger Hall on 11th Street between Broad Street and Marshall Street, travels
northwest on Marshall Street, southwest on 10th Street, southeast on Broad Street, southwest on 14th
Street, southeast on Franklin Street, and northeast to the A Lot adjacent to I-95 and Main Street Station,
and then makes the return trip, as shown in Figure A-27. This route operates every 7 to 20 minutes on
weekdays from 5:00am to 8:00pm.
Figure A-27: Route 87 – VCU Gateway – Sanger Express to A Lot
A-30 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
APPENDIX B: PEER REVIEW
1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE P EER ANALYSIS PROCESS
A peer analysis provides the opportunity to compare performance characteristics among transit
agencies of a similar size with similar service characteristics. Transit agencies report such information to
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which records the information annually in the National Transit
Database (NTD). The NTD is the only comprehensive source of validated operating and financial data
reported by transit systems nationwide. The FTA reviews and confirms the accuracy of the information
received and publishes a final report after a reporting transit system successfully responds to all
comments and inquiries. Transit agencies must follow strict requirements with regards to the manner in
which cost and service characteristics are reported to the NTD. As such, the NTD provides a consistent
set of measurable data that can be used in an analysis of peer systems. FY2009 data was the most
recent available from the NTD at the time of this peer analysis and therefore all information presented
in this peer analysis is based on FY2009 data.
While a peer analysis based on NTD data provides operational and financial information, other aspects
of service quality are not reported in the NTD, such as passenger satisfaction, vehicle cleanliness and
comfort, schedule adherence, and route connectivity. Additionally, unique operating and financial
characteristics associated with a particular transit agency may not be apparent in the database. These
factors make it difficult to find true peer systems for the analysis; however, every effort is made to find
peers that share similar service areas and transit environments.
The remainder of this technical memorandum is organized as follows:

Section 2 describes the process used to select the GRTC peer transit systems;

Section 3 provides an overview of the peer systems’ service area characteristics, services
provided, fare structure, revenue hours and miles, passenger trips, and O&M and capital
budgets;

Section 4 provides detailed comparisons of specific service productivity measures, specifically
vehicle utilization, service supply, service productivity, cost efficiency, and vehicle maintenance
performance;

Section 5 analyzes financial characteristics, highlighting the revenue sources used by GRTC and
its peers to fund O&M and capital costs; and

Section 6 summarizes the key findings of the peer analysis.
B-1 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
2.0 PEER S ELECTION PROCESS
This peer analysis identifies peer systems that have similar operational size, service area size, and service
area population. While the peer analysis does not capture all of the unique characteristics found in
Richmond, it does provide a basis for comparison to evaluate the performance of the system. A two-step
peer selection process was used. Primary screening criteria included the service area size, service area
population, service area population density, peak vehicles (bus and demand response), revenue miles
(bus and demand response), revenue hours (bus and demand response), and passenger trips (bus and
demand response). Secondary screening criteria focused on unique characteristics of Richmond that
may be applied to the peers. These criteria included capital cities with similar climate characteristics and
population densities, and agencies that operate both demand response and fixed-route bus service.
Numerous transit systems were reviewed to determine the best peer group for GRTC. For this analysis,
eight systems were chosen for the final peer list, as shown in Table B-1. Cities with transit systems that
were identified as potential peers but not chosen for the final analysis include Albany, NY; Hartford, CT;
Austin, TX; and Lansing, MI.
Table B-1: Final Peer List
Agency Name
Indianapolis and Marion
County Public Transportation
(IndyGo)
Hillsborough Area Regional
Transit (HART)
Memphis Area Transit
Authority (MATA)
Metro Transit System (Metro)
City of Tucson (Sun Tran)
Charlotte Area Transit System
(CATS)
Greater Dayton Regional
Transit Authority (GDRTA)
Jacksonville Transportation
Authority (JTA)
City
Service Area Service Area Population
Population Size (sq. mi.)
Density
Peak Vehicles
Total Bus
DR
Indianapolis, IN
791,926
373
2,123
195
127
68
Tampa, FL
821,306
243
3,380
189
159
30
Memphis, TN
888,627
288
3,086
179
135
44
Madison, WI
245,181
72
3,405
183
167
16
Tucson, AZ
544,000
230
2,365
269
170
99
Charlotte, NC
758,927
445
1,705
357
286
71
Dayton, OH
559,062
274
2,040
177
95
82
Jacksonville, FL
827,453
242
3,419
277
182
95
3.0 PEER S YSTEM OVERVIEW
The following is a general overview of peer system characteristics, including service area characteristics,
services provided, fare structure, revenue hours and miles, passenger trips, and FY2009 O&M and
capital budgets. Further comparisons of ridership, revenue miles, revenue hours, and operating and
capital budgets are provided in Section 4 – Service Productivity Comparisons and Section 5 – Financial
Analysis.
B-2 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
3.1 SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS
As discussed in Section 2, eight peers were identified for the GRTC peer review: Indianapolis, Tampa,
Memphis, Madison, Tucson, Charlotte, Dayton, and Jacksonville.
GRTC’s service area population is 66 percent of the peer average while the service area square miles is
84 percent of the peer average. GRTC’s population density is 74 percent of the peer average. Table B-2
presents the population, square miles, and population density for the service areas in 2009.
Table B-2: Service Area Characteristics
City
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
Population
Square Miles
791,926
821,306
888,627
245,181
544,000
758,927
559,062
827,453
679,560
449,572
373
243
288
72
230
445
274
242
271
227
Population
Density
2,123
3,380
3,086
3,405
2,365
1,705
2,040
3,419
2,691
1,980
3.2 SERVICES PROVIDED
The following lists the service hours for the peer systems based on information provided on each
system’s website as of April 2011.

IndyGo – Indianapolis, IN
Monday – Friday: 4:30am to 10:30pm
Saturday: 5:45am to 11:10pm
Sunday: 6:50am to 9:20pm

HART – Tampa, FL
Monday – Friday: 4:00am to 1:20am
Saturday: 6:15am to 11:00pm
Sunday: 6:15am to 10:30pm

MATA – Memphis, TN
Monday – Friday: 5:00am to 12:00am
Saturday: 5:30am to 10:00pm
Sunday: 7:45am to 7:00pm

Metro – Madison, WI
Monday – Friday: 5:00am to 12:15am
Saturday: 6:30am to 11:30pm
Sunday: 7:30am to 11:30pm

City of Tucson – Tucson, AZ
Monday – Friday: 4:30am to 12:30am
Saturday: 5:30am to 9:30pm
Sunday: 6:00am to 9:00pm

CATS – Charlotte, NC
Monday – Friday: 5:00am to 2:00am
B-3 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Saturday: 5:30am to 2:15am
Sunday: 5:15am to 1:00am

GDRTA – Dayton, OH
Monday – Friday: 4:30am to 1:45am
Saturday: 4:30am to 1:45am
Sunday: 5:15am to 1:45am

JTA – Jacksonville, FL
Monday – Friday: 4:00am to 11:00pm
Saturday: 5:00am to 11:00pm
Sunday: 5:00am to 10:00pm

GRTC – Richmond, VA
Monday – Sunday: 5:00am to 1:00am
3.3 FARES
Table B-3 presents the fares for the peer systems based on information provided on each system’s
website as of April 2011. Local full fares among the systems range from $1.00 (Jacksonville) to $2.00
(Madison) while express fares range from $1.50 (Tucson) to $3.50 (Charlotte). GRTC’s fares fall in the
middle of each these rare ranges. Only two of the peer systems, in addition to GRTC, offer a free fare
program in coordination with area universities. All of the peer systems offer some form of passes at a
discounted rate; however, GRTC does not offer passes at a discounted rate.
Table B-3: Peer System Fares
City
Adult Fare
Transfers
Children
Seniors/
Disabled
$0.85r
Students
Passes*
Indianapolis, IN
$1.75
Free
Tampa, FL
$1.75 local
$2.75 express
Free
$0.85 local
$1.35 express
Free w/USF
ID;
25% discount
for other
students
Memphis, TN
$1.50 local
$2.10 express
$0.10
Free
$0.75
$1.20 city
$1.40 county
Madison, WI
$2.00
Free
Free
$1.00
Tucson, AZ
$1.25 local
$1.50 express
Free local;
$0.25 exp
Free
$0.40
$1.25 (5-17);
Free for UWMadison
Half price
passes for
Univ. of AZ
B-4 | P a g e
Free for IUPUI
students
Day Pass - $4.00
10-trip Pass - $17.50
7-day Pass - $20.00
31-day Pass - $60.00
1-day local - $3.75
1-day express - $5.50
31-day local - $60.00
31-day express - $90.00
10-trip local - $34.00
10-trip express - $50.00
3-day visitor - $11.00
Daily - $3.25
7-day Pass - $15.00
31-day Pass - $50.00
31-day Express - $60.00
1-day Pass - $4.50
31-day Pass - $55.00
10-ride card - $15.00
Day Pass - $3.00
Monthly Pass - $45.00
Reduced Monthly - $12
Express Pass - $42.00
10-ride Pass - $12.50
Reduced 10-ride - $4.00
2-ride Pass - $2.70
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
Charlotte, NC
$1.75 local
$2.40 express
$3.50 express
plus
Free
(must pay
fare
difference
for exp. or
exp. plus)
Free
Dayton, OH
$1.75
$0.25
Free
Jacksonville, FL
$1.00 local
$1.50 express
Richmond, VA
$1.50 local
$2-$3 express
$0.25 plus
any add’l
fare
Free
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
$0.85 local
K-12: same as Weekly Pass - $17.50
$1.20 express senior/
Monthly Pass - $70.00
$1.75 express disabled
Monthly Exp. - $93.00
plus
Month Exp Plus - $140
10-ride local - $15.00
10-ride Exp. - $20.00
10-ride Exp Plus - $30.00
$0.85
$0.85
Weekly Pass - $19.00
Monthly Pass - $55.00
Senior/Disabled - $32.00
10-ride tokens - $15.00
10-ride senior - $8.50
Disabled $0.25 Regular cash Weekly Pass - $12.00
Senior - Free
fare
Monthly Pass - $40.00
Youth Pass - $30.00
10 rides - $9.00
40 rides - $36.00
Youth 10-ride - $6.50
$0.75
VCU routes
$5, $10, and $25 Go
free w/VCU
Cards are available
ID
*Senior/disabled passes are generally available at half fare on all systems
3.4 REVENUE HOURS AND MILES
Averaging the revenue hours and revenue miles of peer systems with similar levels of service allows for
a fair comparison of productivity measures. While the averages were comparable for fixed route (bus)
revenue hours and miles, paratransit (demand response) revenue hours and miles varied among the
peers.
Revenue Hours
GRTC’s fixed route (bus) and demand response revenue hours were both below the peer average, by 12
percent and 18 percent respectively, as shown in Table B-4. GRTC ranked fifth out of nine for fixed route
revenue hours and seventh for demand response revenue hours. Charlotte had the most fixed route
revenue hours (828,877) while Tucson had the most demand response revenue hours (253,417).
Table B-4: Revenue Hours
City
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
B-5 | P a g e
Total
Bus
612,988
647,780
543,484
401,888
846,154
985,170
493,628
793,927
665,627
576,291
451,382
581,600
421,643
372,134
592,737
828,877
330,542
590,626
521,193
457,908
Demand
Response
161,606
66,180
121,841
29,754
253,417
156,293
163,086
203,301
144,435
118,383
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Revenue Miles
Table B-5 shows the annual revenue miles for fixed route and demand response service for GRTC and its
peers. GRTC’s revenue miles for fixed route service (5,248,396) were 72 percent of the peer average
while its revenue miles for demand response service (2,210,130) were 102 percent of the peer average.
As with revenue hours, Charlotte had the most fixed route revenue miles and Tucson had the most
demand response revenue miles.
Table B-5: Revenue Miles
City
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
Total
Bus
8,982,736
8,447,764
8,151,118
5,074,107
10,969,765
14,413,922
7,566,625
12,073,444
9,459,935
7,458,526
6,294,236
7,421,599
6,207,708
4,709,101
7,707,057
11,990,629
5,189,349
8,901,889
7,302,696
5,248,396
Demand
Response
2,688,500
1,026,165
1,943,410
365,006
3,262,708
2,423,293
2,377,276
3,171,555
2,157,239
2,210,130
3.5 PASSENGER TRIPS
Table B-6 shows the total, fixed route, and demand response passenger trips for each of the peer
systems. GRTC’s total and fixed route passenger trips are very similar to the peer averages while GRTC’s
demand response passenger trips are below the peer average by 23 percent.
Table B-6: Passenger Trips
City
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
Total
Bus
8,271,670
13,222,509
10,602,978
13,651,578
22,044,269
21,778,612
7,219,593
10,611,772
13,425,373
13,407,502
8,021,596
13,125,468
10,358,212
13,588,426
21,575,374
21,539,450
6,960,449
10,253,890
13,177,858
13,216,816
Demand
Response
250,074
97,041
244,766
63,152
468,895
239,162
259,144
357,882
247,515
190,686
3.6 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS
The following Tables B-7 and B-8 present the operating and capital budgets for FY2009 for GRTC and the
peer systems. GRTC’s total operating and maintenance funds ($45,583,194) were 68 percent of the peer
average ($67,284,152). GRTC’s total operating funds are below the peer average largely due to local
B-6 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
funding that is nearly half the peer average. Among the systems that receive local funding, the peer
average is $32,669,341 (excluding Dayton), while GRTC received $16,760,786 in local funding. GRTC
operating funds from federal and other sources were also well below the peer averages.
Capital funding for GRTC ($28,025,764) was 119 percent of the peer average ($23,646,993). GRTC
received much higher capital funding from federal sources ($22,420,522) than the peer average
($13,520,709). Further analysis of operating and capital funding is provided in Section 5.
Table B-7: Operating Funds by Source
City
Fares
Local
State
Federal
Other
Total
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
$10,220,995
$12,524,421
$9,616,007
$10,318,578
$10,769,419
$21,431,190
$8,888,647
$18,769,770
$12,817,378
$11,384,674
$17,219,213
$2,137,603
$23,107,857
$15,410,309
$41,421,415
$80,509,990
$0
$48,878,999
$32,669,341*
$16,760,786
$11,631,612
$3,669,407
$7,955,675
$17,167,320
$3,273,738
$13,240,128
$388,141
$4,014,925
$7,667,618
$8,936,191
$16,456,216
$13,543,926
$11,065,920
$5,824,984
$6,042,439
$0
$16,491,391
$7,716,735
$11,020,230*
$7,722,087
$1,098,307
$33,249,113
$927,507
$498,414
$461,599
$505,196
$30,116,729
$1,709,379
$8,570,781
$779,456
$56,626,343
$65,124,470
$52,672,966
$49,219,605
$61,968,610
$115,686,504
$55,884,908
$81,089,808
$67,284,152
$45,583,194
*These peer averages include only those systems that receive funding from that source
Table B-8: Capital Funds by Source
City
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
Local
$2,346,249
$171
$224,753
$103,861
$28,828,072
$1,636,951
$0
$600,267
$4,820,046*
$2,463,591
State
Federal
Other
Total
$0
$171
$332,336
$0
$11,359
$10,461,473
$1,617,850
$79,250
$2,083,740*
$3,141,651
$12,221,577
$13,639,589
$1,777,763
$9,148,820
$24,005,222
$19,226,513
$17,927,215
$10,138,969
$13,510,709
$22,420,522
$0
$1,383,500
$0
$2,109,921
$0
$27,641,138
$3,712,951
$0
$8,711,878*
$0
$14,567,826
$15,023,431
$2,334,852
$11,362,602
$52,844,653
$58,966,075
$23,258,016
$10,818,486
$23,646,993
$28,025,764
*These peer averages include only those systems that receive funding from that source
4.0 SERVICE PRODUCTIVITY
This section evaluates the following service productivity measures:

Vehicle utilization, including the number of fleet and peak vehicles and revenue hours and miles
per peak vehicle;

Service supplied, including revenue hours and miles per capita and per service area square mile;

Service effectiveness, including passengers per revenue mile and per revenue hour;

Cost efficiency, including operating cost per passenger trip, revenue hour and revenue mile;
B-7 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review

Vehicle maintenance performance, including revenue vehicle failures and labor hours for
inspection and maintenance.
4.1 VEHICLE UTILIZATION
Vehicle utilization is a productivity measure based on the total number of revenue hours and revenue
miles per peak vehicle. The number of peak vehicles available is used to calculate vehicle utilization as it
reflects the maximum number of vehicles used during the heaviest levels of service. This measure
assesses the ability of the peer systems to efficiently use the vehicles available to provide service.
Fixed Route Vehicles
Figure B-1 displays the total fixed route vehicles available for use compared to the number of fixed route
vehicles operated in maximum service (peak vehicles) by GRTC and its peers. The peer averages for total
and peak fixed route vehicles are 195 and 163, respectively. GRTC falls just below the peer averages with
178 total and 142 peak fixed route vehicles.
Figure B-1: Fixed Route Vehicles
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Fleet
Peak
Demand Response Vehicles
Figure B-2 displays the total and peak demand response vehicles available to GRTC and its peers. GRTC
has a demand response fleet (80) that is nearly 10 percent larger than the peer average (73), but
operates only one more peak vehicle than the peer average of 62. Tucson has the largest demand
response fleet among the peers with 121 total vehicles and Madison has the smallest with 19 total
vehicles.
Figure B-2: Demand Response Vehicles
B-8 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
140
120
100
Fleet
80
Peak
60
40
20
0
Revenue Hours per Peak Vehicle
The ratio of revenue hours per peak vehicle is used to compare the number of revenue hours the peer
systems operate their peak vehicles. The peer average for fixed route service is 3,205 revenue hours per
peak vehicle, as shown in Figure B-3. GRTC is slightly above the peer average for fixed route service at
3,225 revenue hours per peak vehicle.
For demand response revenue hours per peak vehicle, GRTC fell below the peer average by 450 revenue
hours (19 percent) and was the second lowest among all the peers. For total revenue hours per peak
vehicle, GRTC fell below the peer average with 2,811 compared to 2,963.
Figure B-3: Revenue Hours per Peak Vehicle
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Revenue Miles per Peak Vehicle
B-9 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Revenue miles per peak vehicle provide another measure of how efficiently vehicles are used based on
the number of revenue miles reported per peak vehicle. The peer average for fixed route service is
44,905 revenue miles per peak vehicle, as shown in Figure B-4. GRTC is below the peer average for this
measure at 36,961 and is the second lowest among the peers. Jacksonville ranked the highest for this
measure with 54,950 revenue miles per peak fixed route vehicle.
For demand response, GRTC ranked fourth highest among the peers in terms of revenue miles per peak
vehicle with 35,081 and was above the peer average of 34,794.
Figure B-4: Revenue Miles per Peak Vehicle
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Total
Bus
Demand Response
4.2 SERVICE SUPPLIED
Measures of service supplied include ratios of revenue hours and miles per service area population (or
per capita) and per square mile of service. Service area population, square miles, and population density
were presented in Table B-2.
Revenue Hours per Service Area Population
The ratio of revenue hours per service area population (or per capita) provides a measure of how
effectively a system’s service hours are supplied to the community. Figure B-5 shows the total, fixed
route, and demand response revenue hours per capita for GRTC and the peer systems. The peer average
for fixed route and demand response combined is 0.98 revenue hours per capita, while the peer
averages for fixed route and demand response alone are 0.77 and 0.21, respectively. GRTC’s revenue
hours per capita for fixed route and demand response service combined is 1.28, which is 30 percent
higher than the peer average.
B-10 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
GRTC’s fixed route revenue hours per capita are 1.02, which is the fourth highest among the peers and
32 percent above the peer average. For demand response, GRTC ranked third highest among the peers
with 0.26 revenue hours per capita.
Figure B-5: Revenue Hours per Capita
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Revenue Miles per Service Area Population
The ratio of revenue miles per service area population (or per capita) provides another measure of how
effectively service is supplied to citizens throughout the service area. Figure B-6 shows the total, fixed
route, and demand response revenue miles per capita for GRTC and the peer systems. The peer average
for fixed route and demand response combined is 13.92 revenue miles per capita, while the peer
averages for fixed route and demand response alone are 11.67 and 4.92, respectively. GRTC’s revenue
miles per capita for fixed route and demand response service combined is 16.59, which is 19 percent
higher than the peer average. Madison has the highest total revenue miles per capita, but it also has a
service area population that is less than half of the peer average.
GRTC’s revenue miles per capita for fixed route and demand response are 11.67 and 4.92, respectively.
Both of these measures are above the peer average. Madison had the highest revenue miles per capita
for fixed route service, but ranked the second lowest for demand response. Tucson ranked the highest
for demand response revenue miles per capita at nearly double the peer average.
Revenue Hours per Service Area Square Mile
This ratio reveals how effectively the service is provided throughout the service area. GRTC’s total
revenue hours per square mile of service are 2,539 compared to the peer average of 2,457. Madison by
far had the highest total revenue hours per square mile at more than twice the peer average, but
Madison also has a service area size that is nearly one-quarter of the peer average. Indianapolis ranked
the lowest among the peers at 1,643 (33 percent below the peer average).
B-11 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
GRTC’s fixed route service provides 2,017 revenue hours per square mile of service area, which is 105
percent of the peer average (1,924 revenue hours per square mile). For demand response, GRTC
provides 522 revenue hours per square mile of service. This is slightly below the peer average of 533.
Figure B-7 presents the revenue hours per square mile of service for all peer systems.
Figure B-6: Revenue Miles per Capita
25
20
15
10
5
0
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Figure B-7: Revenue Hours per Service Area Square Mile
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Total
B-12 | P a g e
Bus
Demand Response
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Revenue Miles per Service Area Square Mile
The ratio of revenue miles per square mile of service area is another common measure of how
effectively service is provided throughout the service area. Figure B-8 presents the revenue miles per
square mile of service area for GRTC and the peer systems. The peer average for this measure for fixed
route and demand response combined is 34,924 revenue miles per square mile of service area. GRTC’s
total is 32,857, or 94 percent of the peer average. GRTC’s fixed route service provides 86 percent of the
peer average (26,960) at 23,121 revenue miles per square mile of service area. Madison provided the
most fixed route revenue miles per square mile at 243 percent of the peer average, while Indianapolis
provided the lowest at 63 percent of the peer average.
The peer average for demand response service is 7,964 revenue miles per square mile of service area.
GRTC provided 9,736 revenue miles per square mile, which is 122 percent of the peer average. Tucson
provided the highest demand response revenue miles per square mile with 14,186 (178 percent of the
peer average) and Tampa provided the lowest at 4,223.
Figure B-8: Revenue Miles per Service Area Square Mile
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Total
Bus
Demand Response
4.3 SERVICE PRODUCTIVITY
Service productivity measures how effectively a transit service is transporting passengers relative to the
level of service provided. Ratios used to measure service productivity include passenger trips per service
area population, passenger trips per revenue hour, and passenger trips per revenue mile.
Passenger Trips per Service Area Population
This service productivity measure reveals how many passenger trips occur in relation to the population
of the service area. GRTC provides 29.82 total trips per capita, which is 51 percent higher than the peer
average (19.76). Only two systems, Madison and Tucson, ranked higher than GRTC for total trips per
capita. The measures and rankings for fixed route trips per capita are very similar to those for fixed
B-13 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
route and demand response combined since demand response trips make up such a small percentage of
the total.
For demand response alone, GRTC provides 0.42 passenger trips per capita, which is 17 percent above
the peer average (0.36). Tucson provides the highest number of demand response trips per capita at
0.86, which is more than double the peer average. Figure B-9 presents the passenger trips per service
area population for the peer systems.
Figure B-9: Passenger Trips per Service Area Population
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour
This measure reveals how much service is consumed based on the hours of service provided. GRTC’s
total passenger trips per revenue hour (23.3) are 15 percent higher than the peer average (20.2).
Similarly, GRTC’s fixed route trips per revenue hour (28.9) are 14 percent higher than the peer average
(25.3).
For demand response, GRTC provided 1.6 trips per revenue hour, which is six percent below the peer
average (1.7). Madison provided the most demand response trips per revenue hour at 25 percent above
the peer average. Figure B-10 presents the passenger trips per revenue hour for the peer systems.
Figure B-10: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour
B-14 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile
This measure allows for comparison of service productivity based on the amount of service consumed
per mile of service provided. GRTC’s total (1.80) and fixed route (2.52) passenger trips per revenue mile
are the third highest among the peers and exceed the peer averages of 1.42 for total and 1.80 for fixed
route by 27 percent and 40 percent, respectively.
For demand response, GRTC fell 18 percent below the peer average (0.11) with 0.09 demand response
passenger trips per revenue mile and was among the lowest of all the peers. Figure B-11 presents the
passenger trips per revenue mile for the peer systems.
Figure B-11: Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Total
B-15 | P a g e
Bus
Demand Response
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
4.4 COST EFFICIENCY
Cost efficiency ratios compare the agencies’ abilities to operate efficiently based on operating costs per
passenger trip, per revenue hour, and per revenue mile. Table B-9 presents the operating costs for each
of the peer systems. GRTC is below the peer average for total operating costs, fixed route operating
costs, and demand response operating costs. Charlotte had the highest total and fixed route operating
costs with 141 percent and 161 percent of the peer average, respectively. Jacksonville had the highest
operating costs for demand response service with 225 percent of the peer average.
Table B-9: FY2009 Operating Costs
City
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
Total
$58,872,584
$62,124,632
$48,584,426
$42,813,724
$61,968,610
$83,548,087
$47,076,361
$74,894,711
$59,235,392
$44,064,399
Bus
$44,534,691
$58,879,358
$41,981,656
$40,547,797
$49,188,121
$79,981,640
$33,551,688
$53,695,432
$49,795,048
$38,513,651
Demand Response
$8,337,893
$3,245,274
$6,602,770
$2,265,927
$12,780,489
$7,566,447
$13,524,673
$21,199,279
$9,440,344
$5,550,748
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip
This measure of efficiency is based on how much one passenger trip costs the transit agency. GRTC’s
operating cost per passenger trip for bus and demand response combined is $3.29, which is 25 percent
lower than the peer average of $4.41. Jacksonville has the highest total operating cost per passenger
trip at $7.06 while Tucson has the lowest at $2.81.
GRTC has the second lowest operating cost per passenger trip among all the peers for both fixed route
and demand response service. For fixed route service, GRTC’s operating cost per passenger trip is $2.91,
which is 23 percent below the peer average. For demand response service, GRTC’s cost of $29.11 is 24
percent below the peer average of $38.14. Figure B-12 displays the operating cost per passenger trip for
the peer systems.
Operating Cost per Revenue Hour
The operating cost per revenue hour measures the cost to operate each hour of service. The peer
average for this measure for fixed route and demand response service combined is $88.99 per revenue
hour. GRTC’s total operating cost per revenue mile is $76.46, which is 14 percent below the peer
average and the second lowest among all the peers. Similarly, GRTC’s operating cost per revenue mile
for fixed route service ($84.11) is the second lowest among the peers and 12 percent below the peer
average of $95.54.
B-16 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
For demand response service, GRTC has the lowest operating cost per revenue hour among the peers at
$46.89. This is 28 percent below the peer average of $65.36. Figure B-13 displays the operating cost per
revenue hour for the peer systems.
Figure B-12: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Figure B-13: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Operating Cost per Revenue Mile
Another common cost efficiency measure is operating cost per revenue mile, which compares the cost
to operate one revenue mile of service. The peer average for total operating cost per revenue mile is
$6.26, $6.82 for fixed route service, and $4.38 for demand response. GRTC is below the peer average for
B-17 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
total and demand response operating cost per revenue mile by six percent and 43 percent, respectively.
GRTC has the lowest operating cost per revenue mile for demand response service at $2.51.
For fixed route service, GRTC is eight percent above the peer average at $7.34 per revenue mile and is
the third highest among the peers. Figure B-14 presents the operating cost per revenue mile for the
peer systems.
Figure B-14: Operating Cost per Revenue Mile
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
Total
Bus
Demand Response
4.5 REVENUE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE
Revenue vehicle maintenance performance measures include revenue vehicle failures per 1,000 miles
and labor hours for inspection and maintenance per 1,000 miles. Revenue vehicle failures include major
mechanical failures that prevent the vehicle from continuing revenue service. This may include failures
with brakes, doors, engine cooling systems, steering, suspension, torque converters, etc. Minor vehicle
failures generally do not prevent the vehicle from continuing revenue service and may include
malfunctions with fareboxes, wheelchair lifts, air conditioning systems, etc. Maintenance performance
measures are difficult to compare across systems because different variables can impact the results,
such as an individual transit agency’s policies and procedures for taking a vehicle out of service.
Average Vehicle Age
The average vehicle age for a given transit system can influence the amount of maintenance required;
therefore, it is important to note the variation in the peer systems’ average vehicle age. The average
vehicle age among all the peer systems is 6.5 years. GRTC is above the peer average at 8.0 years and has
the third oldest fleet among the peers. All but two systems are greater than or equal to the peer
average, largely due to the fact that the average age of Dayton’s vehicles is 2.5 years, which brings down
the peer average. Figure B-15 displays the average fixed route vehicle age for the peer systems.
B-18 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Figure B-15: Average Fixed Route Vehicle Age (in years)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Revenue Vehicle Failures
The total number of revenue vehicle failures reported for the peer systems in FY2009 are shown in Table
B-10. GRTC had the second highest number of fixed route vehicle failures at 1,230, or 155 percent of the
peer group average. GRTC also had the second highest number of demand response vehicle failures at
250, or 152 percent of the peer group average.
Table B-10: FY2009 Revenue Vehicle Failures
City
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
Fixed Route
363
1,072
1,335
371
1,197
874
335
782
791
1,230
Demand
Response
Not Reported
9
548
14
73
233
104
Not Reported
164
250
Revenue Vehicle Failures per 1,000 Miles
The ratio of revenue vehicle failures per 1,000 revenue miles allows for a more balanced comparison
among the peer systems. GRTC has 0.23 fixed route revenue vehicle failures per 1,000 miles, which is
217 percent of the peer average of 0.11, as well as the highest among the peers. For demand response,
GRTC has 0.12 vehicle failures per 1,000 miles, which is below the peer average of 0.14 and third highest
among the peers. The peer average for demand response is skewed by Memphis with 0.53 vehicle
failures per 1,000 miles. In addition, Jacksonville and Indianapolis did not report demand response
B-19 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
vehicle failures to the NTD. Figure B-16 presents the revenue vehicle failures per 1,000 revenue miles for
the peer systems.
Figure B-16: Revenue Vehicle Failures per 1,000 Miles
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Bus
Demand Response
Labor Hours per 1,000 Miles
The ratio of labor hours for vehicle inspection and maintenance per 1,000 revenue miles is another
measure of maintenance performance. Figure B-17 presents the labor hours for vehicle inspection and
maintenance per 1,000 revenue miles for the peer systems. GRTC has the lowest number (17.37) of
maintenance labor hours per 1,000 miles for fixed route service among the peers at 67 percent of the
peer average (26.04). Three of the peer systems (Jacksonville, Tucson, and Indianapolis) did not report
maintenance labor hours for demand response service. The peer average for those systems that did
report for demand response service was 6.83 labor hours per 1,000 revenue miles. The peer average is
skewed by Dayton at 16.82. GRTC is 65 percent of the peer average with 4.44 labor hours per 1,000
miles.
B-20 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Figure B-17: Labor Hours for Inspection and Maintenance per 1,000 Miles
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Bus
Demand Response
5.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
This section highlights the revenue sources used by GRTC and its peers to fund operating and
maintenance (O&M) and capital costs. It is important to note that the data used for the following
analysis indicates the range of funding sources used by GRTC and the peer systems in FY2009 only.
While levels and sources of funding used for O&M tend to be relatively consistent from year to year,
annual capital funding levels and sources can vary significantly.
5.1 FUNDING SOURCES USED FOR O&M
Figure B-17 shows the key revenue sources for GRTC’s O&M funds. Almost 37 percent of GRTC’s O&M
funding comes from local sources, 25 percent from fares, 19.6 percent from state sources, and 16.9
percent from federal sources. For comparison, Figure B-18 shows the peer averages for O&M funding by
major source. GRTC’s levels of O&M funding from the various sources are similar to the peer averages,
but GRTC receives more funding from fares and state sources, and less from other sources.
Total O&M funding from each major source for GRTC and it peer systems is presented in Figure B-19 and
the percentage of funding from each major source is presented in Figure B-20. In 2009, GRTC received a
total of $45,583,194 in O&M funding, which is 32 percent below the peer average of $67,284,152. GRTC
is comparable to the peer averages for percentages of funding from federal and local sources, above the
peer averages for state funding and fares, and below the peer average for funding from other sources.
Indianapolis and Dayton receive the largest percentages of their funding from federal sources at 29.1
percent and 29.5 percent, respectively. Madison receives the highest percentage of funding from state
sources at 34.9 percent. Three of the peer systems (Charlotte, Tucson, and Jacksonville) receive more
than 60 percent of their O&M funding from local sources. GRTC receives the highest percentage of O&M
funding from fares among the peers at just under 25 percent. Dayton and Tampa receive the majority of
their O&M funding from other sources, skewing the peer average.
B-21 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Figure B-17: GRTC O&M Funding by Major Source
1.7%
16.9%
25.0%
Federal
State
Local
19.6%
Fares
Other
36.8%
Figure B-18: Peer Average O&M Funding by Major Source
14.1%
16.4%
Federal
State
12.3%
18.9%
Local
Fares
Other
38.2%
B-22 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Figure B-19: Total O&M Funding by Major Source
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
Other
$60,000,000
Fares
$40,000,000
Local
$20,000,000
State
Federal
$0
Figure B-20: Percentage of O&M Funding by Major Source
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Other
Fares
Local
State
Federal
Fixed Route Farebox Revenue for O&M
As shown in Table B-11, GRTC received $9,343,670 from fare revenue on its fixed routes in FY2009. This
is 93 percent of the peer average of $10,094,119.
B-23 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Table B-11: Bus Fare Revenue
City
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
Bus Fare Revenue
$8,944,122
$11,269,784
$8,350,435
$9,992,237
$10,208,497
$17,002,524
$6,716,734
$8,268,616
$10,094,119
$9,343,670
The extent to which fares cover O&M costs is referred to as the farebox recovery rate. GRTC’s farebox
recovery rate is 24.3 percent, which is higher than the peer average of 20.3 percent. All of the peer
systems fall within five percentage points of the peer average with Madison reporting the highest
farebox recovery rate at 24.6 percent and Jacksonville reporting the lowest at 15.4 percent. Figure B-21
presents the fixed route O&M funding from fares (farebox recovery rate) for the peer systems.
Figure B-21: Percentage of Fixed Route O&M Funding from Fares
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Demand Response Farebox Revenue for O&M
The farebox revenue for demand response for each of the peer systems is shown in Table B-12. GRTC
collected $519,739 in demand response fares in FY2009. The peer average for demand response fare
revenue is heavily skewed by Jacksonville, which reported over $10 million in demand response fare
revenues while all other peer systems reported less than $1 million. If Jacksonville is excluded when
calculating the peer average, the peer average drops from $1,719,340 to $508,722, which allows for
B-24 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
more reasonable comparison among the peers. With Jacksonville excluded, GRTC’s demand response
fare revenue is 102 percent of the peer average.
GRTC’s farebox recovery rate for demand response was 9.4 percent, as shown in Figure B-22. Due to
Jacksonville’s extremely high farebox recovery rate for demand response service (48.1 percent), this
system was excluded from the peer average to allow for more fair comparison among the remaining
peers. Excluding Jacksonville, the peer average is 6.94 percent, with GRTC ranking highest among the
peers at 135 percent of the peer average. All of the included peer systems have demand response
farebox recovery ratios between 4 and 10 percent.
Table B-12: Demand Response Fare Revenue
City
Indianapolis, IN
Tampa, FL
Memphis, TN
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ
Charlotte, NC
Dayton, OH
Jacksonville, FL
PEER AVERAGE
Richmond, VA
Demand Response
Fare Revenue
$740,092
$275,331
$496,379
$124,292
$560,922
$637,176
$726,861
$10,193,667
$1,719,340
$519,739
Figure B-22: Demand Response O&M Funding from Fares
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
B-25 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
5.2 FUNDING SOURCES USED FOR CAPITAL
As previously mentioned, capital expenditure levels and sources can vary significantly from year to year,
depending upon the particular projects underway and the grants available. As such, the information
presented below on capital funding levels and sources reflects a snapshot for FY2009, the most recent
year for which data is available from the NTD. As shown in Figure B-23, GRTC received 80 percent of its
funding for capital in FY2009 from federal sources, 11.2 percent from state sources, and 8.8 percent
from local sources.
Figure B-23: GRTC Funding Sources for Capital
8.79%
11.21%
Federal
State
Local
80.00%
Figure B-24 shows the total amount of capital funding by source for each of the peer systems. GRTC
received $28,025,764 in capital funds in FY2009, which is 19 percent more than the peer average of
$23,646,933.
Figure B-25 shows the percentage of capital funding by major source for the peer systems. GRTC
received higher percentages of its capital funding from federal and state sources compared to the peer
averages, and lower percentages from local and other sources. Most of the peers received the majority
of their capital funding from federal sources.
B-26 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
Figure B-24: Capital Funding by Major Source
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
Other
$30,000,000
Local
$20,000,000
State
$10,000,000
Federal
$0
Figure B-25: Percentage of Capital Funding by Major Source
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
B-27 | P a g e
Other
Local
State
Federal
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review
6.0 KEY FINDINGS
This peer analysis provides performance measures compared across eight peer systems that can be used
by GRTC to gauge where there may be deficiencies and where improvements could be warranted. While
it is difficult to find peer systems that factor in the unique characteristics of GRTC, the eight peer
systems used in the analysis were found to best replicate GRTC’s service. These peer systems include the
following:








Indianapolis and Marion County Public Transportation (IndyGo) – Indianapolis, IN
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) – Tampa, FL
Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) – Memphis, TN
Metro Transit System (Metro) – Madison, WI
City of Tucson (Sun Tran) – Tucson, AZ
Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) – Charlotte, NC
Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA) – Dayton, OH
Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) – Jacksonville, FL
The previous sections provided detailed comparisons between GRTC and the peer systems for key
performance measures of service productivity, as well as sources for O&M and capital funding. Key
findings from this analysis are summarized below.

Vehicle Utilization: GRTC has a fixed route fleet that is nine percent smaller than the peer
average and uses 13 percent less peak fixed route vehicles. GRTC’s demand response fleet is
nearly ten percent larger than the peer average, but uses only one more peak demand response
vehicle (63 versus 62). For revenue hours per peak vehicle, GRTC is slightly above the peer
average for fixed route service and 19 percent below the peer average for demand response
service. This trend is reversed with respect to revenue miles per peak vehicle with GRTC falling
18 percent below the peer average for fixed route service and slightly above the peer average
for demand response service.

Service Supplied: GRTC has higher than average revenue hours and miles per service area
population. GRTC’s revenue hours and miles per square mile are similar to the peer averages at
three percent above and six percent below, respectively. This indicates that GRTC is providing
adequate service within its existing service area as compared to its peers.

Service Productivity: GRTC has higher than average passenger trips per service area population
(by 51 percent), per revenue hour (by 14 percent), and per revenue mile (by 27 percent). For
demand response service only, GRTC was slightly below the peer average for passenger trips per
revenue hour and mile (by six percent and 18 percent, respectively).

Cost Efficiency: GRTC was more efficient than the peer average in terms of operating cost per
passenger trip (by 2 percent), per revenue hour (by 14 percent), and per revenue mile (by six
percent).
B-28 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix B – Peer Review

Revenue Vehicle Maintenance Performance: GRTC has the third oldest fixed route fleet among
the peers, with an average age of eight years. This may help to explain why GRTC has the highest
number of fixed route revenue vehicle failures per 1,000 revenue miles. GRTC has among the
lowest labor hours for inspection and maintenance per 1,000 miles, which may also contribute
to the high number of vehicle failures.

Farebox Revenues: GRTC’s fixed route farebox recovery ratio (24.3 percent) is above the peer
average of 20.3 percent. Similarly, GRTC’s demand response farebox recovery ratio is among the
highest of all the peers.

Sources of O&M Funds: GRTC is comparable to the peer averages for percentages of O&M
funding from federal and local sources, above the peer averages for state funding and fares, and
below the peer average for funding from other sources. Overall, GRTC’s total O&M funds were
32 percent below the peer average.

Sources of Capital Funds: GRTC received 80 percent of its funding for capital in FY2009 from
federal sources, 11.2 percent from state sources, and 8.8 percent from local sources. GRTC
received higher percentages of its capital funding from federal and state sources compared to
the peer averages, and lower percentages from local and other sources. Overall, GRTC’s total
capital funding was 19 percent above the peer average.
B-29 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
APPENDIX C: 2009 RIDER SURVEY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the methodology and results from an on-board survey of GRTC passengers
conducted in the fall of 2009. The survey was initiated to collect existing transit travel pattern data to
serve as the basis for developing ridership forecasts for the Broad Street Corridor Rapid Transit Study.
The information collected from the survey is also useful for GRTC’s Transit Development Plan (TDP). The
survey is recent and meets state requirements for a TDP; therefore, a new rider survey specifically for
the TDP was not warranted.
The GRTC survey effort involved the following eight steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Define survey sample;
Design survey instrument;
Develop survey schedule;
Conduct survey pre-test and modify survey instrument as necessary;
Conduct survey;
Quality control procedures;
Geocoding of origins and destinations; and
Develop survey expansion factors and summarize results.
Tasks completed under each of these eight steps are described in the following sections. The remainder
of this appendix is organized as follows:

Section 2 describes the process used to develop and implement the on-board survey;

Section 3 describes the procedure for survey processing, including the development of survey
expansion factors and the geocoding process;

Section 4 provides detailed analysis of survey responses by question; and

Section 5 summarizes the key findings of the on-board survey.
2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION
This section describes the methods used to implement the on-board survey. The process used to
develop the survey schedule is described, followed by a description of the survey instrument, and an
explanation of how the survey was implemented.
2.1 Survey Schedule
The goal of this survey effort was to collect enough survey responses to obtain a 90 percent confidence
level (plus or minus 10 percent) for each surveyed route. It was estimated that 3,000 survey responses
would be required to reach this goal.
C-1 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
A survey schedule was developed that covered a three week period. The actual survey effort began on
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 and ran until Thursday, November 5th, 2009. Surveyors were on buses
between the hours of 5:30 a.m. until 8:30 p.m. During the first week, surveys were conducted during the
morning hours, from approximately 5:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m., Tuesday through Friday. The second week
of surveying included afternoon and evening time periods from approximately 12:00 p.m. until 8:30
p.m., Monday through Thursday, with Friday reserved for missed assignments from the previous week.
The third week of surveying included a combination of morning and afternoon makeup assignments on
Monday and Thursday, surveys of routes serving Willow Lawn Shopping Center on Tuesday, and surveys
in Park and Ride lots on Wednesday.
Over 50 percent of GRTC’s fixed route service was surveyed, with surveyed routes including local,
express, and VCU routes that travel the Broad Street corridor. Table C-1 shows local and VCU routes
surveyed along with the percent of revenue hours surveyed. This table does not include hours
associated with express route surveys since surveyors distributed forms at park-and-ride lots as riders
waited for their buses in the morning (generally between 5:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.). The following parkand-ride lots were surveyed:






Gaskins Road (Route 29)
Chesterfield (Route 81)
Fair Oaks (Route 28)
Commonwealth 20 (Route 82)
Glenside (Route 27)
Parham Road (Route 26)
2.2 Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was created with input from VDRPT and GRTC staff. The final survey
instrument was a two-sided document printed on card stock paper, with questions written in
English on one side and Spanish on the other. Each survey form has a unique serial number
between 000001 and 008000. A staff-use only box includes a space for surveyors to record the
route number and time the survey was conducted.
Questions on the survey are divided into two sections. Section I of the survey, Q 1-5, includes
questions about the one-way trip being surveyed, such as origin and destination locations, bus
transfer information, bus stop locations, mode of access, and how often the passenger rides GRTC.
Section II of the survey, Q 6-10, asks demographic questions, including the number of vehicles
available, age, gender, income, and whether the respondent has a valid driver’s license. Most
questions include check box responses, with origin and destination information providing space for
open answers. The final survey instrument is shown in Figure C-1.
C-2 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Table C-1: Survey Hours for GRTC Local and VCU Routes
% of Revenue
Route
Survey Hours
Revenue Hours
Hours
1/2
62.9
125.5
50.1%
3/4
62.6
136.9
45.7%
6
66.5
127.2
52.3%
7
39.0
58.3
66.9%
10
44.2
78.1
56.6%
11
11.3
11.4
99.1%
13
13.5
28.7
47.0%
16
20.8
48.4
43.0%
18
12.0
12.3
97.6%
19
10.9
16.6
65.5%
22
21.1
26.1
80.8%
24
11.8
32.1
36.6%
32
36.8
80.4
45.7%
34
29.2
60.0
48.6%
37
30.3
57.3
52.8%
28/56
3.9
5.6
69.9%
62/63
70.6
122.6
57.6%
64/65
5.4
22.0
24.6%
20/67
4.2
10.7
39.3%
68
3.2
6.0
52.8%
70/71
31.7
58.6
54.0%
72/73
23.5
49.5
47.5%
74
18.3
47.9
38.3%
91
11.8
25.9
45.4%
92
5.9
5.9
100.0%
93
8.9
8.9
100.0%
VCU Routes
84
29.3
53.1
53.4%
86
15.7
29.6
52.9%
87
12.7
28.3
44.8%
99
15.1
23.4
64.5%
TOTAL
731.8
1,397.3
52.4%
C-3 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Figure C-1: GRTC On-Board Survey Form
C-4 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
3.0 SURVEY PROCESSING
Once the survey was complete, information from survey forms was entered into a master database by
contracted employees and all survey forms were returned to the Connetics corporate office. A quality
check was performed to ensure accurate data entry. Survey forms that lacked any coherent information
were discarded. Each survey record was assigned a time period based on the recorded time of the
survey, as follows:




A.M. Peak – before 9:00 a.m.
Mid-day – 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
P.M. Peak – 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Evening – after 6:00 p.m.
A total of 4,493 surveys were entered into the master database, which well exceeded the initial goal of
3,000 surveys. GRTC farebox data indicates an average of 32,368 riders were on the surveyed routes.
As explained in Section 2.1, surveys were conducted during just over 50 percent of the total revenue
hours for the surveyed routes. Therefore, it is assumed that approximately half of the 32,368 riders (or
16,184 riders) were present on surveyed routes. Based on that assumption, the 4,493 entered surveys
represent a response rate of approximately 27.7 percent of riders present on surveyed routes.
The number of survey responses by route is shown in Figure C-2. The following routes were combined
when calculating survey response rates: Routes 1/2, 3/4, 62/63, 70/71, and 72/73.
Figure C-2: Total Number of Survey Responses by Route
1/2
3/4
6
7
10
11
13
16
18
19
20
22
24
26
27
28
29
32
34
37
62/63
64
68
70/71
72/73
74
81
82
84
86
87
91
92
93
99
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Route Number
Surveys completed in Spanish were identified in the master database. A total of 26 survey forms were
completed on the Spanish side, which accounted for less than one percent of the total surveys collected.
All of the Spanish surveys were collected on local routes, with the highest number (6) collected on Route
3/4.
C-5 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
3.1 Expansion Factors
A critical element of a survey effort is the development of survey expansion factors. Expansion factors
are applied to survey results to obtain a representation of the total population of GRTC riders. In any
survey effort there will be biases due to uneven response rates. The survey implementation plan,
described in the previous section, reflects an even distribution of surveys by route (typically one of every
two bus trips were surveyed on each route) and by time of day. Despite these efforts, response rates
varied. Riders on one route may be more apt to fill out a survey than riders on another route and riders
during one time period may be more apt to fill out a survey than riders during another time period. The
survey expansion process applies factors to survey results to represent total system ridership in a
manner that attempts to eliminate biases in survey response rates. The survey expansion process is
described below.
First, a daily expansion factor for each route was calculated by dividing daily ridership by the number of
survey responses. These factors are presented in Table C-2. Daily ridership statistics were provided by
GRTC and were used to calculate average daily ridership on each route during the survey period.
Second, time period adjustment factors were calculated for each route by comparing the number of
survey responses for each time period to daily ridership numbers for that time period. Table C-3
presents the time-of-day percentages from GRTC’s APC data, the percentage of surveys collected by
time of day, and the resulting time period adjustment factors. APC data from June 2009 was
determined to be the most complete and was used to develop the time-of-day factors. The adjustment
factors were calculated by dividing each APC time-of-day percentage by time-of-day percentages for the
survey responses. Route-specific APC data was used if data was available for 90 percent or more of a
route’s bus trips. For routes with APC data available for less than 90 percent of trips, systemwide timeof-day percentages were used. Systemwide percentages were used for Routes 3/4, 32, 34, and 72/73.
No APC data was available for VCU Route 99 so average time-of-day factors were calculated for this
route based on the average for VCU Routes 84 and 86.
Third, the time period adjustment factors from the previous step were multiplied by the daily expansion
factor from the first step. Results from this final step are presented in Table C-4 and represent the final
expansion factors. As an example, the daily expansion factor for Route 1/2 (5.115) was multiplied by the
A.M. peak period adjustment factor of 0.6933 to yield an expansion factor of 3.546 for the A.M. peak
period on Route 1/2.
C-6 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Route
Local Routes
1/2
3/4
6
7
10
11
13
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
62/63
68
70/71
72/73
74
91
92
93
Express Routes
20
26
27
28
29
64
81
82
VCU Routes
84
86
87
99
C-7 | P a g e
Table C-2: Daily Expansion Factors
Avg. Daily
Survey
Survey
Ridership
Response % of
Responses
(10/20/09 thru
Ridership
11/5/09)
Daily
Expansion
Factor
458
368
452
186
135
65
41
148
66
48
63
54
185
142
242
368
14
170
123
80
41
4
12
2,343
1,658
3,625
1,010
1,856
155
312
630
249
294
327
430
2,176
1,649
1,902
3,304
19
1,406
1,457
902
219
17
63
19.6%
22.2%
12.5%
%
7.3%
42.1%
13.1%
23.5%
26.5%
16.3%
19.2%
12.6%
8.5%
8.6%
12.7%
11.1%
74.7%
12.1%
8.4%
8.9%
18.8%
24.1%
19.2%
5.115
4.505
8.021
5.428
13.745
2.377
7.606
4.260
3.779
6.133
5.198
7.956
11.761
11.616
7.859
8.979
1.339
8.273
11.846
11.272
5.330
4.154
5.212
13
94
82
10
140
35
35
56
32
98
114
13
232
107
88
154
40.5%
96.4%
72.1%
79.8%
60.4%
32.6%
40.0%
36.4%
2.467
1.038
1.387
1.254
1.655
3.068
2.502
2.746
271
131
86
76
3,162
987
804
576
8.6%
13.3%
10.7%
13.2%
11.669
7.535
9.351
7.579
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Table C-3: Time Period Adjustment Factors for Local and VCU Routes
APC Time-of-Day
Survey Time-of-Day
Time Period Adjustment Factors
Route
AM
Local Routes
1/2
23%
3/4
23%
6
21%
7
29%
10
21%
11
25%
13
30%
16
30%
18
25%
19
36%
22
29%
24
29%
32
18%
34
23%
37
23%
62/63
24%
68
0%
70/71
20%
72/73
23%
74
34%
91
18%
92
74%
93
40%
VCU Routes
84
17%
86
23%
87
59%
99
19%
C-8 | P a g e
Mid-day
PM
Other
Coverage
AM
Mid-day
PM
Other
AM
Mid-day
PM
Other
52%
50%
52%
53%
46%
66%
49%
39%
57%
30%
50%
39%
56%
50%
50%
50%
100%
47%
50%
47%
57%
17%
32%
13%
15%
13%
12%
14%
9%
18%
21%
13%
20%
18%
20%
18%
15%
15%
14%
0%
17%
15%
14%
17%
9%
20%
12%
12%
14%
6%
19%
0%
3%
10%
4%
14%
4%
12%
8%
12%
12%
12%
0%
15%
12%
6%
7%
0%
8%
92%
80%
96%
99%
100%
100%
100%
95%
100%
100%
100%
99%
92%
57%
79%
89%
0%
95%
82%
94%
100%
100%
100%
34%
40%
36%
19%
32%
31%
24%
37%
33%
21%
25%
46%
38%
29%
34%
30%
0%
28%
50%
23%
41%
75%
0%
51%
42%
53%
59%
59%
63%
61%
50%
59%
44%
60%
24%
52%
51%
44%
47%
100%
47%
40%
71%
44%
0%
92%
11%
11%
10%
20%
7%
6%
7%
11%
5%
23%
14%
24%
2%
11%
16%
15%
0%
18%
8%
6%
5%
25%
8%
4%
7%
2%
2%
3%
0%
0%
2%
3%
13%
0%
6%
8%
8%
7%
8%
0%
7%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.6933
0.5916
0.5927
1.5366
0.6446
0.8018
1.2252
0.8023
0.7635
1.7238
1.1762
0.6230
0.4703
0.8130
0.6927
0.7932
-0.7338
0.4733
1.6004
0.4422
1.1899
--
1.0055
1.1748
0.9793
0.8977
0.7846
1.0460
0.8082
0.7744
0.9714
0.6893
0.8597
1.6233
1.0795
0.9688
1.1370
1.0640
1.000
1.0093
1.2502
0.6931
1.2989
-0.6703
1.2137
1.3655
1.3628
0.6197
2.1733
1.5197
2.4912
1.9460
2.8508
0.8528
1.2791
0.8135
8.1800
1.3173
0.9452
0.9159
-0.9515
1.8256
2.3408
3.5410
0.4342
4.6249
2.9762
1.6816
7.1445
2.6357
6.4343
-0.3564
5.1446
1.3839
1.1507
-2.2487
1.0893
1.4059
1.7970
1.5598
-2.1059
4.8712
-0.7552
---
53%
38%
30%
49%
22%
31%
8%
24%
8%
8%
3%
8%
100%
98%
46%
0%
25%
18%
40%
61%
52%
51%
31%
26%
8%
16%
17%
8%
15%
15%
12%
5%
0.702
1.302
1.495
0.308
1.006
0.738
0.954
1.868
2.779
1.932
0.464
3.012
0.553
0.552
0.245
1.593
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Table C-4: Period Expansion Factors for GRTC Local and VCU Routes
Time Period Adjustment Factors
Period Expansion Factors
Daily
Route
AM
Local Routes
0.6933
1/2
0.5916
3/4
0.5927
6
1.5366
7
10
11
13
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
62/63
68
70/71
72/73
74
91
92
93
0.6446
0.8018
1.2252
0.8023
0.7635
1.7238
1.1762
0.6230
0.4703
0.8130
0.6927
0.7932
-0.7338
0.4733
1.6004
0.4422
1.1899
--
Mid-day
PM
Other
Expansion
Factor
AM
Midday
PM
Other
1.0055
1.1748
0.9793
0.8977
0.7846
1.0460
0.8082
0.7744
0.9714
0.6893
0.8597
1.6233
1.0795
0.9688
1.1370
1.0640
1.000
1.0093
1.2502
0.6931
1.2989
-0.6703
1.2137
1.3655
1.3628
0.6197
2.1733
1.5197
2.4912
1.9460
2.8508
0.8528
1.2791
0.8135
8.1800
1.3173
0.9452
0.9159
-0.9515
1.8256
2.3408
3.5410
0.4342
4.6249
2.9762
1.6816
7.1445
2.6357
6.4343
-0.3564
5.1446
1.3839
1.1507
-2.2487
1.0893
1.4059
1.7970
1.5598
-2.1059
4.8712
-0.7552
---
5.115
4.505
8.021
5.428
13.745
2.377
7.606
4.260
3.779
6.133
5.198
7.956
11.761
11.616
7.859
8.979
1.339
8.273
11.846
11.272
5.330
4.154
5.212
3.546
2.665
4.754
8.341
8.860
1.906
9.319
3.418
2.885
10.572
6.114
4.956
5.532
4.692
5.444
7.122
-6.071
5.607
18.040
2.357
4.943
--
5.143
5.292
7.855
4.873
10.785
2.486
6.147
3.299
3.670
4.228
4.469
12.915
12.697
9.215
8.936
9.554
1.339
8.350
14.809
7.813
6.923
-3.493
6.208
6.151
10.931
3.364
29.871
3.612
18.948
8.290
10.772
5.230
6.649
6.472
96.208
41.796
7.429
8.224
-7.872
21.626
26.386
18.874
1.803
24.103
15.222
7.575
57.306
14.308
88.437
-2.710
21.915
5.229
7.057
-17.890
12.812
9.636
14.123
14.005
-17.422
57.702
-4.025
---
1.006
0.738
0.954
1.868
2.779
1.932
0.464
3.012
0.553
0.552
0.245
1.593
11.669
7.535
9.351
7.579
8.195
9.810
13.982
2.338
11.743
5.561
8.919
14.160
32.423
14.556
4.337
22.825
6.456
4.160
2.290
12.074
VCU Routes
84
86
87
99
0.702
1.302
1.495
0.308
In general, GRTC’s express routes offer equal amounts of morning and evening service to and from
downtown Richmond. The survey was carried out under the assumption that most people using GRTC’s
express service in the morning would return via the same route in the evening. As such, daily expansion
factors for express routes are based on half the average daily ridership since approximately 95 percent
of express route surveys were completed in the A.M. period. Since only the A.M. period was surveyed,
it was not necessary to apply time period adjustment factors to the express route results. Therefore,
the daily expansion factors presented in Table C-2 were used for express routes.
Table C-5 presents the total number of surveys received as well as the expanded results by route.
C-9 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Table C-5: Survey Expansion Totals by Route
Survey
% of
Expanded
% of
Route
Total
Total
Results
Total
1/2
458
10.2%
2,343
7.2%
3/4
368
8.2%
1,658
5.1%
6
451
10.0%
3,625
11.2%
7
186
4.1%
1,010
3.1%
10
135
3.0%
1,856
5.7%
11
65
1.4%
155
0.5%
13
41
0.9%
312
1.0%
16
148
3.3%
630
1.9%
18
66
1.5%
249
0.8%
19
48
1.1%
294
0.9%
20/67
13
0.3%
32
0.1%
22
63
1.4%
327
1.0%
24
54
1.2%
430
1.3%
26
94
2.1%
98
0.3%
27
82
1.8%
114
0.4%
28/56
10
0.2%
13
0.0%
29
140
3.1%
232
0.7%
32
185
4.1%
2,176
6.7%
34
142
3.2%
1,649
5.1%
37
242
5.4%
1,902
5.9%
62/63
368
8.2%
3,304
10.2%
64
35
0.8%
107
0.3%
68
14
0.3%
19
0.1%
70/71
170
3.8%
1,406
4.3%
72/73
123
2.7%
1,457
4.5%
74
80
1.8%
902
2.8%
81
35
0.8%
88
0.3%
82
56
1.2%
154
0.5%
84
271
6.0%
3,162
9.8%
86
131
2.9%
987
3.0%
87
86
1.9%
804
2.5%
91
41
0.9%
219
0.7%
92
4
0.1%
17
0.1%
93
12
0.3%
63
0.2%
99
76
1.7%
576
1.8%
Grand Total
4,493
100%
32,368
100%
Survey responses by time period included 1,759 responses in the AM peak (39.1 percent); 2,033
responses in the mid-day (44.6 percent); 488 in the PM peak (10.9 percent); and 243 in the evening (5.4
percent), as shown in Table C-6. Survey fatigue likely contributed to the reduced response rate in the
PM peak and evening periods. Even though surveyors were trained to encourage passengers to fill out
the afternoon survey even if they already completed a morning survey, surveyors experienced more
rejections during afternoon assignments.
C-10 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
Route Type
Express
Express Total
Local
Local Total
VCU
VCU Total
Grand Total
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Table C-6: Total and Expanded Responses by Time Period
% of
Time
Survey
% of
Expanded
Expanded
Period
Total
Total
Results
Total
AM Peak
441
94.8%
777
92.9%
PM Peak
24
5.2%
59
7.1%
465
10.3%
836
2.6%
AM Peak
1148
33.1%
5,914
22.7%
Midday
1747
50.4%
12,883
49.5%
PM Peak
401
11.6%
4,302
16.5%
Evening
168
4.8%
2,903
11.2%
3464
77.1%
26,002
80.3%
AM Peak
170
30.1%
1,358
24.6%
Midday
256
45.4%
2,564
46.4%
PM Peak
63
11.2%
1,189
21.5%
Evening
75
13.3%
419
7.6%
564
12.6%
5,529
17.1%
4,493
32,368
100%
3.2 Geocoding Process
The boarding, alighting, origin and destination addresses provided on each survey were geocoded using
the online geocoding website www.batchgeocode.com. Of the 4,493 surveys that were entered into the
survey database, geocodable locations were obtained for 4,277 trip origins (95.2% of total) and 4,097
trip destinations (91.2% of total). The origins and destinations were grouped by TAZ and mapped to
provide a graphic representation of areas that have the most origins and destination for transit trips.
Figures C-3, C-4 and C-5 present the total number of origins and destinations by TAZ for local, express,
and VCU routes, respectively.
As shown in Figure C-3, local route origins and destinations are spread throughout the City of Richmond
with the highest numbers concentrated in the downtown area. There are many TAZs in the northern
and eastern portions of Chesterfield County where surveyed GRTC riders began or ended their trips, but
where no current GRTC routes are provided. This indicates there is a market for transit in these areas
where riders have to find a way into Richmond to access GRTC routes. Similarly, there are several TAZs
in western Henrico County where surveyed GRTC riders began or ended their trips, but where no
current GRTC routes are provided.
Figure C-4 shows that most of the surveyed express route riders began their trips in the western
portions of Henrico and Chesterfield Counties and traveled to downtown Richmond. Express routes
were surveyed in the AM only, but it is assumed the origins and destinations would be reversed in the
PM. As would be expected, the vast majority of VCU route riders began and ended their trips in the
TAZs around the VCU campus, as shown in Figure C-5.
Figure C-6 shows the total origins and destinations by TAZ using the expanded survey results.
C-11 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Figure C-3: Local Route Origins and Destinations by TAZ
Figure C-4: Express Route Origins and Destinations by TAZ
C-12 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Figure C-5: VCU Route Origins and Destinations by TAZ
Figure C-6: Expanded Onboard Survey Origins & Destinations by TAZ for all Route Types
C-13 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
4.0 SURVEY RESPONSE RATES BY QUESTION
Response rates can vary by question based on how well the survey taker understands the questions as
well as the amount of time available to answer each question. Table C-7 lists the response rates by
question.
Table C-7: Response Rates by Question
Question Number
Responses Percent of total
1a. Where did you start this trip
4,275
95.1%
2a. Where did you end this trip
4,074
90.7%
3b. Origin mode of access
4,153
92.4%
4c. Destination mode of access
3,958
88.1%
5. How often ride GRTC
4,373
97.3%
6. # of vehicles available
4,277
95.2%
7. Age
4,264
94.9%
8. Valid Driver’s License
4,245
94.5%
9. Gender
4,219
93.9%
10. Income
3,673
81.7%
TOTAL SURVEYS
4,493
100%
The following sections discuss the responses to each question that was not open-ended.
Question 1a: Where did you start this trip?
The first question asks respondents where they began their trip, with just over 99 percent of the surveys
providing a response, as shown in Table C-8. Among the expanded responses, less than one percent
were blank. The remaining valid expanded responses (excluding blank responses) indicate that 44
percent of respondents began their trip from home, 27.8 percent came from work and 10.5 percent
came from a college/university, as shown in Figure C-7. Nearly six percent indicated other, which
includes responses such as “parking lot” or multiple answers.
Figure C-7: Where did you start this trip?
C-14 | P a g e
Table C-9 shows the expanded
responses by route type. Most of
the express riders started their trip
at home (77.7%); however, it is
important to keep in mind that
most of the express route survey
effort occurred for AM trips only.
Origins on the VCU route were 45
percent college/university; 21.7
percent home/dorm and 21 percent
work. Local riders largely started
their trips at home (47.3%) and
work (29.4%).
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Table C-8: Total and Expanded Responses – Trip Origin
Total Response
Expanded Response
Where did you start
%
this trip?
Total
% Total
Total
% Total Adjusted
Work
1,137
25.3%
8,941
27.6%
27.8%
Home/Dorm
2,280
50.7%
14,145
43.7%
44.0%
School (k-12)
140
3.1%
1,078
3.3%
3.4%
Shopping
141
3.1%
1,088
3.4%
3.4%
Medical or Dental
140
3.1%
1,112
3.4%
3.5%
Social or Recreational
64
1.4%
535
1.7%
1.7%
College/University
329
7.3%
3,382
10.4%
10.5%
Other
226
5.0%
1,853
5.7%
5.8%
(blank)
36
0.8%
233
0.7%
--Grand Total
4,493
99.2%
32,368 100.0%
99.3%
Table C-9: Expanded Responses by Route Category – Trip Origin
Route Type
Trip Origin
Responses % Total
Express
a. Work
145
17.3%
b. Home/Dorm
650
77.7%
c. School (k-12)
1
0.1%
d. Shopping
13
1.5%
g. College/University
5
0.6%
h. Other
16
1.9%
(blank)
7
0.8%
Express Total
836
Local
a. Work
7,637
29.4%
b. Home/Dorm
12,293
47.3%
c. School (k-12)
1016
3.9%
d. Shopping
1,065
4.1%
e. Medical or Dental
924
3.6%
f. Social or Recreational
523
2.0%
g. College/University
886
3.4%
h. Other
1,446
5.6%
(blank)
212
0.8%
Local Total
26,002
VCU
a. Work
1,160
21.0%
b. Home/Dorm
1,202
21.7%
c. School (k-12)
61
1.1%
d. Shopping
10
0.2%
e. Medical or Dental
189
3.4%
f. Social or Recreational
12
0.2%
g. College/University
2,491
45.0%
h. Other
391
7.1%
(blank)
14
0.3%
VCU Total
5,529
Grand Total
32,368
C-15 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Question 2a: Where will your one-way trip end?
Question 2a asks respondents about their
Figure C-8: Where will this trip end?
destination and had a response rate of
97.3 percent, as shown in Table C-10; this
includes “other” responses such as bus or
multiple answers. Table C-10 shows total
and expanded response rates, with 3.3
percent of the expanded responses for this
question left blank. Nearly 33 percent of
the answered expanded responses were
traveling to work and 31 percent were
traveling home, as shown in Figure C-8.
This includes surveys where the
respondent may have answered home as the origin and destination. Table C-11 shows the expanded
responses by route type. Most of the express riders responding to the survey were traveling to work
(81.3%). Once again, many of the express routes were only surveyed during the AM peak period. The
majority of VCU riders were traveling to college/university (36.3%) and work (21.1%). Riders on local
routes were traveling to home (33.5%) and work (32.2%).
Table C-10: Total and Expanded Responses – Trip Destination
Total Responses
Expanded Responses
Ending Place
Total
% Total
Total % Total % Adjusted
Work
1,832
40.8%
10,219 31.6%
32.6%
Home/Dorm
1,086
24.2%
9,710
30.0%
31.0%
School (k-12)
181
4.0%
1,127
3.5%
3.6%
Shopping
158
3.5%
1,348
4.2%
4.3%
Medical or Dental
235
5.2%
1,699
5.2%
5.4%
Social or Recreational
126
2.8%
1,172
3.6%
3.7%
College/University
353
7.9%
3,046
9.4%
9.7%
Other
400
8.9%
2,994
9.3%
9.6%
(blank)
122
2.7%
1,053
3.3%
--Grand Total
4,493
97.3%
32,368 100.0%
96.7%
C-16 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Table C-11: Expanded Responses by Route Type – Trip Destination
Route Type
Ending Place
Responses % Total
Express
a. Work
680
81.3%
b. Home/Dorm
99
11.8%
c. School (k-12)
4
0.4%
e. Medical or Dental
12
1.4%
g. College/University
31
3.7%
h. Other
10
1.2%
(blank)
1
0.2%
Express Total
836
Local
a. Work
8,370
32.2%
b. Home/Dorm
8,710
33.5%
c. School (k-12)
1,052
4.0%
d. Shopping
1,348
5.2%
e. Medical or Dental
1,237
4.8%
f. Social or Recreational
1,162
4.5%
g. College/University
1,009
3.9%
h. Other
2,337
9.0%
(blank)
778
3.0%
Local Total
26,002
VCU
a. Work
1,169
21.1%
b. Home/Dorm
901
16.3%
c. School (k-12)
72
1.3%
e. Medical or Dental
451
8.2%
f. Social or Recreational
10
0.2%
g. College/University
2,006
36.3%
h. Other
647
11.7%
(blank)
273
4.9%
VCU Total
5,529
Grand Total
32,368
When responses are combined to questions 1a and 2a – where did you start and end this trip – 4,342
(96.6%) of the surveys provided a response to both questions. Further analysis of the responses reveals
3,924 (87.3%) of the responses are valid when “if other” responses are removed, including responses of
“bus” or “parking” or responses that were blank, as well as surveys that provided multiple answers with
no clear response. The validity of responses is also an issue when respondents answer the same origin
and destination for their one-way trip, i.e. home/home. When responses with origins and destinations
listed as home/home or school (k-12)/school (k-12) are removed, the response rate is 83.9 percent, or
3,770 surveys. When all double responses are removed, the remaining valid surveys total 3,213 or 71.5
percent.
Table C-12 shows a matrix of origin and destination response totals and percentages. As shown in the
table, most trips began and ended at work or home. Of the 2,280 responses that began at home, 1,301
(57%) ended at work and 200 (8.8%) ended at college/university. Of the 1,137 responses that began at
work, 557 (49%) ended at home.
C-17 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Table C-12: Trip Origin-Destination Matrix
Origin
Work
Work
394
(8.8%)
Home
1,301
(29.0%)
School (k-12)
16
(0.4%)
Shopping
16
(0.4%)
Medical/Dental
7
(0.2%)
Social/Recreation
7
(0.2%)
College/University
29
(0.6%)
Other
51
(1.1%)
Blank
11
(0.2%)
Total
1,832
(40.8%)
Home
School
(k-12)
6
(0.1%)
126
(2.8%)
36
(0.8%)
1
(<0.1%)
4
(0.1%)
2
(<0.1%)
557
(12.4%)
118
(2.6%)
62
(1.4%)
72
(1.6%)
54
(1.2%)
29
(0.6%)
126
-(2.8%)
64
5
(1.4%)
(0.1%)
4
1
(0.1%) (<0.1%)
1,086
181
(24.2%) (4.0%)
Shopping
20
(0.4%)
93
(2.1%)
4
(0.1%)
19
(0.4%)
7
(0.2%)
4
(0.1%)
2
(<0.1%)
8
(0.2%)
1
(<0.1%)
158
(3.5%)
Destination
Medical/
Social or
Dental
Recreation
22
14
(0.5%)
(0.3%)
134
80
(3.0%)
(1.8%)
2
3
(<0.1%)
(<0.1%)
9
3
(0.2%)
(<0.1%)
29
6
(0.6%)
(0.1%)
11
-(0.2%)
27
3
(0.6%)
(<0.1%)
9
4
(0.2%)
(0.1%)
3
2
(<0.1%)
(<0.1%)
235
126
(5.2%)
(2.8%)
College/
University
17
(0.4%)
200
(4.5%)
6
(0.1%)
5
(0.1%)
8
(0.2%)
2
(<0.1%)
97
(2.2%)
16
(0.4%)
2
(<0.1%)
353
(7.9%)
Other
87
(1.9%)
182
(4.1%)
8
(0.2%)
12
(0.3%)
18
(0.4%)
5
(0.1%)
22
(0.5%)
61
(1.4%)
5
(0.1%)
400
(8.9%)
Blank
Total
20
1,137
(0.4%) (25.3%)
46
2,280
(1.0%) (50.7%)
3
140
(<0.1%) (3.1%)
4
141
(0.1%) (3.1%)
7
140
(0.2%) (3.1%)
4
64
(0.1%) (1.4%)
23
329
(0.5%) (7.3%)
8
226
(0.2%) (0.5%)
7
36
(0.2%) (0.8%)
122
4,493
(2.7%) (100%)
Questions 3 & 4
Questions 3 and 4 ask the respondent to supply information about their journey from the origin to the
route being surveyed and from the route to the destination. These questions include information about
transfers to or from other routes and mode of access from the origin to the first bus stop and from the
last bus stop to the destination.
Questions 3a and 4a ask the respondents whether they transferred from another route or will transfer
to another route during the trip. Overall, 18.4 percent of respondents transferred from another route
and 18.5 percent transferred to another route. Approximately 98 percent of these transfers occurred on
local routes and Route 6 was indicated most
Figure C-9: Origin Mode of Access
often as the route transferred to and from.
Question 3b: Origin Mode of Access
As shown in Table C-13, 94.9 percent of the
respondents answered question 3b
regarding their mode of access to the first
bus stop in their trip. Excluding blank
responses, 81.2 percent of the the
expanded valid responses walk to the first
bus, with 10.2 percent driving or riding in a
car and parking, as shown in Figure C-9.
Inlcuded in the “other” responses (2.7%)
are erroneous replies, such as GRTC bus. Table C-14 shows the expanded responses by route type.
C-18 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Express riders are most likey to drive and park a car (77.2%). Local riders are most likely to walk to their
first bus stop (83 percent). For VCU riders, 58 percent walked from their origin to the first bus on their
trip and 33.2 percent drove or rode in a car and parked.
Table C-13: Total and Expanded Responses – Origin Mode of Access
Total Responses
Expanded Responses
Origin Mode of Access
Total % Total Total
% Total % Adjusted
Walked
3,215
72%
24,898 76.9%
81.2%
Bicycled
60
1%
493
1.5%
1.6%
Drove/Rode Car and Parked
689
15%
3,136
9.7%
10.2%
Dropped off by Someone
188
4%
1,313
4.1%
4.3%
Other
114
3%
833
2.6%
2.7%
(blank)
227
5%
1,695
5.2%
--Grand Total
4,493 94.9% 32,368 100.0%
94.8%
Table C-14: Expanded Responses by Route Type – Origin Mode of Access
Route Type
Origin Mode of Access
Responses % Total
Express
a. Walked
119
14.3%
b. Bicycled
7
0.9%
c. Drove/Rode Car and Parked
646
77.2%
d. Dropped off by Someone
42
5.0%
e. Other
7
0.8%
(blank)
15
1.8%
Express Total
836
Local
a. Walked
21,574
83.0%
b. Bicycled
383
1.5%
c. Drove/Rode Car and Parked
654
2.5%
d. Dropped off by Someone
1,211
4.7%
e. Other
796
3.1%
(blank)
1,385
5.3%
Local Total
26,002
VCU
a. Walked
3,204
58.0%
b. Bicycled
103
1.9%
c. Drove/Rode Car and Parked
1,836
33.2%
d. Dropped off by Someone
60
1.1%
e. Other
31
0.6%
(blank)
295
5.3%
VCU Total
5,529
Grand Total
32,368
Question 4c: Destination Mode of Access
As shown in Table C-15, 91.1 percent of respondents provided an answer to Question 4c regarding mode
of access from the last bus to their final destination. As shown in Figure C-10, 87.3 percent of the
expanded responses (excluding blank responses) walk from the last bus on their trip to their destination
and 5.7 percent drive or ride in a car they had parked. Table C-16 shows the expanded responses by
route type. A majority of express, VCU and local route riders walk to their destinations. Once again, it is
important to keep in mind that express routes were primarily served in the AM peak only.
C-19 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Figure C-10: Destination Mode of Access
Table C-15: Total and Expanded Responses – Destination Mode of Access
Total Responses
Expanded Responses
Destination Mode of Access
Total % Total
Total
% Total
% Adjusted
a. Walked
3,534 78.7%
25,877
79.9%
87.3%
b. Bicycled
47
1.0%
327
1.0%
1.1%
c. Drive/Ride in Parked Car
266
5.9%
1,686
5.2%
5.7%
d. Picked up by Someone
110
2.4%
806
2.5%
2.7%
e. Other
136
3.0%
946
2.9%
3.2%
(blank)
400
8.9%
2,725
8.4%
--Grand Total
4,493 91.1%
32,368
100.0%
91.6%
Table C-16: Expanded Responses by Route Type – Destination Mode of Access
Route Type
Destination Mode of Access Responses % Total
Express
a. Walked
572
68.4%
b. Bicycled
3
0.4%
c. Drive/Ride in Parked Car
147
17.6%
d. Picked up by Someone
16
1.9%
e. Other
10
1.2%
(blank)
88
10.6%
Express Total
836
Local
a. Walked
21,600
83.1%
b. Bicycled
278
1.1%
c. Drive/Ride in Parked Car
589
2.3%
d. Picked up by Someone
763
2.9%
e. Other
905
3.5%
(blank)
1,868
7.2%
Local Total
26,002
VCU
a. Walked
3,705
67.0%
b. Bicycled
45
0.8%
c. Drive/Ride in Parked Car
951
17.2%
d. Picked up by Someone
28
0.5%
e. Other
31
0.6%
(blank)
769
13.9%
VCU Total
5,529
Grand Total
32,368
C-20 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Question 5: How often do you ride GRTC?
Figure C-11: How often do you ride?
Question 5 asks respondents how often they
ride GRTC. Table C-17 shows the total number of
responses and the expanded responses, with 2.4
percent of the expanded survey left unanswered.
Excluding blank responses, 71.4 percent of GRTC
riders use the service four or more days per
week, as shown in Figure C-11. Table C-18 shows
the expanded response by route type. The
majority of riders in all three categories ride 4 or
more days per week.
Table C-17: Total and Expanded Responses – How often do you ride?
Total Responses
Expanded Responses
How often do you ride?
Total % Total
Total
% Total
% Adjusted
a. Less Than Once a Month
77
1.7%
638
2.0%
2.0%
b. Once or Twice a Month
130
2.9%
932
2.9%
3.0%
c. 1 Day a Week
145
3.2%
1,171
3.6%
3.7%
d. 2-3 Days a Week
807
18.0%
6,306
19.5%
20.0%
e. 4 or More Days a Week
3214
71.5%
22,545
69.7%
71.4%
(blank)
120
2.7%
775
2.4%
--Grand Total
4493
97.3%
32,368
100.0%
97.6%
Table C-18: Expanded Responses by Route Type – How often do you ride?
Route Type
How often do you ride?
Responses % Total
Express
a. Less Than Once a Month
2
0.2%
b. Once or Twice a Month
3
0.4%
c. 1 Day a Week
4
0.5%
d. 2-3 Days a Week
106
12.7%
e. 4 or More Days a Week
711
85.0%
(blank)
10
1.2%
Express Total
836
Local
a. Less Than Once a Month
554
2.1%
b. Once or Twice a Month
855
3.3%
c. 1 Day a Week
858
3.3%
d. 2-3 Days a Week
5,377
20.7%
e. 4 or More Days a Week
17,720
68.1%
(blank)
638
2.5%
Local Total
26,002
VCU
a. Less Than Once a Month
83
1.5%
b. Once or Twice a Month
74
1.3%
c. 1 Day a Week
309
5.6%
d. 2-3 Days a Week
823
14.9%
e. 4 or More Days a Week
4,114
74.4%
(blank)
127
2.3%
VCU Total
5,529
Grand Total
32,368
C-21 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Question 6: Number of Vehicles Available
Figure C-12: Number of Vehicles Available
Question 6 asks respondents how many vehicles they
have available in their household. Table C-19 shows
the number of survey and expanded responses. The
response rate to this question was 95.2 percent, with
the expanded non-response rate of 4.8 percent. As
shown in Figure C-12, 47.2 percent of the expanded
surveys that responded to this question have no access
to a vehicle, followed by 31.1 percent with access to
one vehicle. Table C-20 shows the expanded responses
by route type. Most express route riders have one
(29.9%) or two (38%) vehicles available, while only 4.1
percent have no access to a vehicle. In contrast, 52.8 percent of riders on local routes do not have
access to a vehicle. Most VCU riders live in households with one vehicle (43.6%), 20.6 percent have two
vehicles, and 14.1 percent have no access to a vehicle.
Table C-19: Total and Expanded Responses – # of Vehicles Available
Total Responses
Expanded Responses
# Vehicles Available Total % Total
Total % Total % Adjusted
No Vehicles
1860
41.4%
14,553 45.0%
47.2%
1 Vehicle
1345
29.9%
9,574
29.6%
31.1%
2 Vehicles
677
15.1%
4,059
12.5%
13.2%
3 Vehicles
258
5.7%
1,708
5.3%
5.5%
4 or More Vehicles
137
3.0%
927
2.9%
3.0%
(blank)
216
4.8%
1,547
4.8%
--Grand Total
4493
95.2% 32,368 100.0%
95.2%
Table C-20: Expanded Responses by Route Type – # of Vehicles Available
Route Type
Express
Express Total
Local
Local Total
VCU
C-22 | P a g e
Vehicles in Household
0
1
2
3
4 or More
(blank)
0
1
2
3
4 or More
(blank)
0
1
2
Responses
34
250
318
146
62
26
836
13,741
6,912
2,600
858
494
1,398
26,002
778
2,412
1,141
% Total
4.1%
29.9%
38.0%
17.4%
7.5%
3.1%
52.8%
26.6%
10.0%
3.3%
1.9%
5.4%
14.1%
43.6%
20.6%
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
705
12.8%
370
6.7%
123
2.2%
5,529
32,368
3
4 or More
(blank)
VCU Total
Grand Total
Question 7: Age
Figure C-13: Age
As shown in Table C-21, 94.9 percent of the surveys had
responses to Question 7, and five percent of the
expanded responses are unanswered. Of the expanded
responses that were not blank, 30.6 percent of riders are
age 16 to 24, followed by 19.7 percent age 25 to 34, and
18.9 percent age 45-54 (Figure C-13). Table C-22 shows
the expanded results by route type. Express route riders
are generally older, with 31.1 percent between the ages
of 45 and 54 and 23.3 percent between the ages of 55
and 64. Only 3.3 percent or express route riders are age
16 to 24. As would be expected, the majority of VCU
riders are between the ages of 16 to 24 (58.4 percent) and 21.4 percent are age 25 to 34. Ages of local
riders are more evenly dispersed with 23.7 percent age 16 to 24; 19.6 percent age 45 to 54; 18.2 percent
age 25 to 34; and 17.8 percent age 34 to 44.
Table C-21: Total and Expanded Responses – Age
Age
Under 16
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 or Over
(blank)
Grand Total
Total Responses
Total % Total
41
0.9%
1,073
23.9%
857
19.1%
739
16.4%
881
19.6%
525
11.7%
148
3.3%
229
5.1%
4,493
94.9%
Total
253
9,414
6,044
5,097
5,811
3,128
994
1,627
32,368
Expanded Responses
% Total
% Adjusted
0.8%
0.8%
29.1%
30.6%
18.7%
19.7%
15.7%
16.6%
18.0%
18.9%
9.7%
10.2%
3.1%
3.2%
5.0%
--100.0%
95.0%
Table C-22: Expanded Responses by Route Type – Age
Route Type
Express
Express Total
Local
C-23 | P a g e
Age
b. 16-24
c. 25-34
d. 35-44
e. 45-54
f. 55-64
g. 65 or Over
(blank)
a. Under 16
b. 16-24
Responses
28
141
168
260
195
23
21
836
253
6,159
% Total
3.3%
16.9%
20.1%
31.1%
23.3%
2.7%
2.5%
1.0%
23.7%
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
c. 25-34
d. 35-44
e. 45-54
f. 55-64
g. 65 or Over
(blank)
Local Total
VCU
b. 16-24
c. 25-34
d. 35-44
e. 45-54
f. 55-64
g. 65 or Over
(blank)
VCU Total
Grand Total
4,720
4,628
5,102
2,748
937
1,455
26,002
3,227
1,183
301
449
185
35
151
5,529
32,368
Question 8: Do you have a valid driver’s license?
18.2%
17.8%
19.6%
10.6%
3.6%
5.6%
58.4%
21.4%
5.4%
8.1%
3.3%
0.6%
2.7%
Figure C-14: Valid Driver’s License?
As shown in Table C-23, 94.5 percent of the respondents
indicated whether or not they have a valid driver’s
license. Figure C-14 displays the expanded responses to
this question, excluding the 5.2 percent that did not
respond, which indicate 50.2 percent of those who
responded have a valid driver’s license. Table C-24
shows the expanded responses by route type. Express
route riders are 93.5 percent likely to have a valid
driver’s license and VCU riders are 90.9 percent likely to
have a valid driver’s license; whereas only 36.9 percent
of local riders have a valid driver’s license.
Table C-23: Total and Expanded Responses – Valid Driver’s License?
Total Responses
Expanded Responses
Valid Driver’s License? Total % Total
Total % Total % Adjusted
No
1,964
43.7% 15,277 47.2%
49.8%
Yes
2,281
50.8% 15,412 47.6%
50.2%
(blank)
248
5.5%
1,678
5.2%
--Grand Total
4493
94.5% 32,368 100.0%
94.8%
Table C-24: Expanded Responses by Route Type – Valid Driver’s License?
Route Type
Express
Express Total
Local
Local Total
C-24 | P a g e
Valid Driver’s License?
No
Yes
(blank)
No
Yes
(blank)
Responses
29
782
26
836
14,866
9,606
1,530
26,002
% Total
3.5%
93.5%
3.1%
57.2%
36.9%
5.9%
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
VCU
No
Yes
(blank)
VCU Total
Grand Total
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
382
6.9%
5,024
90.9%
123
2.2%
5,529
32,368
Figure C-15: Gender
Question 9: Gender
Question 9 asks respondents their gender. As shown in
Table C-25, 93.9 percent of the survey respondents
provided a response to this question, with 5.6 percent of
the expanded responses left unanswered. Of the
expanded results that provided a response, 60.3 percent
are female and 39.7 percent are male, as shown in
Figure C-15. Table C-26 shows the expanded responses
by route type, with females making up 55.2 percent of
the express route riders, 66.3 percent of the VCU riders,
and 55.0 percent of the local route riders.
Table C-25: Total and Expanded Responses – Gender
Total Responses
Expanded Responses
Gender
Total % Total Total % Total % Adjusted
Female
2573
57.3% 18,421 56.9%
60.3%
Male
1646
36.6% 12,130 37.5%
39.7%
(blank)
275
6.1%
1,817
5.6%
--Grand Total 4494
93.9% 32,368 100.0%
94.4%
Table C-26: Expanded Responses by Route Type – Gender
Type
Gender
Responses % Total
Express
Female
462
55.2%
Male
339
40.6%
(blank)
35
4.2%
Express
Total
836
Local
Female
14,295
55.0%
Male
10,100
38.8%
(blank)
1,607
6.2%
Local Total
26,002
VCU
Female
3,665
66.3%
Male
1,690
30.6%
(blank)
175
3.2%
VCU Total
5,529
Grand Total
32,368
C-25 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
Question 10: Income
Figure C-16: Annual Household Income
Question 10 had the lowest response rate
among the demographic questions with 81.7 percent
of the respondents providing an income and 17.9
percent of the expanded results left unanswered, as
shown in Table C-27. As shown in Figure C-16, 41
percent of expanded riders that responded have a
household income of $14,999 or less. Table C-28
shows the expanded responses by route type.
Generally, the incomes for express route riders are
weighted toward the higher end of the range while
incomes for local and VCU riders are weighted toward
the lower end. Among express route riders, 33.5 percent have an annual household income of $75,000
or more. Riders that earn $14,999 or less make up 30.1 percent of VCU riders and 35.3 percent of local
route riders.
Table C-27:
Annual Household
Income
$14,999 or Less
$15,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $44,999
$45,000 - $59,999
$60,000 - $74,999
$75,000 or more
(blank)
Grand Total
Total and Expanded Responses – Income
Total Responses
Expanded Responses
Total % Total Total % Total % Adjusted
1,304
29.0% 10,882 33.6%
41.0%
967
21.5% 7,085
21.9%
26.7%
612
13.6% 4,258
13.2%
16.0%
295
6.6% 1,843
5.7%
6.9%
194
4.3% 1,166
3.6%
4.4%
301
6.7% 1,333
4.1%
5.0%
820
18.3% 5,801
17.9%
--4,493
81.7% 32,368 100.0%
82.1%
Table C-28: Expanded Responses by Route Type – Income
Route Type
Household Income
Responses % Total
Express
a. $14,999 or Less
35
4.2%
b. $15,000 - $29,999
43
5.2%
c. $30,000 - $44,999
115
13.8%
d. $45,000 - $59,999
106
12.7%
e. $60,000 - $74,999
126
15.0%
f. $75,000 or more
280
33.5%
(blank)
132
15.7%
Express Total
836
Local
a. $14,999 or Less
9,183
35.3%
b. $15,000 - $29,999
6,025
23.2%
c. $30,000 - $44,999
3,244
12.5%
d. $45,000 - $59,999
1,168
4.5%
e. $60,000 - $74,999
705
2.7%
f. $75,000 or more
592
2.3%
(blank)
5,085
19.6%
Local Total
26,002
C-26 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
VCU
VCU Total
Grand Total
a. $14,999 or Less
b. $15,000 - $29,999
c. $30,000 - $44,999
d. $45,000 - $59,999
e. $60,000 - $74,999
f. $75,000 or more
(blank)
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey
1,664
30.1%
1,017
18.4%
899
16.3%
569
10.3%
335
6.1%
461
8.3%
585
10.6%
5,529
32,368
5.0 SUMMARY
Over 50 percent of GRTC’s fixed route service was surveyed, including local, express, and VCU routes. A
total of 4,493 surveys were completed and entered into the master database. This response well
exceeded the initial goal of 3,000 surveys and represents approximately 28 percent of the riders present
on surveyed routes. Expansion factors were applied to the survey results to represent total system
ridership in a manner that attempts to eliminate biases in the responses. The summary of results
presented below is based on the expanded responses with blank responses excluded.
Section 1 of the survey asked riders to provide information about their one-way trip, including origin and
destination, mode of access to and from bus stops, whether their trip involved any transfers, and how
often they ride GRTC. Results from Section 1 are summarized as follows:




Overall, most trips began and ended at work or home. On VCU routes, most trips began and
ended at college/university.
Most riders walk to their first bus stop (81.2%) and from their last bus stop to their destination
(87.3%). Express route riders are most likely to drive and park and car to access the bus.
Overall, 18.4 percent of riders transferred from another route and 18.5 percent transferred to
another route. Approximately 98 percent of these transfers occurred on local routes and Route
6 was indicated most often as the route transferred to and from.
GRTC has a large population of loyal riders, as evidenced by the 71.4 percent of riders who use
GRTC service four or more days per week.
Section II of the survey asked riders to provide demographic information, including the number of
vehicles in their household, age, gender, annual household income, and whether they have a valid
driver’s license. Results from Section II are summarized as follows:




Nearly half of all GRTC riders do not have access to a vehicle. Most of these riders use local
routes; only 4.1 percent of express riders have no access to a vehicle.
Overall, most (87.7%) GRTC riders are under age 55 with 30.6 percent between the ages of 16
and 24. Express route riders are generally older while VCU riders are generally younger. Local
route riders are more evenly distributed among the age groups.
Half of all GRTC riders have a valid driver’s license. Those without a driver’s license generally
ride local routes. Over 90 percent of express and VCU riders have a valid driver’s license.
Female riders make up 60 percent of GRTC riders.
C-27 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix C – 2009 Rider Survey

Overall, 41 percent of GRTC riders have annual household incomes of less than $15,000. Riders
on express route are generally at the higher end of the income range, while riders on local and
VCU routes are generally at the lower end of the range.
C-28 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach
APPENDIX D- STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
GRTC KICKOFF MEETING
GRTC Staff















Chesterfield has no service other than Express
Concerns/Issues/Outcomes
o Main street station is no longer being considered; transfer center will be in another
downtown location
o BRT alternatives analysis in process, next meeting in May to present alternative to public,
and update the LRTP
 20 year financial plan is in progress
 Route planning has been completed for the BRT
 COA substation location – mention of BRT station
 Transfer station, capital should correspond with BRT study
 2015 target start date for BRT
Paratransit: need to include detail in TDP, i.e. eligibility, how to operate more efficiently/effectively
o ADA Service is on Commerce Road, (hope to move all by fall 2011)
Fare structure:
o Passes: Need to look at passes, currently GRTC does not have passes,
o Peer review to include fares
Neighborhood Service (are there opportunities for deviated fixed route service)
o University of Richmond to Carytown
o Broad Street to Cary Street
o Look at areas where there is density but not many riders; why aren’t they riding?
o APC Data – look at routes based on ridership/ons & offs in those locations
Henrico pays per revenue mile plus deadhead
VCU – contracts for several routes
Neighborhood Circulator did not work in Henrico
Some express routes are over crowding
ADA is countywide in Henrico
Chesterfield is on the Board, but does not pay for services
Fredericksburg & Ashland service will be discontinued
Mechanicsville Express, GRTC will be taking it over
Route Changes:
o Route 100 eliminated
o Other changes rerouted to new facility
o Route 10 to be split
Goals and objectives
o Build on previous studies
D-1 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach
o
o
o


















Two performance measures: Farebox Recovery and Passengers per Revenue Hour
Need more regimented time frame for ons & offs
Paratransit
 OTP goals (92%)
 Trips per Hour (1.8)
Disconnect with jobs outside system - Henrico/Chesterfield; transit dependent populations, need
for new service
Currently a spoke system, need for some crosstown mobility as addressed in COA
Deviated fixed route in lieu of ADA, is that an option?
CVAN is Welfare to Work in Richmond/Henrico
Hanover & Chesterfield have service needs
Short Pump is a growing area with service need
Airport needs service
Travel time issues on Broad Street
Opportunities for business relationships
o Public Schools (Like Rochester)
o College student passes
Service changes are in the city code; restricts the ability to make changes to routes
City has flat funding, source is general fund
Henrico, funding is flat
VCU Student fees pay for VCU service
Neutral fare increases
A regional transit authority has pockets of support
Focus on returning back to customer basics
Need metrics for call center
Kiosk – next bus prototype
o 16-17 frames
o 9 electronic signs
o 2200 stops (20 have kiosks (Tier 1)
o 75 Tier 2 Signs
PAC COMMITTEE, APRIL KICKOFF
GRTC Staff, Todd Eure, Henrico County; Paul Walker, VCU; Ed Turner, advocate for persons with
disabilities.

CARE Van:
o Important service for persons with disabilities
o Needed for access to jobs
o Earlier hours are needed
o Lack of transportation options is a barrier for employment
o Chesterfield County needs service
D-2 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach











Schedule Needs:
o Extended service hours, weekend service to employment
o Match hospital shifts – 24 hours ideally, at minimum until 11pm-12am
Service Needs:
o Broad Street Corridor
o Short Pump
o Route 1 to Henrico county line
o Transit Passes
o Belmont (near Chippenham Road), population with a transit need
o Broad Rock/Walmsley: families need access to service
Pros for GRTC
o Marketing/visibility
o Dependable during bad weather
o Reliable
o Customer service
Transit Pass: provide a tax break depending on income
Funding is the biggest barrier, need may exist but not funding
Employee transit program
GRTC has ridership, but not funding
More creative funding options, alternatives besides a cap versus unlimited
Trip by trip level, reduce local & express performance
Deviated fixed route (cross connectors)
CARE drivers do a good job, fixed route drivers need training on how to understand disabled
riders, fixed route ridership would be a viable option if drivers were more accommodating.
CHESTERFIELD C OUNTY
Barb Smith, Transportation Department; Dawn Missory, Transit Manager for Chesterfield Employment
Services Transportation and Access Chesterfield; Frank Vance, Program Coordinator for Access
Chesterfield.





Route 82 Express was initially funded by state as a pilot project. This service will need new
funding on July 2012 to continue operating.
Other express routes are operating fine (Route 81 and 95). Route 95 will need a permanent PNR
location at John Tyler; however, it would need funding.
The Jefferson Davis corridor, as identified in the Regional Mass Transit Study could be a
potential need if funding was available.
There is not a need for local service. The community is suburban, stops are not conducive to
serving multiple people. Tried a “door to door” service that did not work.
Access Chesterfield covers the entire county with limited service to medical, work and school
trips. It is operated by a contractor – Van Go. Service is next day service with a pick up window.
D-3 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach




Passengers must register and purchase tickets/vouchers. Service is provided to elderly, disabled
and low income individuals.
Funding for human service transportation is a priority. Access Chesterfield service is ineligible for
transit funds – 100% of trips are funded by social services. Localities and citizens provide
funding.
Greatest need is funding, as Access Chesterfield service has grown since its inceptions in
November 2004 from 18,000 riders in 2006 to over 50,000 expected in 2011.
Express service is 2nd priority need as long as there is funding available.
Local bus service is not a priority for Chesterfield.
TOWN OF ASHLAND
Nora Amos, Director of Planning & Community Development; Charles W. Hartgrove, Town Manager;
M. Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner







Express service to Richmond & Fredericksburg is needed
Circulator service in town is a need
Previous GRTC Ashland Route
o Not involved with previous express service planning
o Service was added as an extra stop
o Ashland would use a commuter line
o Pickup location was not good for transit riders
o Did not provide northbound service (only southbound)
o Amtrak Riders travel to DC/Arlington
o Service needed access for pedestrians
o Service needed more study
o Schedule times were not convenient
o Ashland is ideal environment for service due to socioeconomics
o Marketing effort/rider notifications were not sufficient
Ashland Transit Plan
o Funding was not available to implement the plan
o Considered VRT as a potential operator
o Would like to partner with GRTC in the future
Local circulator service is biggest need
o Low income housing needs
o Workforce need
o Walmart/Airport/Industrial Areas service need
Proposed Development at I-95 (currently bankrupt)
o Would be commuter type of population
o Would have service and hotel jobs
Ashland to Richmond service needs
o Traveling to West End and Downtown
D-4 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach




o Traffic is not bad by car
o Used to have a trolley line to Richmond
o Town is receptive and supportive toward transit
Expanded train service
o Would need parking and service to Richmond
VDOT park and ride locations
o Rockville @ I-64
o Informal park & ride at RT 1
Commuter needs
o VRE & service to northern destinations in the near term
o Richmond service in the long term
Needs
o Local funding has potential with the right type of service
o Service should be community focused
o Randolph Macon – small school 1250 Students/faculty; some market potential for
faculty and staff
o Opportunity to partner with major retailers (i.e. Walmart)
J. SARGEANT REYNOLDS C OMMUNITY COLLEGE
Thomas Hollins, Vice President of Student Affairs
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
30-40% of students are from City of Richmond
o Many have no vehicle
o Some walk to Parham Road Campus
GRTC used to have a shuttle from Downtown to Parham Road/Brook Road
55-65 percent of students attend classes at Parham Campus
20,000 Students total
Cross campus commuting – 35% to downtown, minimal to new west end campus
Students must have their own transportation in the evening, the greater need for transit is from
10am to 2pm
JRCC Shuttle service: Monday-Friday and Saturday; Weekday: limited hours 8am to 4pm,
students peak b/w 10am and 2pm and 5pm to 9:40pm.
JRCC Shuttle runs every 30 min to 1 hour from 1 campus to the other (Parham to DT, DT to
Ginter Park); operated in house
DT Campus, parking is difficult: I-95 b/w 7th and 8th at East Jackson/Duval
Parham parking is not difficult
No incentives for students to take transit
Growth-another academic building is underway at Parham, DT is land locked
Parham Campus has bigger need for transit
DT students walk from Broad Street
Outer counties have pockets of individuals with need
o JRCC is a feeder school to VCU, Virginia state, Union and TechNet
D-5 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach
o
o
o
o
10% of students are in Chesterfield
A few disabled students ride CARE bus
Passes – would be something JRCC would be interested in
o Student discount, with coupon
o ID would be receptive
Non college related: Service need to Chesterfield Town Center (access to jobs)
JOHN TYLER COMMUNITY C OLLEGE
Fred Taylor








Currently, GRTC provides express service between Petersburg, JTCC Chester Campus and
Richmond
Park and ride is on campus, although most riders are not students
Need to look for a new location; as long as space is available, GRTC can use the parking;
however parking is limited. Currently, the service brings 30 - 40 cars to the park and ride.
Occasional issues with vagrants and loitering
JTCC has a growing enrollment, Chester includes 10-20 percent of their students
Students have no reason to ride transit
Midlothian campus is larger than Chester, so students are fragmented
Chester – students come from Hopewell, Colonial Heights and Petersburg
Travel between two campuses occurs; however, transit ridership would be low if it were
available because it is easy to drive. Route 288 is 4 lanes and travel time is only 25 minutes.
GREATER RICHMOND CHAMBER OF C OMMERCE
Kim Scheeler









Overall, GRTC does a good job of engaging the community and managing transit service in
multiple jurisdictions.
Downtown business travel needs include employees traveling between home and work; and
customers traveling to shopping/retail.
Businesses are frustrated that routes do not serve areas that need to be served.
There is a viewpoint that transit should go across the region, such as to Short Pump; however,
more interest is within nodes rather than across nodes.
There are several live, work, and play communities in Chesterfield, Westend, and Short Pump.
Downtown Convention & Tourism needs include a bus service (like a trolley service) to serve
hotels, tourist destinations, convention center, etc.
Gas prices are a big driver, express bus should be more market driven by jurisdiction i.e. PNR in
Hanover could charge a higher rate.
It is easy to get around in a car and the bus is not a popular option; also, many areas do not
have density to support transit.
Although there is not a huge demand now, there is a need to build transit for the future.
D-6 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach










Broad Street BRT makes sense.
Population, employment and density growth is expected in Short Pump and Downtown.
There is a need for travel relief to Short Pump, particularly in the long run as commercial
growth continues.
Residential service is more of a challenge as it is spread out throughout the region.
Chesterfield is spread out and would be difficult to serve with transit.
Goochland to Innsbrook Corridor will have a future need as growth continues.
It is relatively easy to get to the Airport by car; thus, not a great need for transit.
Parking downtown is not an issue if you are working downtown, as prices are low; short term
parking, however, is difficult.
Gas and automobile costs are the biggest challenge to commuters.
Downtown bus service is decent; however, bus volume is a challenge. A downtown circulator
would help.
THE CHOICE GROUP
Robin Metcalf & Staff














Recommended by Ed Turner as a stakeholder for paratransit service needs; assists persons with
developmental disabilities with job placement, etc.
Commented that GRTC has 9-5 hours, but jobs do not
Service Needs:
o West end of Richmond
o Chesterfield (At Chesterfield town center)
o Need to go to HWY 288
o West End Henrico – evening or weekend
Passengers need service on Weekend, Holidays, and over Long Distances
Need transportation from inner city to outer areas
CARE & CVAN are more common- passengers could ride GRTC if there were more buses
Seems to be a learning curve for GRTC trips scheduling: i.e. 1 st month & 2nd – missed rides, late
or early, which is difficult for those that need a “structured” ride
Ideal scenario: trips are mapped out, passengers can travel on a fixed schedule, and service can
cross the county line
Forest Hill Avenue jobs are there, though transit service is unreliable; i.e. CARE passenger 30 to
45 minutes late to work
24 hour window is better, though it is difficult for regular trips; would be nice to call a week in
advance
Access to CVAN – Scheduling can be a challenge
Fixed bus service needs to other areas – Commerce for employment, West End, Chesterfield
Town Center, and suburban areas
Cognitive disability – passengers have anxiety and must call in on a regular basis
Need technology for better trip routing
D-7 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach
RESOURCE FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING
Gloria Meyer




















Private nonprofit senior independent living – Chesterfield – Henrico-Richmond
GRTC routes in Chesterfield not renewed, bus used to stop at a senior /multifamily facility
Chesterfield – no service, residents must drive to Henrico to get service
CARE van does not go to Chesterfield or Hanover
CARE representatives are difficult to reach on the phone
Although there is a 30 minute window, often late and must call for status
Weekend service is needed
Jeff Davis (RT 1) needs service
Service used to travel to Market Square/Winchester Green
Residents need access to medical facilities
Service needs: Henrico to Regency mall; Sandstone, West end Henrico; White Oaks; 9 Mile
Kroger – east Henrico;
Dialysis, snow etc. make service a necessity, there are a few outside providers but they are
limited to Medicaid; i.e. Logisticare vans
It is difficult to wheelchair accessible transportation in Chesterfield
Phone systems – automated system, difficult for users to call; need to make it easier to call and
schedule a trip
Chester – Access Chesterfield - $32.00 for 2 tickets for paratransit service
Service is needed to Hanover County i.e. to hospital, medical and Sheltering Arms
Medical Access: Chesterfield – Chippenham Parkway in City – County across street – Sister
hospital is 6 miles south, cannot go to both facilities on CARE
St. Francis (Further out ) 288
Need access to Powhite Parkway, Government Agencies, Walmart and Iron Branch
GRTC has been accommodating and tries to accommodate fixed route service needs when
possible.
MAY 17TH , 2011 GRTC BOARD MEETING
Board member comments






Continue to make fixed route service as accessible as possible, which includes accessibility at
bus stops
CNG Buses – will that be included in the TDP?
Will the Downtown Transfer Center and BRT be included in the TDP (yes – they are givens)?
Will we be looking at demographics to determine where service is needed (yes)?
“Everybody Rides” was mentioned. (We don’t know what that is.)
CEO commented that there was an article recently in the paper that cited a Brookings Institute
Study that showed GRTC ranks poorly. He noted that was a different type o study than the TDP
peer analysis, and was happy to see how GRTC ranked compared to its peers.
D-8 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach

On a separate matter, GRTC is considering going to a CNG fleet. This was a different agenda
item, but some interesting things noted were:
o Diesel is costing $3.31 per gallon – CNG is equivalent to $1.00 per gallon. GRTC had
budgeted $2.30 per gallon. Every penny of gas price = $15,000 in the GRTC budget.
o CNG buses are typically $40 to $50k more than a regular bus.
o GRTC would replace all buses, including small buses with CNG. There is a proposed bus
replacement schedule.
o $2 million in cost to put in a CNG fueling facility.
MAY 17TH , 2011 GRTC CARE ADVISORY GROUP
Member comments
















Chesterfield and Hanover – service is needed to these locations. There are medical facilities in
Hanover, and if you need to get there, you have to arrange a Medicaid trip.
CARE is a vital service to the community.
Crossing the street from bus stops can be difficult.
Weakness in CARE is in the communication system. You schedule a trip, but you have no idea if
it will be on-time or late. You call GRTC, and they will just recite the scheduled pick-up time.
Service prior to the GRTC take-over (2008) was horrendous. IT is much better now, and drivers
are courteous and kind. If there is a problem with a driver, GRTC takes care of it.
Does C-Van go into Chesterfield County? That question was asked. No one was certain of the
answer, but most likely, no.
Fixed route experience from members is mixed. Some say its ok, others say it was poor.
Sensitivity training of drivers has helped a lot. Continue this training.
Wheelchair limitations on fixed route buses, Sometimes, both wheelchair slots are taken, and
you have to wait for the next bus, which can be a while.
Lifts on fixed route buses are an on-going problem. Sometimes they are out of service.
Sometimes, the driver is too lazy, and just says the lift is not working.
Cursing and cell phone talk on fixed route buses is horrendous.
Scheduling of CARE trips – sometimes the scheduling is off. They drop off other people first,
when you are only a few blocks from your destination. Seems like it could be done more
efficiently.
Sometimes you’ll get a call that says the driver is there, but they are not. Dispatch is insistent
that the driver says they are there, but they are not. You need to work with dispatch and ask
them to ask the driver where they are, which is in the wrong location. Dispatch should work
more with customers in trying to get the driver to the right location, rather than just say “they
are there, and you are not”.
Calling in to schedule a trip – can be difficult at times. You wait and wait and wait. Most just
leave a message and schedule a trip that way.
Cleanliness of CARE buses can be hit or miss.
Calling to determine status of your trip – dispatch won’t tell you if the bus is on-time or not.
D-9 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach
MAY 18TH GRTC TDP ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Only Vicki Badger from the City attended. Vicki’s comments were as follows:
 Suggests outreach to Chamber of Commerce (Kim Scheller), to Chesterfield elected officials and
to Hanover County.
 Note that in PowerPoint presentation, vanpool is shown sometimes as two words.
 Downtown transfer center – need is huge.
 BRT project – also important for city.
 Connectivity is an important service that GRTC provides.
 Hub and spoke system of GRTC is most efficient, but also need to look at other connection
options to avoid needs for downtown transfers.
 Bus stop amenities – important to provide.
 City provides $11 million/year to GRTC budget, so there are expectations that the City has of
GRTC.
 There is really a need to find a dedicated and reliable source of funding for GRTC. This would
require state approval just to go out to voters (Dillon Rule).
 BRT project is looking at Tax Increment Financing.
 City priorities with regards to capital projects – CNG buses, transfer center and BRT project.
 Important for GRTC to stay engaged with the City.
 GRTC has a positive image, which needs to be retained. They should continue to remain
engaged – “hands on” with constituents and with riders.
 Important to stay on top of how bus routes are performing.
 Mayor wants to get service more regional – would like to see access into more of Henrico and
into Chesterfield. Transit service should not be defined by boundaries.
 Mainstreaming ADA riders onto fixed route should continue, as way to reduce costs.
 Richmond is a bike-city. The bike racks are important on buses.
 Sidewalks – City is doing a transportation plan right now called “Richmond Connects”. They have
40-years of sidewalk needs to address.
 A lot of the city’s growth is in downtown. Also in VCU area. Manchester (Hull Street) is targeted
for redevelopment.
 Need to encourage employers to take advantage of employee commute subsidy programs.
 The TDP effort should be presented to City Council.
D-10 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach
MAY 19TH RAMPO T ECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Member Comments: The following comments were noted during the committee meeting. This is
followed by a memorandum from RAMPO sent as a follow up to the presentation.










Members mentioned Access Chesterfield as transit service provider for seniors and persons with
disabilities. Response: CTG scheduled a call with representative in June.
Members mentioned parking issues at Staples Mill Amtrak, suggested a type of shuttle service
to serve the PNR, although this may not be a TDP issue.
GRTC service should provide access to jobs.
Members expressed an interest in how GRTC’s funding sources compare to peer systems.
Mentioned recent study that ranked GRTC 90th compared to other systems.
TAC members suggested getting on the buses and asking what do riders think. 2009 on-board
survey provided is included in the TDP. CTG was involved with the survey, rode routes and
surveyed riders on origins and destinations, demographic information, and asked for comments.
Passenger comments are provided in the following section of this appendix.
Gas prices are on the rise, TAC members mentioned this as a way to increase ridership.
MPO is wrapping up a Regional Strategic Plan that includes priority transit needs for the region.
Will provide a copy for inclusion in the TDP.
Ridefinders does a good job of filling in the gap when transit service is discontinued.
Members expressed an interest in regional opportunities for involvement with GRTC via a
stakeholder group.
Members expressed a need for better implementation when starting new service.
D-11 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach
D-12 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach
GRTC 2009 ON BOARD SURVEY PASSENGER COMMENTS
The following comments were collected from GRTC passengers riding bus routes in October 2009 as part
of the 2009 On-Board Survey:















Please keep the 16 line, Mr. Mankey is an excellent driver, excellent customer service skills.
Need bus closer to Thompson
Route 16 needs to continue.
Good Transportation
Make an effort to keep Route 13
Bring back the book of bus tickets
Charlotte North Carolina Bus system is the finest system ever-Richmond is backward
Pretty good
Shouldn't ride past bus stops, it’s a problem on the 32 Ginter Park
Monument 1 never comes. It needs more buses.
Glad GRTC bus comes on time on the 32. The east is better.
Bus is too slow on Sundays, they need more buses.
Whitcomb Court bus time needs to change
Pretty good
Everything good
D-13 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach








































32 is late sometimes (East and West)
Need new buses.
Broad Rock is always late, need shuttle bus on weekend, don’t' go up on price
Customer service stinks; drivers need to be more receptive to customers.
Everything is perfect.
Riverview runs well, Ginter Park is slow, the 3 is a little shaky
GRTC is good, 71 runs too late, more 71 buses
Everything is good
Drivers are good, Mrs. Womble is excellent driver.
16 needs buses every 15 minutes; people have lost their jobs because of late routes
Mrs. Womble is a great bus driver.
Buses are crowded and no schedules, no bus stop at Montrose & Westwood
Drivers need to pay attention and be on time, 32 is late
Service is kind of slow and late a lot.
Bus service is good.
GRTC shouldn't raise the fares.
All drivers are good.
Buses are late sometimes due to traffic, I'm satisfied with service.
Everything is good.
Keep Westhampton 16
Please change bus stop from 7th St. to 8th St.
16 needs one more bus, esp. in evening for MCV students that study after 6 PM
Ginter Park too slow. Highland Park has too many buses.
Supervisors just sit in cars; don't dispatch. Response too long when bus breaks down.
Good service
32 service is wonderful. The fare is OK. Fare should be reasonable.
Lower price on Pemberton route. Extra buses for route 19. Drivers need to be on time.
More Pemberton buses are needed.
Drivers are violent and need to be on time. Drivers are on cell phones.
Drivers talking to passengers on rte. 32. Let passengers sit before bus pulls out.
Ginter Park, Oak Grove need more buses. Don't like the new system.
Be on time
Sat. and Sun. buses
Need cleaner buses. Put trash can on bus.
Bad attitude bus driver Chamberlayne bus, especially @ 5:00pm Ginter Park
Need to run 24 hours
Increase the frequency of 19 between 9/10:40am and downtown to Pemberton from 2-4pm
Every Sunday I'm late for work because the 7:39am bus comes 5-6 minutes early
Need benches at Chamberlayne & Westbrook
Add another 37 bus, I pay $2.75 going one way
D-14 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach




































Ample time for 6 Broad turn at Dick's Sporting Goods
Have the 37 run at 6:30 b/c if you miss the 6:12 you have to wait until 7pm; Have the 37 run
every 10 minutes between 7-8:30am
No driver breaks, M.A. Franklin makes me late every morning b/c she stops at the 7-11 for
breaks
The 5:40pm Chamberlayne St. driver leaves people when they are standing at the bus stop
Have to walk 1 mile as the #22 bus does not run at 7:54 AM and #37 and 7:21 AM #22 bus are
overcrowded
Poor attitudes by drivers
Bus needs to run earlier on Sundays and Holidays
37 afternoon does not keep schedule
The bus was very late
The Chamberlayne bus is always late
More buses every 15 minutes for 37, more pleasant drivers, the 7:34 bus was a no show.
More buses on this route on the weekends.
Free rides city employees, have good access to bus, but Southside people don't have good
ability
Weekends need a bus at Nine Mile Rd.
Lateness a problem, its clean, sometimes the bus runs fast, promptness a must
Bus system ok, buses need more bus schedules
Bus system is ok
Fairfield bus too late, bus drivers are ok
Bus ride is ok, bus drivers are ok, bus is on time
Bus company ok
Drivers need to stop personal activities during operational hours M.A.617 9:30 AM bus
More bus routes need to run on weekends
Bus system ok
More buses on Hall St, time has to be more prompt
Everything is fine
Be on time more often, 10 is too late
Bus is alright, no problems with the system
Be on time
Lower the transfer fare total, lower overall fee
No problems with bus drivers/sometimes bus drivers have attitudes
Speed the 3 up, bus is late all the time
Be more on time
Buses run pretty good
Its ok
Be on time, every time
They are doing a good job
D-15 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach





































Get more Fairfield buses at nighttime
Need to start running the 7 bus after 7 PM and on weekends.
Need bus stop after crossing 14th St. bridge
Bus 37 late
The bus was late all week
Bus late
62 Hull bus is always late. Going to lose job over bus.
Buses are consistently late
Many transfers
Need the link back (81)
This bus is always late; it has the longest route with fewer buses and always over crowded
Need more 29 runs too full
Ampthill bus is always late, hangs out in Food Lion too long.
We need a bus line in Chesterfield going a little more up Jefferson Davis
Gas prices are going up again. Consider more bus routes, please.
I usually use am express service. However, when I have to go somewhere after work I take the
nearest bus.
Many bus drivers lack communication skills
Comment: Put the number of the bus in the back square on the outside
Need bus stop closer to Oakland Village apartments
Need a bus on Hopkins Rd
Need more Oak Grove 74 buses and on time
Why are no buses running on weekends?
Bus drivers are very nice
Job bus needs to run on Saturdays
91 Connector bus runs late and should run longer
Please move bus to White Oak Village Mall Park N Ride for more ridership access to 7 Pines Bus
too.
I like this park n ride, but would love it if pick up was at White Oak Village Mall.
I would like this park n ride to be relocated in White Oak Village Mall.
Need bus to Regency Square Mall on Sat
Wish this bus would run more often; wonderful bus driver
Would be nice if county bus like 91 runs on weekends and longer.
Need to run Petersburg bus on weekend.
Make a bus route to drop off employees at Richmond Airport
Not enough time to get into seats before driving off
37 Chamberlayne does not keep to schedule
There needs to be a bus to go to Rt. 301
Need unlimited passes
D-16 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach





































Add bus to Wal-Mart on Brook Rd, Add bus to Wal-Mart on Parham, Add bus all the way down
Laburnum
Need a bus stop between K-mart and Marshalls
Bus is crowded, keep schedules available
Need new park and ride in Short Pump
Bus service ok
Ginter Park bus driver too late Thursday and Friday
Nine mile needs to run Saturday; 7 needs to run more often
Service is fine
GRTC has excellent service
Hope survey helps improve bus. More seven pines buses need to run later and weekends
Sometimes buses are on time; very dirty inside, some drivers not pleasant
Good system ,increase services by airport area
Good bus service
Start this bus on weekends - bus stop not near Walmart!
Please add weekend service
Get the drivers more and better buses
The bus stop at Cary St. and 10 should be put back because it causes me to walk further when I
get off in the evening
More buses on Oak Grove, bench on northbound Blackwell, disabled should be able to use
wheel chair ramp for groceries
Would like permanent passes of super 45; 45 tickets for $35
Need to put the Oak Grove back to 6:55 am thank you
73 Ampthill is always late
G.R. Rountree is the best driver!
Need bus schedules on the buses
Would like to see some later runs (past 7:30) to 7 Pines and some Saturday runs
Bus stops running by 7:15 so I get picked up by Someone
Need bus that goes from Chippenham Mall to Westover Hills
71 & 63 need to run later
I want super 45 tickets: 45 days for $39.00
Takes 3 hours to get home
Enjoys GRTC, Drivers always nice
I transfer a lot when shopping
Tell passengers that bags are not a passenger - bus etiquette needs to be enforced
The bus broke down and replacement bus was 45min late
29 is too crowded
Bus driver sat in the lot for several min before pulling up to the bus stop
Need new shelter at Gaskins does not keep the rain out
Need more buses for Route 29
D-17 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix D –Stakeholder Outreach

























Bus stops are too far, lost cards cannot be verified or replaced
Change the go cards to reloadable cards w/ sturdy plastic and user friendly
Route 74 along Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Cinema lot too dark, not safe, can lights in lot be turned on??
Bus on way back to Commonwealth 20 is 10 to 15 minutes late every day, please do something.
Bus is often late and no lights at the bus stop
Add a southbound bus between the last 2 of the day out of Richmond to commonwealth 20
Better lighting in parking lot, drivers need to be on time
Need better weekend coverage, covered bus stops, and later bus hours
Need better weekend coverage, covered bus stops, and later bus hours
Drivers are very professional and courteous
Add transfer stations
More buses need to come to the Mosby area
Need to expand bus routes 7,19,62-63 Virginia Commons Area
VCU student rode bus a few blocks to class
Rides 22 Fauquier, 24 Hermitage, and 37
Student bus card needed
Buses should run later on Friday and Saturday nights to keep roads safer
Rides every working day - sometimes drives/ sometimes dropped off by someone
Need a Parham Express bus at 8 am
Run residential buses and you can charge extra and people will pay
Would like bus 70 to go to Stony Point on weekends and a 2 am bus for club hopping crowd to
get home
Please change bus stop back to Forest instead of Choctaw
Express routes should not be old buses
Cleanliness on all buses needs to be improved
D-18 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix E –Title VI
APPENDIX E – TITLE VI
E-1 | P a g e
November 2011
Title VI
Level and Quality of Service
Compliance Assessment
Assessment #3
July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009
Table of Contents
I - Level of Service ............................................................. 3
Selection of Sample for Analysis.................................................................................... 3
Assessment of the Performance of Routes Operating Within the Sample Tracts for
Each Service Standard. ................................................................................................... 3
Vehicle Load............................................................................................................... 3
Vehicle Assignment .................................................................................................... 5
Vehicle Headway ........................................................................................................ 6
Distribution of Transit Amenities ............................................................................... 7
Transit Access............................................................................................................. 8
II - Quality of Service ....................................................... 10
Sample Selection for Analysis ...................................................................................... 10
Comparison of Quality of Service for Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts...... 10
Customer Satisfaction Survey Results .......................................................................... 15
Cleanliness ................................................................................................................ 16
Temperature .............................................................................................................. 17
On-Time.................................................................................................................... 18
Schedule.................................................................................................................... 19
Driver Friendliness/Helpfulness ............................................................................... 20
Customer Service (Phone, Web)............................................................................... 21
Notices ...................................................................................................................... 22
Cost ........................................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 23
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
2
I - Level of Service
To measure the level of service provided to minority and non-minority communities,
GRTC has adopted the five transit indicators that the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) considers significant measures of compliance with Title VI requirements. These
are: vehicle load, vehicle assignments, vehicle headways, distribution of transit amenities,
and transit access.
Selection of Sample for Analysis
GRTC operates fixed route service in the City of Richmond and adjacent Henrico
County. The total population in the census tracts served by GRTC is 343,810. The total
minority population in these tracts is 252,020 giving a minority population of 73.3% of
the total population served by GRTC.. For the purpose of this study this percentage was
used to establish the threshold for classifying tracts as minority or non-minority. Census
tracts having a minority population of 73.3% or greater were considered minority tracts.
Routes that serve the minority tracts were used for this analysis. Specific data for the
tracts and routes can be found in Appendix I of this document.
Assessment of the Performance of Routes Operating Within the Sample
Tracts for Each Service Standard.
Vehicle Load
GRTC’s standard for vehicle load is defined by service type and time of day.
standard is detailed in Table 1.
Service Type
Express
Local
Shuttle
The
Maximum Loading Factor
(Passenger/Seat)
Peak
Off-Peak
1.00
N/A
1.20
1.00
1.20
1.00
Table 1 Vehicle Load Standard
A load analysis of GRTC buses by route* shows that in general GRTC buses operate well
under established load standards. Appendix 2, Data for Maximum Vehicle Loads
Analysis, shows the data that support this analysis. A summary of the analysis by time
period follows:
A.M. Peak
For the A.M. Peak period the standard is 120% of capacity. During this time period load
factors ranged from 0% to 72%, indicating that all samples were in compliance with the
standard.
*
All routes included in this analysis are local routes. Since express routes operate only at peak hours on
weekdays with limited stops, comparing express and local routes using these standards would give skewed
results.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
3
Mid-Day
For the Mid-Day period the standard is 100% of capacity. During this time period load
factors ranged from 5% to 78%, indicating that all samples were in compliance with the
standard.
P.M. Peak
For the P.M. Peak period the standard is 120% of capacity. During this time period load
factors ranged from 8% to 74%, indicating that all samples were in compliance with the
standard.
Night
For the Night period the standard is 100% of capacity. During this time period load
factors ranged from 6% to 57%, indicating that all samples were in compliance with the
standard.
Saturday
For the Saturday period the standard is 100% of capacity. During this time period load
factors ranged from 5% to 51%, indicating that all samples were in compliance with the
standard.
Sunday
For the Sunday period the standard is 100% of capacity. During this time period load
factors ranged from 5% to 59%, indicating that all samples were in compliance with the
standard.
Conclusion
For every local route sampled during the nine month time period no load factor ever
exceeded GRTC’s standard. This analysis finds no significant areas of concern for Title
VI reasons regarding vehicle load factor.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
4
Vehicle Assignment
The GRTC standard for vehicle assignment states:
Considerations for vehicle assignment are the size of the buses, the street
limitations and the age of the buses. First the larger capacity units are assigned
to the heavier volume routes based on anticipated routes. Larger vehicles are
assigned to routes where passenger boardings exceed 30,000 per month.
Second, units are assigned according to the physical restrictions for street turns.
Third, later model units are assigned to those routes with higher mileage and
time requirements to reduce maintenance calls. Routes with mileage of greater
than 150 miles per day are assigned newer buses. The newer buses are those that
were purchased after January 1, 2000. In addition, buses greater than the rolling
average age of GRTC fleet should be assigned to non-minority routes 50% or
more of the time on an annual basis, for both a.m. and p.m. assignments.
This standard to be monitored on a quarterly basis.
To conduct the analysis, GRTC staff first tabulated the vehicle age by route for a
sampling size (Appendix 3, Data for Vehicle Assignment Analysis). Next, staff
determined that the average age of GRTC buses is 7.4 yrs. Finally, staff calculated that
the average age of vehicles assigned to the non-minority route, Route 16, is 11.1 years
and compared it to the average age of the bus fleet (7.4 yrs.) The average age of buses
assigned to minority routes during the same time period was 6.9 years.
This analysis finds no significant areas of concern for Title VI reasons regarding vehicle
assignments.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
5
Vehicle Headway
The following criteria measure service frequency:
•
•
•
•
Length of headways in minutes, varying by service period, ridership levels,
and type of service.
Relative length of headways between peak and off-peak periods.
Off-peak headway: Maximum of 60 minutes.
Peak headway (except on low ridership routes): Maximum of 20 minutes.
Type of Service
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Express/Commuter
Headway
Peak
Off-Peak
15 to 20 minutes
30 to 60 minutes
-60 minutes
Service Provided Based on Local Policy
Demand Driven
Table 2 - Headway Standard
Analysis of vehicle headways shows that the major routes have headways that conform to
GRTC standards for all time periods. Some routes (11, 13, 19) do not conform due to the
proven low ridership of the routes. Headway details can be found in Appendix 4.
This analysis finds no significant areas of concern for Title VI reasons regarding vehicle
headway.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
6
Distribution of Transit Amenities
GRTC makes decision for placing amenities at bus stops based on boarding and alighting
counts, customer requests, and locations serving persons with special needs. The
standard is detailed in Table 4.
Amenity Type
Benches
Shelters
Trashcans
Measurement
Given physical considerations, GRTC will endeavor to provide
benches for stops with ≥100 weekly boardings. Stops with fewer
weekly boardings (50-100) will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. GRTC will follow the guidelines outlined in the City of
Richmond Amenities Procedure.
Given physical considerations, GRTC will endeavor to provide
shelters for stops with ≥400 weekly boardings. Stops with fewer
weekly boardings (101-399) will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. The type of shelter (custom or neighborhood) will be
evaluated on a case by case basis. GRTC will follow the
guidelines outlined in the City of Richmond Amenities
Procedure.
Given physical considerations, GRTC will endeavor to provide
trashcans for stops with ≥100 weekly boardings or alightings.
Stops with fewer weekly boardings and alightings (0-100) will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. GRTC will follow the
guidelines outlined in the City of Richmond Amenities
Procedure.
Table 3 - Standard for Placing Amenities
GRTC has a total of 512 benches and shelters installed (as of December 1, 2009). Of
these, 60% are located within minority census tracts. GRTC has a total of 510 trashcans
installed. Of these, 62% are located within minority census tracts. Table 5 summarizes
these statistics.
Census Tract
Benches/Shelters
512
Total
308
60%
Minority
204
40%
Non-Minority
Table 5- Distribution of Amenities
Trashcans
510
315
62%
195
38%
Appendix 5, Bus Stops with Amenities in Minority/ Non-Minority Census Tracts, provides
a graphical representation of this analysis of the distribution of amenities.
This analysis finds no significant areas of concern for Title VI reasons regarding
distribution of transit amenities.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
7
Transit Access
Maximum distance to nearest transit line of the system, varying by population
density.
GRTC’s standard for transit access depends on population density. In areas of highest
population the maximum distance to a transit line is one-sixth mile. In areas of lowest
density the standard is one-half mile. The standard is shown in Table 6.
Persons per Acre
≥10
7 to 10
4 to 6
<4
Maximum Distance to
Transit Line
1/6th mile
1/6th mile
1/4th mile
½ mile
Table 5 - Transit Access Standard
The analysis of transit access was performed using GIS software. The results of the
analysis are shown in the maps included in Appendix 6:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Transit Accessibility: Areas with Greater than 10 Persons per Acre,
Transit Accessibility: Areas with 7 – 10 Persons per Acre,
Transit Accessibility: Areas with 4 – 6 Persons per Acre, and
Transit Accessibility: Areas with Less than 4 Persons per Acre.
In these maps, each area that does not meet the standard is labeled with the reason for the
standard not being met. The most common reasons were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Streets inaccessible to buses.
Funding not available for implementation.
Neighborhood preference
No Residences
Private Property
Maximum distance to nearest transit line of the system, varying by the number of
employees per Traffic Area Zone (TAZ).
Number of
Employees
Over 100
50 to 100
25 to 50
Maximum Distance to
Transit Line
¼ mile
½ mile
1 mile
Table 6 - Transit Access by Number of Employees per TAZ
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
8
The analysis of transit access by the number of employees per Traffic Area Zone (TAZ)
was performed using GIS software. The results of the analysis are shown in the maps
included in Appendix 6:
1. Metro Richmond Employment Distribution by Traffic Analysis Zone: Zones
with Greater than 100 Employees,
2. Metro Richmond Employment Distribution by Traffic Analysis Zone: Zones
with 50 - 100 Employees,
3. Metro Richmond Employment Distribution by Traffic Analysis Zone: Zones
with 25 - 50 Employees
Analysis showed that the standards were met for TAZ’s with 25 – 50 and 50 – 100
employees. Two areas were found not to meet the standard in TAZ’s with greater than
100 employees. Of these two, one area was the state fairgrounds with no residences. The
other was along a former Henrico County route that was discontinued due to lack of
funding.
This analysis finds no significant areas of concern for Title VI reasons regarding transit
access.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
9
II - Quality of Service
To assess quality of service in minority and non-minority transit service areas, GRTC
conducted a travel patterns and customer satisfaction survey on selected route segments
that were classified minority or non-minority based on the characteristic of the census
tracts that they served.
Sample Selection for Analysis
GRTC staff executed an Origins and Destinations Analysis to assess quality of service for
Title VI purposes. For this analysis, cross-town routes were divided into segments that
either began or ended in downtown. These and the non-cross-town routes were identified
as either minority or non-minority based on the characteristics of the census tracts that
they served. These segments were then assigned arbitrary unique identifying numbers.
Ten random numbers were generated from the list of minority segments and ten random
numbers were generated from the list of non-minority segments. Staff surveyed riders
boarding buses at stops in the sample segments using the survey included in Appendix 7.
Data from the survey was analyzed using mapping and statistical analysis software.
Origins and destinations were geocoded and plotted on maps. The maps were used for
the analysis. Statistical analysis was performed on the customer satisfaction data. The
results of the survey follow. Appendix 8 includes the detailed map illustrating origin and
destination points.
Comparison of Quality of Service for Minority and Non-Minority Census
Tracts
The criteria for comparing quality of service between minority and non-minority census
tracts were distance to destination, number of transfers before reaching destination, total
and cost of trip to destination. The results from the survey are shown below.
Distance to destination was measured in the number of sectors traveled through from
origin to destination.was 1.9.
The distance traveled from minority origins was 1.8 sectors and 2.0 from non-minority.
The average cost of a trip to destination for minority origin riders was $1.31 and for nonminority tract riders was $1.32.
The average for needing a transfer was 42% with non-minority being 37% and minority
45%.
Figures 2 and 3 show the data obtained from the survey.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
10
Figure 1 - Distance, Transfers, and Cost Data
Figure 2 - Distance by Sectors
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
11
Figure 3 - Transfer Data
To try to explain the higher transfer rate from minority origins, the destination sectors for
the two groups were analyzed. The highest percentage of destinations for both groups
was downtown. For non-minority the percentage of downtown destinations was 36%
whereas for minority it was 30%. In general minority destinations were spread more
evenly through the sectors. Because of the hub and spoke configuration of the GRTC
route system, destinations to downtown do not require a transfer. Because minority
destinations to downtown are fewer it is logical to see more transfers from minority
origins. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of destinations for minority and non-minority
origins.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
12
Figure 4 - Minority and Non-Minority Destinations
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
13
These comparisons indicate that minority riders have similar time, cost, and transfer rate
associated with their travel. None of the differences is great enough to require action on
the disparities.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
14
Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
As part of the on-board survey customer satisfaction data was collected. The survey asked riders to
categorize their satisfaction with each of eight aspects of GRTC service: cleanliness, temperature, ontime performance/reliability, schedule, driver friendliness, driver friendliness/helpfulness, customer
service (phone, web), customer notices/announcements, and cost of bus fare. The choices were:
Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Dissatisfied. The analysis follows.
Results for minority and non-minority census tracts are presented separately to enable comparison.
Results in general were favorable and differences between minority and non-minority were small.
Results are summarized in Table 8 below. A detailed analysis of the responses to each question
follows.
Table 8: Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
15
Cleanliness
The cleanliness of GRTC buses was rated highly by both minority and non-minority riders. When
combined, the somewhat satisfied and satisfied categories accounted for 90% of minority responses
and 92% of non-minority responses.
Cleanliness
(count)
(%)
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
299
77
9
18
5
11
71.4%
18.4%
2.1%
4.3%
1.2%
2.6%
Total
419
100.0%
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
176
50
8
7
2
4
71.3%
20.2%
3.2%
2.8%
0.8%
1.6%
Total
247
100.0%
Minority
Non-Minority
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
16
Temperature
The temperature of GRTC buses was also rated highly by minority and non-minority riders. When
combined, the somewhat satisfied and satisfied categories accounted for 88% of minority responses
and 87% of non-minority responses.
Temperature
(count)
(%)
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
280
87
16
14
5
17
66.8%
20.8%
3.8%
3.3%
1.2%
4.1%
Total
419
100.0%
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
149
65
2
16
1
14
60.3%
26.3%
0.8%
6.5%
0.4%
5.7%
Total
247
100.0%
Minority
Non-Minority
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
17
On-Time
On-time performance scored similarly for minority and non-minority riders. When combined, the
somewhat satisfied and satisfied categories accounted for 78% of minority responses and 79% of nonminority responses.
On-Time Performance
(count)
(%)
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
199
127
24
30
20
19
47.5%
30.3%
5.7%
7.2%
4.8%
4.5%
Total
419
100.0%
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
131
64
5
17
14
16
53.0%
25.9%
2.0%
6.9%
5.7%
6.5%
Total
247
100.0%
Minority
Non-Minority
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
18
Schedule
Schedule suitability scored slightly differently for minority and non-minority riders. When combined,
the somewhat satisfied and satisfied categories accounted for 75% of minority responses and 78% of
non-minority responses.
Schedule
(count)
(%)
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
217
99
26
32
16
29
51.8%
23.6%
6.2%
7.6%
3.8%
6.9%
Total
419
100.0%
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
142
51
5
21
11
17
57.5%
20.6%
2.0%
8.5%
4.5%
6.9%
Total
247
100.0%
Minority
Non-Minority
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
19
Driver Friendliness/Helpfulness
Driver Helpfulness/Friendliness scored similarly for minority and non-minority riders. When
combined, the somewhat satisfied and satisfied categories accounted for 86% of minority responses
and 85% of non-minority responses.
Driver Helpfulness/Friendliness
(count)
(%)
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
286
73
19
17
2
22
68.3%
17.4%
4.5%
4.1%
0.5%
5.3%
Total
419
100.0%
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
175
36
6
9
5
16
70.9%
14.6%
2.4%
3.6%
2.0%
6.5%
Total
247
100.0%
Minority
Non-Minority
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
20
Customer Service (Phone, Web)
Customer Service (Phone, Web) also scored similarly for minority and non-minority riders. When
combined, the somewhat satisfied and satisfied categories accounted for 75% of minority responses
and 73% of non-minority responses.
Customer Service (Phone/Web)
(count)
(%)
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
251
65
46
10
6
41
59.9%
15.5%
11.0%
2.4%
1.4%
9.8%
Total
419
100.0%
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
138
43
26
12
8
20
55.9%
17.4%
10.5%
4.9%
3.2%
8.1%
Total
247
100.0%
Minority
Non-Minority
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
21
Notices
Customer Notices likewise scored similarly for minority and non-minority riders. When combined, the
somewhat satisfied and satisfied categories accounted for 79% of minority responses and 75% of nonminority responses.
Customer Notices/Announcements
(count)
(%)
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
272
60
44
9
8
26
64.9%
14.3%
10.5%
2.1%
1.9%
6.2%
Total
419
100.0%
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
148
38
25
17
5
14
59.9%
15.4%
10.1%
6.9%
2.0%
5.7%
Total
247
100.0%
Minority
Non-Minority
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
22
Cost
Cost scored similarly for minority and non-minority riders. When combined, the somewhat satisfied
and satisfied categories accounted for 72% of minority responses and 72% of non-minority responses.
Cost of Bus Fare
(count)
(%)
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
244
57
35
13
4
66
58.2%
13.6%
8.4%
3.1%
1.0%
15.8%
Total
419
100.0%
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
No answer
155
23
11
6
10
42
62.8%
9.3%
4.5%
2.4%
4.0%
17.0%
Total
247
100.0%
Minority
Non-Minority
Conclusion
GRTC service was rated highly in this survey by riders from both minority and non-minority census
tracts. Aspects of service that were rated most highly by both groups were cleanliness and
temperature. Riders from both groups were generally satisfied with the cost of a ride. While still
favorable, riders found on-time performance and schedule suitability less satisfactory. GRTC finds no
Title VI concerns raised by the customer satisfaction survey results.
GRTC Transit System Level and Quality of Service Assessment
23
Appendix 1
Selection of Sample for Analysis
Total
Population
343,810
Area
7
8
9
11
12
15
17
21
25
26
Route
11
13
16
18
18
20
24
70
72
73
29
30
32
34
37
39
40
47
52
54
3
3
6
10
20
24
32
63
91
93
Direction
East
East
East
East
West
East
South
North
North
South
East
West
West
West
West
North
North
North
Both
Both
Minority
Population
252,020
Non-Minority
Start
Pine & China
7th & Broad
UR
Henrico Gov't Ctr
Willow Lawn
Willow Lawn
Westbrook & Crestwood
Forest Hill & Stony Pt.
Maxim Medical
5th & Grace
Minority
New York & Carter
21st & Fairfield
EOL
Fairfield & Kane
Willow Lawn
14th & Bank
8th & Canal
EOL
Millers Lane
Tree House Apts
Percent
Minority
73.3%
End
Broad & 1st
Briel St.
Main & 10th
Willow Lawn
Henrico Gov't Ctr
Dill St.
14th & Bank
Broad & 5th
5th & Grace
Food Lion
Broad & First
Broad & First
Broad & First
Broad & First
Dill St.
Westbrook & Crestwood
Moss Side & Akron
8th & Marshall
Willow Lawn
Brook & Azalea
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
APPENDIX F – TRIENNIAL REVIEW
F-1 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
F-2 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
F-3 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
FINAL REPORT
FY 2010 TRIENNIAL REVIEW
of the
Greater Richmond Transit
Richmond, VA
Recipient ID: 1458
Desk Review:
Site Visit: June 8-9, 2010
June 2010
Prepared for the
Federal Transit Administration
Region III
Philadelphia, PA
by
Interactive Elements, Inc.
F-4 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
Table of Contents
I.
TRIENNIAL REVIEW BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 6
II.
REVIEW PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 6
III.
DESCRIPTION OF THE GRANTEE .............................................................................. 7
IV.
RESULTS OF THE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 11
1.
Legal ............................................................................................................................. 11
2.
Financial........................................................................................................................ 11
3.
Technical ....................................................................................................................... 11
4.
Satisfactory Continuing Control..................................................................................... 12
5.
Maintenance .................................................................................................................. 12
6.
Procurement .................................................................................................................. 13
7.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) .................................................................... 13
8.
Buy America ................................................................................................................. 13
9.
Debarment and Suspension ............................................................................................ 14
10.
Lobbying ....................................................................................................................... 14
11.
Planning/Program of Projects ........................................................................................ 14
12.
Title VI .......................................................................................................................... 15
13.
Fare Increases and Major Service Reductions ................................................................ 15
14.
Half Fare ....................................................................................................................... 15
15.
ADA.............................................................................................................................. 16
16.
Charter Bus ................................................................................................................... 16
17.
School Bus .................................................................................................................... 16
18.
National Transit Database (NTD) .................................................................................. 16
19.
Safety and Security ........................................................................................................ 17
20.
Drug-Free Workplace .................................................................................................... 18
21.
Drug and Alcohol Program ............................................................................................ 18
22.
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) ......................................................................... 18
23.
ITS Architecture ............................................................................................................ 18
24.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) ...................................................... 19
V.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ..................................... 20
VI.
TRANSIT SECURITY EXPENDITURES .................................................................... 22
VII.
ATTENDEES ................................................................................................................ 23
F-5 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
I.
TRIENNIAL REVIEW BACKGROUND
The United States Code, chapter 53 of title 49, requires the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to perform
reviews and evaluations of Urbanized Area Formula Grant activities at least every three years.
This requirement is contained in 49 U.S.C. 5307(i).
(2)
At least once every three years, the Secretary shall review and evaluate
completely the performance of a recipient in carrying out the recipient’s program, specifically
referring to compliance with statutory and administrative requirements and the extent to which
actual program activities are consistent with the activities proposed under subsection (d) of this
section and the planning process required under sections 5303-5306 of this title.
(3)
The Secretary may take appropriate action consistent with the review, audit and
evaluation under this subsection, including making an appropriate adjustment in the amount of a
grant or withdrawing the grant.
The Triennial Review includes a review of the grantee’s compliance in 24 areas. The
basic requirements for each of these areas are summarized below.
This report presents the findings from the Triennial Review of Greater Richmond Transit
Company (GRTC) of Richmond, VA. This review was performed in accordance with FTA
procedures (published in FTA Order 9010.1B, April 5, 1993) and included preliminary reviews
of documents on file at the Region III Office in Philadelphia and on-site discussions and review
of the procedures, practices, and records of GRTC as deemed necessary. The review
concentrated primarily on procedures and practices employed during the past three years;
however, coverage was extended to earlier periods as needed to assess the policies in place and
the management of grants. During the site visit, administrative and statutory requirements were
discussed, documents were reviewed, and facilities were toured. Specific documents examined
during the Triennial Review are available in FTA’s and GRTC’s files.
II.
REVIEW PROCESS
The desk review was conducted in the Region III Office on December 11-12, 2009.
Following the desk review, a review package was sent to GRTC advising it of the site visit and
indicating additional information that would be needed and issues that would be discussed.
The site visit to GRTC occurred on June 8-9, 2010. The individuals participating in the
review are listed in Section VII of this report.
At the entrance conference, the purpose of the Triennial Review and the review process
were discussed. During the site visit, administrative and statutory requirements were discussed
and documents were reviewed. GRTC’s transit facilities were toured and to provide an overview
of activities related to FTA-funded projects. A sample of maintenance records for FTA-funded
vehicles was examined during the site visit.
F-6 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
Upon completion of the review, an exit conference was held with GRTC staff to discuss
findings, corrective actions and schedules. This information is summarized in the table in
Section V of this report. A draft copy of this report was provided to GRTC at the exit
conference.
III.
DESCRIPTION OF THE GRANTEE
The Greater Richmond Transit Company provides public transit service in the Richmond
urbanized area. GRTC is a non-profit corporation owned by the City of Richmond and the
County of Chesterfield. The Richmond City Council and the Chesterfield County Board of
Supervisors elect the GRTC Board of Directors. Henrico County was offered an ownership
position in the past but declined. The Board of GRTC contracts with Professional Transit
Management (PTM) for executive management services. Three staff members, the Chief
Executive Officer, the Operations Manager, and the Chief Operating Officer, are employees of
PTM.
GRTC serves the City of Richmond and portions of Chesterfield and Henrico Counties.
The population of the service area is approximately 450,000. GRTC operates fixed routes with
its own employees and vehicles. The Community Assisted Ride Enterprise (CARE) van service
provides access to public transportation for those members of the community who may need
more specialized assistance when commuting. This paratransit service provides curb-to-curb
service to ADA eligible riders in the City of Richmond, Henrico County, and portions of
Chesterfield County. This service is operated with GRTC employees and equipment.
GRTC operates a network of 42 fixed routes, including commuter express. Service is
provided from 5:00 to 1:00 a.m. seven days a week, including holidays. The base adult fare for
local fixed-route service is $1.25; express routes, $1.75; and route 19 Pemberton, $1.75.
Extended express routes-- 82 Winterpock/95 Petersburg-Richmond - $2.50, and 96 RichmondFredericksburg Express, $ 6.00. A reduced fare of 50 cents for regular fixed routes is offered to
elderly and disabled persons and Medicare cardholders during all hours. The ADA paratransit
fare is $2.25. A book of six tickets for CARE service is sold for $13.50.
GRTC also has a smart card system known as Go Card. The fare for the Go Card is
equivalent to the cash fare for a one-way ride. Go Cards are available for $5.00, $10.00 and
$25.00. The commuter express fare is $1.75.
GRTC operates 170 vehicles in its fixed-route fleet. The current peak requirement is 134.
The following information was provided in the GRTC 2009 NTD Report.
Unlinked Passengers
Revenue Hours
Operating Expenses
F-7 | P a g e
Fixed-Route Service
13,216,816
457,908
46,870,142
Paratransit Service
40,427
118,383
6,370,142
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
Over the past three years GRTC completed the following noteworthy accomplishments:
New Administration and Operations Facility Project completion – GRTC Transit System broke
ground on this construction project on January 27, 2008. Located on Richmond’s Southside,
the new facility is 126,000 square feet in area and contains two separate buildings connected by a
second floor bridge. It incorporates transportation and administration, bus maintenance, service
and inspection lanes, bus storage, and various support activities. The new facility utilizes the U.
S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
concept. GRTC is pursuing a silver LEED certification. Construction of the buildings was
completed on January 29, 2010.
Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) 2007 - GRTC complete its COA in March 2008.
This analysis reviewed and recommended ways of making the company’s transit services more
effective and efficient. The end result was a principal tool for the strategic planning and
operation of GRTC’s public transportation services in the region for the following five years.
The final report presents a unique mix of both visionary and pragmatic operational
improvements. Three key improvements were recommended: a Bus Rapid Transit corridor, the
incorporation of a transfer center concept in the downtown Richmond area, and the introduction
of new route and schedule communication tools.
Computer Aided Dispatch and Automatic Vehicle Locator (CAD/AVL) – This project provided
the tools needed to better manage mobile radio communications with the vehicles and allowed
GRTC to be 100% compliant with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to
automated stop announcements.
The following is a discussion of GRTC’s ongoing projects.
New route and schedule communications tool – In 2008 GRTC embarked upon a project to
improve communications at bus stops. Working with CHK America, a plan was developed to
place information kiosks at 17 bus stops (Tier 1) and solar-powered, illuminated informational
signs at 75 bus stops (Tier 2).
Nine of the four-sided Tier 1 kiosks will have schedule information, a "spider" route map, a
neighborhood map, and a real-time electronic sign with information on bus arrivals at the
stop. The remaining Tier 1 signs will substitute a system map for the electronic sign. A
prototype of this kiosk has been in operation since December 2009.
The Tier 2 signs will be located at bus stops served by two or more routes. These signs will have
both route and schedule information. Following the installation of the Tier 2 signs, the
remaining Tier 3 stops will be updated with signs indicating the route served by the stops.
The Tier 1 and Tier 2 signs are planned to be installed out in 2011.
F-8 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
Bus Replacement Program – From FY08-FY10, 63 city buses have reached the end of their
useful life during the first three years of GRTC’s bus replacement cycle. During that same time
period, GRTC has used a combination of annual 5307 funding, 5309 earmarks, federal
transportation funds (CMAQ/STP) and federal ARRA funds to purchase 39 replacement buses.
Eight of the 39 vehicles are newly introduced mini buses. These smaller vehicles have a 10 year
useful life, seat 24 passengers and are in keeping with the company’s decision to diversify its
vehicle fleet with smaller, more community-friendly buses.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Detailed planning activities for this project began during the 2009
fiscal year (late summer of 2009). Work to conduct an Alternatives Analysis (AA) has been
initiated. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) and GRTC
partnered to conduct the AA, which seeks to determine the best alternative for improving transit
operations along the Broad Street/Main Street corridor, from Willow Lawn on its western end to
Rockets Landing on its eastern end. The BRT is one of the three key visionary improvements
recommended in the 2007 Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA).
Transfer Center – GRTC continues to work with the City of Richmond and the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation on a centralized transfer center in downtown
Richmond.
To that end, the NEPA process was recently undertaken for a transfer center at historic Main
Street Station (MSS). In accordance with NEPA guidelines, GRTC worked with the City and the
pubic to fully examine the viability of a centralized transfer center on the second floor of the
building’s train shed.
As more information about the project – including feasibility studies and concept drawings – was
made available to community, concerns were raised about the viability of the proposed project.
These concerns were expressed at the public information meetings as well as in the form of
written comments both to GRTC and the FTA. Additionally, a sudden new emphasis on rail
passenger service and possible expanded use of Main Street Station for that purpose caused the
City of Richmond to question the ability of MSS to function as a location for the significantly
increased activity caused by both initiatives. And local awareness of the historic significance of
a nearby archeological site grew as more was learned about Lumpkins Jail – a slave trading site –
and possible nearby slave burial grounds. Together, community concerns coupled with the
possible opportunities to expand passenger rail service and the significance of recently
discovered archeological resources in the immediate area of the train shed have caused the City
to pull back its support for a transfer center at Main Street Station.
GRTC and the City are now studying the feasibility of constructing a transfer center at a new
location in the heart of the City’s central business district. The new location at the corner of 7th
F-9 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
Street and Franklin Street is ideally situated to function as both a centralized transfer center and
destination for the majority of GRTC’s riders who need to get downtown on their typical daily
commute.
ARRA Projects
GRTC’s ARRA-funded projects underway are:
1. ADA, Project Admin., Security ($1,619,000 Section 5307):
 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-$1,245,399: Non-Fixed Route ADA Paratransit
Service – GRTC intends to use these funds towards the operating cost of providing ADA
complementary paratransit service in accordance with FTA’s current ADA
Complementary Service policy as detailed in FTA Circular 9030.1C.III.4.d. This line item
falls within GRTC’s 10% maximum annual expenditure for ADA Complementary
Paratransit Service in FY 2009.
 Project Administration-$249,080: GRTC intends to use these funds in accordance with
FTA regulations that state that project administration costs are eligible for FTA capital
assistance.
 Security-$124,540: GRTC intends to use these funds to purchase surveillance cameras for
the company’s specialized transportation fleet.
2. Downtown Transit Center-Long term preliminary activities leading to construction of a
downtown transit center ($300,000 Section 5307): These funds will be used to complete all
required National Environmental Policy Act work tasks associated with the planning of a
multimodal transportation center at Main Street Station in downtown Richmond.
3. Purchase 38 Replacement Paratransit Vans ($2,000,000 Section 5307): These funds will be
used to replace vans that are beyond the FTA useful life criteria guidelines.
4. Transit Enhancements ($124,540 Section 5307): These funds will be used to implement an
enhanced bus stop signage project.
5. Purchase 11 40-ft replacement transit buses ($3,610,436 Section 5307): These funds will be
used to replace buses that are beyond the FTA useful life criteria guidelines.
6. Preventive Maintenance ($4,800,000 Section 5307): Will be applied toward eligible
preventive maintenance expenses.
F-10 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
IV.
RESULTS OF THE REVIEW
The Triennial Review focused on GRTC compliance in 24 areas. This section provides a
discussion of the basic requirements and findings in each area. No deficiencies were found with
the FTA requirements in 20 of the 24 areas. Deficiencies were found in Technical, Satisfactory
Continuing Control, Maintenance, and the Half Fare program. Prior to the exit conference,
GRTC posted clarifying language for the Half-Fare program on its website and assurance to FTA
that all public information where fares are discussed will be changed in the next reprinting/
republishing to include language that clarifies the Half-Fare program for Medicare cardholders.
Based on documentation provided by GRTC prior to the final report, findings in the Technical
and Satisfactory Continuing Control areas have been closed.
1.
Legal
Basic Requirement: The grantee must be eligible and authorized under state and local
law to request, receive, and dispense FTA funds and to execute and administer FTA funded
projects. The authority to take all necessary action and responsibility on behalf of the grantee
must be properly delegated and executed.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for legal.
2.
Financial
Basic Requirement: The grantee must demonstrate the ability to match and manage FTA
grant funds, cover cost increases and operating deficits, financially maintain and operate FTA
funded facilities and equipment, and conduct and respond to applicable audits.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for financial.
3.
Technical
Basic Requirement: The grantee must be able to implement the FTA-funded projects in
accordance with the grant application, Master Agreement, and all applicable laws and
regulations, using sound management practices.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, deficiencies were found with the FTA
requirements for technical.
F-11 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
GRTC does not have a force account plan for vehicle preventive maintenance performed
by in-house staff that exceeds $100,000 in a grant. Guidance provided by FTA in FTA Circular
5010.1D defines force account to include major capital project work on rolling stock such as
preventive maintenance activities. GRTC provided a force account plan and justification for the
preventive maintenance workforce to the FTA Region III staff before the final report that
satisfies the FTA requirements in FTA C 5010.1D. This finding is closed.
4.
Satisfactory Continuing Control
Basic Requirement: The grantee must maintain control over real property, facilities, and
equipment and ensure that they are used in transit service.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, deficiencies were found with the FTA
requirements for satisfactory continuing control. A review of the NTD motorbus category and
discussions with GRTC staff found that GRTC has 170 revenue vehicles. The number of
vehicles required for maximum service is 134 leaving 36 spare vehicles. The actual spare ratio is
26 percent exceeding FTA of 20 percent spare ratio for bus fleets of 50 or more revenue vehicles.
Due to the economic down turn, GRTC has reduced service over the past year contributing to the
growth in spare ratio. GRTC is in the process of replacing older vehicles with “right sized”
vehicles and this will reduce some of the spares. Further actions will be necessary to reduce the
size of the active fleet and come within the FTA 20 percent requirement. One option that GRTC
is considering is the establishment of a contingency fleet. Prior to the issuance of the final
report, GRTC provided a “Bus Fleet Contingency Plan” to the FTA Region III staff that meets
FTA standards and thereby reduced the active fleet to within the FTA required 20 percent spare
ratio. This finding is now closed.
5.
Maintenance
Basic Requirement: Grantees and their subrecipients must keep Federally funded
equipment and facilities in good operating order and maintain ADA accessibility features.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, deficiencies were found with the FTA
requirements for maintenance.
During the site visit, 33 Preventive Maintenance Inspection records for the paratransit
vehicles located at the Commerce Road facility were examined. Of those, 11 of the PMIs were
late and 22 or 67 percent were on time. FTA requires that PM inspections on time performance
to be at least 80 percent. It should be noted that discussions with the staff indicated they have
recently hired and trained two new mechanics to work at the Commerce Road facility. Also, the
preventive maintenance for some fixed route fleet that was being performed at the Commerce
Road facility has now been move to the new East Belt Blvd. Facility. A review of the
F-12 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
maintenance records for the fixed fleet found that almost 83 percent are being performed on
time.
Corrective Action(s) and Schedule: Beginning August 8, 2010, GRTC must report to
FTA Region III staff each month for three months or for each paratransit vehicle by vehicle
number the total number of PMIs performed, the number that were performed late and the
number performed on time to demonstrate that it has conducted at least 80 percent of its
preventive maintenance on time for this period for the paratransit vehicles.
6.
Procurement
Basic Requirement: FTA grantees use their own procurement procedures that reflect
applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the process ensures competitive
procurement and the procedures conform to applicable Federal law, including 49 CFR Part 18
(specifically Section 18.36) and FTA Circular 4220.1F, “Third Party Contracting Guidance.”
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for procurement.
7.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
Basic Requirement: The grantee must comply with 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure
nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Grantees also
must create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with
USDOT requirements for DBE.
8.
Buy America
Basic Requirement: Federal funds may not be obligated unless steel, iron, and
manufactured products used in FTA funded projects are produced in the United States. The only
exceptions are if FTA has granted a waiver or if the product is subject to a general waiver.
Rolling stock must have sixty percent domestic content. Also, final assembly of rolling stock
must take place in the United States and grantees must conduct a pre-award and post-delivery
audit for purchases of rolling stock in order to verify that the 60 percent domestic content and
final assembly requirements were met.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for Buy America.
F-13 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
9.
Debarment and Suspension
Basic Requirement: To protect the public interest from and prevent fraud, waste, and
abuse in Federal transactions, persons or entities, which by defined events or behavior, that
potentially threaten the integrity of Federally administered non-procurement programs, are
excluded from participating in FTA assisted programs.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for debarment and suspension.
10.
Lobbying
Basic Requirement: Recipients of Federal grants and contracts exceeding $100,000 must
certify compliance with Restrictions on Lobbying before they can receive funds.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for lobbying.
11.
Planning/Program of Projects
Basic Requirement: The grantee must participate in the transportation planning process
in accordance with FTA requirements, SAFETEA-LU, and the metropolitan and statewide
planning regulations.
Grantees must develop and/or participate in a locally developed, coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plan that identifies the transportation needs of individuals
with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes, provides strategies for meeting those
local needs, and prioritizes transportation services for funding and implementation.
Each recipient of a Section 5307 grant shall have complied with the public participation
requirements of Section 5307(c)(1) through (7). Each grantee is required to develop, publish,
afford an opportunity for a public hearing on, and submit for approval a Program of Projects
(POP).
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for planning/POP.
F-14 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
12.
Title VI
Basic Requirement: The grantee must ensure that no person in the United States shall, on the
grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participating in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance. The grantee must ensure that Federally supported transit services and related
benefits are distributed in an equitable manner.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for Title VI.
13.
Fare Increases and Major Service Reductions
Basic Requirement: Section 5307 grantees are expected to have a written locally
developed process for soliciting and considering public comment before raising a fare or
carrying out a major transportation service reduction.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for fare increases and service reductions.
14.
Half Fare
Basic Requirement: During non-peak hours for fixed route service supported with
Section 5307 assistance, fares charged elderly persons, persons with disabilities or an individual
presenting a Medicare card will not be more than half the peak hour fare.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, deficiencies were found with the FTA
requirements for half fare.
A review of the public information for half fare found that the half fare to Medicare
cardholders was confusing and could be interpreted as being for elderly Medicare cardholders.
Although it is not necessary for grantees to have a separate fare category for Medicare
cardholders, the public information should be clear that Medicare cards are accepted as proof of
eligibility for the half fare program including for persons who are not elderly. Prior to the exit
conference, GRTC changed the information on their web site to clarify that the elderly, persons
with disabilities and Medicare cardholders are eligible for the half fare. They also provided
sample language clarifying Medicare cardholders as eligible for the half fare that will be
included in the next printing of all public information where GRTC fare information is provided.
This finding is now closed.
F-15 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
15.
ADA
Basic Requirement: Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
provide that no entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with
the provision of transportation service. The law sets forth specific requirements for vehicle and
facility accessibility and the provision of service, including complementary paratransit service.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for ADA.
16.
Charter Bus
Basic Requirement: FTA grantees are prohibited from using Federally funded equipment
and facilities to provide charter service if a registered private charter operator expresses interest
in providing the service. Grantees are allowed to operate community based charter services
excepted under the regulations.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for charter bus.
17.
School Bus
Basic Requirement: Grantees are prohibited from providing exclusive school bus service
unless the service qualifies and is approved by the FTA Administrator under an allowable
exemption. Federally funded equipment or facilities cannot be used to provide exclusive school
bus service. School tripper service that operates and looks like all other regular service is
allowed.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for school bus.
18.
National Transit Database (NTD)
Basic Requirement: Grantees that receive 5307 and 5311 grant funds must collect,
record, and report financial and non-financial data in accordance with the Uniform System of
Accounts (USOA) and the National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting Manual as required by
49 USC 5335(a).
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for National Transit Database.
F-16 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
19.
Safety and Security
Basic Requirement: Any recipient of Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program funds
must annually certify that it is spending at least one percent of such funds for transit security
projects or that such expenditures for security systems are not necessary.
Under the safety authority provisions of the Federal transit laws, the Secretary has the
authority to investigate the operations of the grantee for any conditions that appear to create a
serious hazard of death or injury, especially to patrons of the transit service. States are required
to oversee the safety of rail fixed guideway systems through a designated oversight agency, per
49 CFR Part 659, Rail Fixed Guideway Systems, State Safety Oversight. FTA has developed
web sites for Bus Safety and Rail Safety. These sites include helpful tools, such as resources,
self-assessments, and forums.
Under security, a list of 17 Security and Emergency Management Action Items has been
developed by FTA and the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). This list of 17 items, an update to the original FTA Top 20 security action
items list, was developed in consultation with the public transportation industry through the Mass
Transit Sector Coordinating Council, for which the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA) serves as Executive Chair. Security and Emergency Management Action Items for
Transit Agencies aim to elevate security readiness throughout the public transportation industry
by establishing baseline measures that transit agencies should employ. Additionally, FTA has
developed an extensive website for transit security.
The goal of FTA’s Safety and Security Program is to achieve the highest practical level
of safety and security in all modes of transit. To this end, FTA continuously promotes the
awareness of safety and security throughout the transit community by establishing programs to
collect and disseminate information on safety/security concepts and practices. In addition, FTA
develops guidelines that transit systems can apply in the design of their procedures and by which
to compare local actions. Many of the questions in this review area are designed to determine
what efforts grantees have made to develop and implement safety, security, and emergency
management plans. While there may not be specific requirements associated with all of the
questions, grantees are encouraged to implement the plans, procedures, and programs referenced
in these questions. For this reason, findings in this area will most often result in advisory
comments rather than deficiencies.
Findings: A summary of GRTC’s expenditures of Section 5307 funds for security
projects is provided in Section VI of this report.
F-17 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
20.
Drug-Free Workplace
Basic Requirement: FTA grantees are required to maintain a drug-free workplace for all
employees and to have an ongoing drug-free awareness program.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for drug-free workplace.
21.
Drug and Alcohol Program
Basic Requirement: Grantees receiving Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section
5307), Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5311), or Capital Investment Program
(Section 5309) funds must have a drug and alcohol testing program in place for all safetysensitive employees.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for the drug and alcohol program.
22.
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
Basic Requirement: The grantee must ensure that no person in the United States shall on
the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability be excluded from
participating in, or denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination in employment under
any project, program, or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Federal transit
laws. (Note: EEOC’s regulation only identifies/recognizes religion and not creed as one of the
protected groups.)
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for EEO.
23.
ITS Architecture
Basic Requirement: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects funded by the
Highway Trust Fund and the Mass Transit Account must conform to the National ITS
Architecture, as well as to United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) adopted ITS
Standards.
Findings: During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the
FTA requirements for ITS architecture.
F-18 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
24.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Basic Requirement: Grantees must have the legal, financial and technical capacity to
carry out the proposed program of projects and meet the additional reporting requirements for its
ARRA-funded grant activities.
Findings: GRTC has one active ARRA grant. Projects funded by that grants are:
1. ADA, Project Admin., Security ($1,619,000 Section 5307):
 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-$1,245,399: Non-Fixed Route ADA Paratransit
Service – GRTC intends to use these funds towards the operating cost of providing ADA
complementary paratransit service in accordance with FTA’s current ADA
Complementary Service policy as detailed in FTA Circular 9030.1C.III.4.d. This line item
falls within GRTC’s 10% maximum annual expenditure for ADA Complementary
Paratransit Service in FY 2009.
 Project Administration-$249,080: GRTC intends to use these funds in accordance with
FTA regulations that state that project administration costs are eligible for FTA capital
assistance.
 Security-$124,540: GRTC intends to use these funds to purchase surveillance cameras for
the company’s specialized transportation fleet.
2. Downtown Transit Center-Long term preliminary activities leading to construction of a
downtown transit center ($300,000 Section 5307): These funds will be used to complete all
required National Environmental Policy Act work tasks associated with the planning of a
multimodal transportation center at Main Street Station in downtown Richmond.
3. Purchase 38 Replacement Paratransit Vans ($2,000,000 Section 5307): These funds will be
used to replace vans that are beyond the FTA useful life criteria guidelines.
4. Transit Enhancements ($124,540 Section 5307): These funds will be used to implement an
enhanced bus stop signage project.
5. Purchase 11 40-ft replacement transit buses ($3,610,436 Section 5307): These funds will be
used to replace buses that are beyond the FTA useful life criteria guidelines.
6. Preventive Maintenance ($4,800,000 Section 5307): Will be applied toward eligible
preventive maintenance expenses.
During this Triennial Review of GRTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA
requirements for ARRA.
F-19 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Review Area
Finding
Deficiency
Corrective Action
Response
Date
Date
Closed
1.
Legal
ND
2.
Financial
ND
3.
Technical
D
06 – Lacking
force account
plan/justification
Submit to FTA Region III a force
account plan and justification as
detailed in FTA C 5010.1D for
GRTC use of its own workforce
on capital improvement projects.
Closed
6/24/2010
4.
Satisfactory
Continuing
Control
D
08 – Excessive
fixed route bus
spare ratio
Submit a plan for coming into
compliance. Plan could dispose
of equipment and establish a
contingency fleet. Plan should be
implemented within 90 days after
submission to FTA.
Closed
6/18/2010
5.
Maintenance
D
04 – Late vehicle
preventive
maintenance
Report on PMI each month for
three months to demonstrate that
it has conducted at least 80
percent
of
its
preventive
maintenance on time for this
period on its paratransit vehicles.
Aug, 8, 2010
6.
Procurement
ND
7.
Disadvantaged
Business
Enterprise
ND
8.
Buy America
ND
9.
Debarment
Suspension
06 – Information
incomplete
for
Medicare
cardholders
Make
complete
information
available on half fare where fare
information is presented. Half
fare information must be included
for elderly persons, persons with
disabilities
and
Medicare
cardholders. GRTC provided a
sample text and assurance that the
changes will be made in the next
reprinting of fare information.
The text was changed on the web.
This finding is now closed.
Closed
and
ND
10. Lobbying
ND
11. Planning/POP
ND
12. Title VI
ND
13. Fare
Increases
and
Service
Reductions
14. Half Fare
ND
15. ADA
ND
F-20 | P a g e
D
6/9/2010
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
Review Area
Finding
16. Charter Bus
ND
17. School Bus
ND
18. National Transit
Database
ND
19. Safety
Security
ND
and
20. Drug-Free
Workplace
ND
21. Drug
and
Alcohol Program
ND
22. Equal
Employment
Opportunity
ND
23. ITS Architecture
ND
24. ARRA
ND
Deficiency
Corrective Action
Response
Date
Date
Closed
Findings: ND = No Deficiencies; D = Deficient; AC = Advisory Comment; NA = Not Applicable
F-21 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
VI.
TRANSIT SECURITY EXPENDITURES
Does the grantee expend one percent or more of its Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grant funds
for transit security?
FY2007:
Yes
Noh
FY2008:
FY2009:
Yes
Yes
Noh
Noh
If no, why does the grantee consider such expenditure unnecessary (check all that apply):
No deficiency found from a threat and vulnerability assessment
TSA/FTA Security and Emergency Management Action Items met or exceeded
Other (please describe):
FTA Section 5307 Funds
Security Funding
FY 2007
Total amount of 5307 Funds expended
FY 2008
FY 2009
$7,928,522
$8,819,427
$2,658,747
Amount of 5307 Funds expended on
security
$79,285
$88,194
$93,871
Percent of 5307 Funds expended on
security
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
Infrastructure/Capital Improvement Security Projects:
Lighting, Fencing, and Perimeter Control
CCTV and Surveillance Technology
$88,194
Communications Systems
Security Planning*
Drills & Tabletop Exercises*
Employee Security Training*
Other Security-Related Infrastructure and
Capital Improvements (please list):
2007 bustop Improvements
2009 Support Vehicles
$79,285
$93,871
Operating/Personnel Expenditures (can be used only by agencies in areas with populations
UNDER 200,000):
Contracted Security Force
In-house Security Force
F-22 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix F –Triennial Review
ATTENDEES
NAME
Grantee
Scot Clark
Henry Davis
Corina Herrera
Eldridge Coles
Larry Hagin
David Green
Charlie Mitchell
Marvin Green
Jameson T. Auten
Gerald Brink
Paul Kotula
Kim Ackerman
Buddy Scherer
Sheryl Adams
FTA
Karen Roscher
Reviewer
Kay Luongo
F-23 | P a g e
Title/Organization
PHONE
NUMBER
E-mail Address
Transit Analyst
Assistant Director of Finance
Planning Manager
Chief Operations Officer
Planning Director
Procurement Director
Operations Manager
Operations
Manager
Paratransit
Director
Special
Transportation
Director of Maintenance
Director IT
HR Director
Special Projects Director
Risk Management Director
804-474-9913
804-474-9375
804-474-9340
804-474-9331
804-474-9345
804-474-9366
804-474-9310
804-474-9926
sclark@ridegrtc.com
sdavis@ridegrtc.com
cherrera@ridegrtc.com
Ecoles@ridegrtc.com
Lhagin@ridegrtc.com
dgreen@ridegrtc.com
cmitchell@ridegrtc.com
mgreen@ridegrtc.com
804-474-9385
jauten@ridegrtc.com
804-474-9333
804-358-3871
804-358-3871
804-358-3871
804-358-3871
gbrink@ridegrtc.com
pkotula@ridegrtc.com
kackerman@ridegrtc.com
bscherer@ridegrtc.com
sadams@ridegrtc.com
Project Manager
215-656-7100
Karen.Roscher@dot.gov
Reviewer
239-961-9680
kxl@ieitransit.com
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
APPENDIX G: 6-YEAR TDP - YEAR OF EXPENDITURE OPERATING STATISTICS
G-1 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 1: FY 2011 WEEKDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT & NO BRT SCENARIO
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
6
7
10
11
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
45
56
62
63
70
71
72
73
74
91
93
101
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Robinson
Robinson
Broad/Main
Seven Pines/Nine Mile
Riverview
Laurel
Grove
Henrico Gov't Center
Pemberton
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Laburnum
Hull street
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ruffin Road
Ampthill
Oak Grove
Laburnum Connector
Azalea Connector
Belt Boulevard Connector
Base
Period
30
25
27
21
10
15
28
33
60
60
n/a
n/a
45
20
18
23
25
n/a
30
31
40
42
55
30
30
60
n/a
28
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening
Peak
Peak
Period
25
25
50
20
20
45
18
18
60
20
20
60
10
10
30
20
30
n/a
30
30
30
33
50
n/a
18
16
n/a
55
55
n/a
34
30
n/a
49
48
n/a
30
30
60
8
8
30
10
10
32
15
15
30
25
25
25
240
240
n/a
15
15
21
18
18
30
35
35
70
30
30
n/a
60
60
n/a
21
21
60
30
30
30
55
55
n/a
28
28
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Late
Period
120
60
120
120
120
n/a
30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
30
30
30
25
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
30
n/a
n/a
n/a
21
23
26
27
28
29
64
66
67
81
82
95
Mechanicsville Express
Glenside/Parham Express
Parham Express
Glenside Express
White Oaks Village
Gaskins Express
Stony Point Express
Spring Rock Green Express
Chippenham
Chesterfield Express
Commonwealth 20 Swift Creek
Richmond/Petersburg
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
180
90
n/a
35
38
90
27
30
60
75
60
30
30
90
90
34
37
90
26
30
60
90
75
25
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
86
87
89
VCU Campus Connector
VCU Medical Center
VCU Gateway Express
VCU Medical Center Evenining
20
8
10
n/a
15
8
6
n/a
15
8
6
n/a
n/a
8
12
17
n/a
n/a
30
19
FY2011 Total
G-2 | P a g e
Daily
Trips
65
80
78
81
165
78
74
40
55
26
23
15
52
150
135
103
86
4
103
85
47
41
25
70
72
26
26
26
1831.0
8
2
21
19
4
27
24
12
9
11
13
30
180.0
84
255
246
41
626.0
2,637.0
Distance
(Miles)
8.18
10.77
7.25
7.76
7.13
9.51
4.01
2.69
6.77
6.58
8.71
7.44
6.33
5.15
3.98
5.24
3.73
12.73
6.95
6.81
9.78
8.67
7.29
7.02
6.41
12.88
4.21
2.39
12.97
13.00
11.16
8.31
7.20
13.01
8.37
7.90
7.19
13.31
19.77
20.29
1.96
0.85
0.76
1.63
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
49.8
532.0
74.7
862.0
61.0
565.5
67.2
628.3
127.1
1175.9
54.5
742.0
34.4
297.1
11.0
107.5
31.8
372.1
12.3
171.0
15.2
200.4
8.7
111.5
33.3
329.1
75.6
772.3
60.8
537.6
64.9
539.8
37.6
320.8
2.8
50.9
67.8
716.1
54.6
578.9
29.9
459.9
27.7
355.6
12.5
182.3
34.3
491.3
46.2
461.8
23.8
335.0
7.7
109.4
5.4
62.2
1132.4
12068.5
3.7
103.8
1.2
26.0
9.6
234.4
7.7
157.9
1.5
28.8
13.7
351.2
10.9
200.9
5.7
94.8
4.8
64.7
7.4
146.4
9.7
257.0
16.5
608.7
92.4
2274.7
24.6
164.9
29.6
216.1
28.6
186.1
10.2
66.8
93.1
633.9
1,317.8
14,977.0
Peak
Buses
4.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
9.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
1.00
6.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
96.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
32.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
9.00
137.00
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 2: FY2011 SATURDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT & NO BRT SCENARIO
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Robinson
Robinson
Broad/Main
Riverview
Laurel
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Hull street
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ampthill
Oak Grove
Base
Period
30
120
30
30
30
30
n/a
n/a
48
24
21
33
30
46
70
70
56
30
33
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
6
10
11
22
24
32
34
37
45
62
63
70
71
73
74
FY2011 Saturday Total
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
6
10
22
24
32
34
37
45
62
63
70
71
73
74
84
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Period
Period
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
15
15
Late
Period
70
120
88
88
70
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
30
35
26
60
85
70
n/a
63
60
n/a
Daily
Trips
60
19
58
58
60
60
8
12
30
88
97
68
80
45
31
33
26
61
58
952
84
84
1,036.0
Distance
(Miles)
7.95
10.17
7.63
7.77
8.71
3.81
2.69
7.42
5.38
5.08
3.97
5.32
3.61
6.61
9.25
8.36
7.45
7.21
6.49
1.96
Average Saturday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
46.8
476.7
16.0
193.2
43.4
442.4
48.5
450.8
49.2
522.5
24.6
228.9
2.1
21.5
6.2
89.1
15.1
161.5
46.2
447.0
40.6
384.7
37.3
362.0
34.9
289.1
25.5
297.3
21.5
286.7
17.3
275.9
13.2
193.7
30.8
439.8
30.3
376.5
549.6
5939.3
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
574.2
6,104.2
TABLE 3:FY2011 SUNDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT & NO BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Average Sunday
Base
Daily Distance
Rev.
Rev.
Late
Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
Hrs.
Miles
Monument
34
65
60
7.9
46.8
476.7
Patterson
120
120
19
10.2
16.0
193.2
Robinson
45
75
46
7.4
32.5
339.4
Robinson
46
90
44
7.8
32.8
341.8
Broad/Main
30
60
68
8.8
50.9
601.0
Riverview
30
n/a
60
3.8
24.6
228.9
Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.4
6.2
89.1
Crestwood/Westbrook
60
n/a
30
5.4
15.1
161.5
Ginter Park
28
28
81
5.1
38.4
411.3
Highland Park
24
24
95
4.0
36.6
376.7
Chamberlayne
33
36
68
5.2
34.3
353.5
Jefferson
28
30
80
3.7
36.2
298.1
Hull street
57
57
40
6.0
19.4
240.6
Midlothian
65
65
35
5.3
18.0
187.0
Forest Hill
70
70
33
8.6
16.7
283.1
Forest Hill
70
n/a
26
7.7
13.1
199.5
Ampthill
34
60
61
7.2
30.8
439.8
Oak Grove
36
60
58
6.5
29.5
376.5
916.0
497.9
5597.6
VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
2.0
24.6
164.9
84.0
24.6
164.9
FY2011 Sunday Total
1,000.0
522.5
5,762.5
G-3 | P a g e
Peak
Buses
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
38.00
2.00
2.00
40.00
Peak
Buses
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
31.00
2.00
2.00
33.00
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 4: FY2012 & FY2013 WEEKDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT & NO BRT SCENARIO
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
6
7
10
11
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
45
56
62
63
70
71
72
73
74
91
93
101
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Robinson
Robinson
Broad/Main
Seven Pines/Nine Mile
Riverview
Laurel
Grove
Henrico Gov't Center
Pemberton
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Laburnum
Hull street
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ruffin Road
Ampthill
Oak Grove
Laburnum Connector
Azalea Connector
Belt Boulevard Connector
Base
Period
30
25
27
21
10
15
28
33
60
60
n/a
n/a
45
20
18
23
25
n/a
30
31
40
42
55
30
30
60
n/a
28
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening Early/Late
Peak
Peak
Period
Period
25
25
50
120
20
20
45
60
18
18
60
120
20
20
60
120
10
10
30
120
20
30
n/a
n/a
30
30
30
30
33
50
n/a
n/a
18
16
n/a
n/a
55
55
n/a
n/a
34
30
n/a
n/a
49
48
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
60
8
8
30
30
10
10
32
30
15
15
30
30
25
25
25
25
240
240
n/a
n/a
15
15
21
60
18
18
30
60
35
35
70
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
21
21
60
60
30
30
30
30
55
55
n/a
n/a
28
28
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21
23
26
27
28
29
64
66
67
81
82
95
Mechanicsville Express
Glenside/Parham Express
Parham Express
Glenside Express
White Oaks Village
Gaskins Express
Stony Point Express
Spring Rock Green Express
Chippenham
Chesterfield Express
Commonwealth 20 Swift Creek
Richmond/Petersburg
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
180
90
n/a
35
38
90
27
30
60
75
60
30
30
90
90
34
37
90
26
30
60
90
75
25
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
86
87
VCU Campus Connector
VCU Medical Center
VCU Gateway Express
20
8
10
15
8
6
15
8
6
n/a
8
12
n/a
n/a
30
FY 2012 Weekday Total
G-4 | P a g e
Daily
Trips
65
80
78
81
165
78
74
40
55
26
23
15
52
150
135
103
86
4
103
85
47
41
25
70
72
26
26
26
1831
8
2
21
19
4
27
24
12
9
11
13
30
180
84
255
246
585
2,596
Distance
(Miles)
8.18
10.77
7.25
7.76
7.13
9.51
4.01
2.69
6.77
6.58
8.71
7.44
6.33
5.15
3.98
5.24
3.73
12.73
6.95
6.81
9.78
8.67
7.29
7.02
6.41
12.88
4.21
2.39
12.97
13.00
11.16
8.31
7.20
13.01
8.37
7.90
7.19
13.31
19.77
20.29
1.96
0.85
0.76
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
49.8
532.0
74.7
862.0
61.0
565.5
67.2
628.3
127.1
1175.9
54.5
742.0
34.4
297.1
11.0
107.5
31.8
372.1
12.3
171.0
15.2
200.4
8.7
111.5
33.3
329.1
75.6
772.3
60.8
537.6
64.9
539.8
37.6
320.8
2.8
50.9
67.8
716.1
54.6
578.9
29.9
459.9
27.7
355.6
12.5
182.3
34.3
491.3
46.2
461.8
23.8
335.0
7.7
109.4
5.4
62.2
1132.4
12068.5
3.7
103.8
1.2
26.0
9.6
234.4
7.7
157.9
1.5
28.8
13.7
351.2
10.9
200.9
5.7
94.8
4.8
64.7
7.4
146.4
9.7
257.0
16.5
608.7
92.4
2,274.7
24.6
164.9
29.6
216.1
28.6
186.1
82.8
567.1
1,307.6
14,910.3
Peak
Buses
4.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
9.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
1.00
6.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
96.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
32.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
7.00
135.00
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 5: FY2012 & FY2013 SATURDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT & NO BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Average Saturday
Base
Daily Distance
Rev.
Rev.
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
Hrs.
Miles
1
Monument
30
70
60
7.95
46.8
476.7
2
Patterson
120
120
19
10.17
16.0
193.2
3
Robinson
30
88
58
7.63
43.4
442.4
4
Robinson
30
88
58
7.77
48.5
450.8
6
Broad/Main
30
70
60
8.71
49.2
522.5
10 Riverview
30
70
60
3.81
24.6
228.9
11 Laurel
n/a
n/a
8
2.69
2.1
21.5
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.42
6.2
89.1
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
48
n/a
30
5.38
15.1
161.5
32 Ginter Park
24
30
88
5.08
46.2
447.0
34 Highland Park
21
30
97
3.97
40.6
384.7
37 Chamberlayne
33
35
68
5.32
37.3
362.0
45 Jefferson
30
26
80
3.61
34.9
289.1
62 Hull street
46
60
45
6.61
25.5
297.3
63 Midlothian
70
85
31
9.25
21.5
286.7
70 Forest Hill
70
70
33
8.36
17.3
275.9
71 Forest Hill
56
n/a
26
7.45
13.2
193.7
73 Ampthill
30
63
61
7.21
30.8
439.8
74 Oak Grove
33
60
58
6.49
30.3
376.5
952
549.6
5,939.3
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
24.6
164.9
84
24.6
164.9
FY 2012 Saturday Total
1,036.0
574.2
6,104.2
Peak
Buses
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
38.00
2.00
2.00
40.00
TABLE 6:FY2012 & FY2013 SUNDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT & NO BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Average Sunday
Base
Daily Distance
Rev.
Rev.
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
Hrs.
Miles
1
Monument
34
65
60
7.9
46.8
476.7
2
Patterson
120
120
19
10.2
16.0
193.2
3
Robinson
45
75
46
7.4
32.5
339.4
4
Robinson
46
90
44
7.8
32.8
341.8
6
Broad/Main
30
60
68
8.8
50.9
601.0
10 Riverview
30
n/a
60
3.8
24.6
228.9
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.4
6.2
89.1
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
60
n/a
30
5.4
15.1
161.5
32 Ginter Park
28
28
81
5.1
38.4
411.3
34 Highland Park
24
24
95
4.0
36.6
376.7
37 Chamberlayne
33
36
68
5.2
34.3
353.5
45 Jefferson
28
30
80
3.7
36.2
298.1
62 Hull street
57
57
40
6.0
19.4
240.6
63 Midlothian
65
65
35
5.3
18.0
187.0
70 Forest Hill
70
70
33
8.6
16.7
283.1
71 Forest Hill
70
n/a
26
7.7
13.1
199.5
73 Ampthill
34
60
61
7.2
30.8
439.8
74 Oak Grove
36
60
58
6.5
29.5
376.5
916
497.9
5,597.6
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
24.6
164.9
84
24.6
164.9
FY2012 Sunday Total
1,000.0
522.5
5,762.5
Peak
Buses
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
31.00
2.00
2.00
33.00
G-5 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 7: FY2014 WEEKDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT & NO BRT SCENARIO
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
45
56
62
63
70
71
72
73
74
91
93
101
Base
Route Pattern
Period
Monument
30
Patterson
30
Fairfield
30
Robinson
20
Belmont
30
Broad/Main
10
Seven Pines/Nine Mile
15
West End (New Route)
30
Laurel
33
Grove
60
Henrico Gov't Center
60
Pemberton
n/a
Hermitage
n/a
Crestwood/Westbrook
45
Ginter Park
20
Highland Park
18
Chamberlayne
23
Jefferson
30
Laburnum
n/a
Hull street
30
Midlothian
31
Forest Hill
40
Forest Hill
42
Ruffin Road
55
Ampthill
30
Oak Grove
30
Laburnum Connector
60
Azalea Connector
n/a
Belt Boulevard Connector
28
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening Early/Late
Peak
Peak
Period
Period
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
60
120
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
10
10
30
120
20
30
n/a
n/a
20
20
30
30
33
50
n/a
n/a
18
16
n/a
n/a
55
55
n/a
n/a
34
30
n/a
n/a
49
48
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
60
8
8
30
30
10
10
32
30
15
15
30
30
20
20
30
60
240
240
n/a
n/a
15
15
21
60
18
18
30
60
35
35
70
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
21
21
60
60
30
30
30
30
55
55
n/a
n/a
28
28
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21
23
26
27
28
29
64
66
67
81
82
95
Mechanicsville Express
n/a
Glenside/Parham Express n/a
Parham Express
n/a
Glenside Express
n/a
White Oaks Village
n/a
Gaskins Express
n/a
Stony Point Express
n/a
Spring Rock Green Express n/a
Chippenham
n/a
Chesterfield Express
n/a
Commonwealth 20 Swift Creek
n/a
Richmond/Petersburg
180
90
n/a
35
38
90
27
30
60
75
60
30
30
90
90
34
37
90
26
30
60
90
75
25
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
86
87
XP
VCU Campus Connector
20
VCU Medical Center
8
VCU Gateway Express
10
Express Service to Monroe Campus
90
15
8
6
90
15
8
6
90
n/a
8
12
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
n/a
FY2014 Weekday Total
G-6 | P a g e
Daily
Trips
71
82
71
83
82
165
78
84
40
55
26
23
15
52
150
135
103
82
4
103
85
47
41
25
70
72
26
26
26
1922.0
8
2
10
10
4
14
24
12
9
11
13
30
147.0
84
255
246
8
593
2,662.0
Distance
(Miles)
10.27
10.77
2.97
2.13
4.77
7.13
9.51
4.19
2.69
6.77
6.58
8.71
7.44
6.33
5.15
3.98
5.24
3.24
12.73
6.95
6.81
9.78
8.67
7.29
7.02
6.41
12.88
4.21
2.39
12.97
13.00
11.16
8.31
7.20
13.01
8.37
7.90
7.19
13.31
19.77
20.29
1.96
0.85
0.76
13.49
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
71.0
728.8
82.0
883.5
35.5
210.5
29.5
176.6
58.5
391.1
127.1
1175.9
54.5
742.0
42.0
352.0
11.0
107.5
31.8
372.1
12.3
171.0
15.2
200.4
8.7
111.5
33.3
329.1
75.6
772.3
60.8
537.6
64.9
539.8
41.5
265.7
2.8
50.9
67.8
716.1
54.6
578.9
29.9
459.9
27.7
355.6
12.5
182.3
34.3
491.3
46.2
461.8
23.8
335.0
7.7
109.4
5.4
62.2
1167.8
11871.0
3.7
103.8
1.2
26.0
5.0
111.6
5.0
83.1
1.5
28.8
7.0
182.1
10.9
200.9
5.7
94.8
4.8
64.7
7.4
146.4
9.7
257.0
16.5
608.7
78.4
1908.0
24.6
164.9
29.6
216.1
28.6
186.1
6.0
107.9
88.8
675.0
1,335.0
14,454.0
Peak
Buses
6.00
6.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
9.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
1.00
6.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
98.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
32.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
8.0
138.0
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 8: FY2014 SATURDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT & NO BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Average Saturday
Base
Daily Distance
Rev.
Rev.
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
Hrs.
Miles
1 Monument
30
n/a
48
10.27
48.0
492.7
2 Patterson
60
120
31
10.77
31.0
334.0
3 Fairfield
30
60
62
2.97
31.0
184.1
4 Whitcomb
30
60
62
2.13
15.5
132.1
5 Belmont
30
60
62
4.77
46.5
295.7
6 Broad/Main
30
70
60
8.71
49.2
522.5
8 West End (New Route)
30
60
62
4.19
31.0
259.8
11 Laurel
n/a
n/a
8
2.69
2.1
21.5
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.42
6.2
89.1
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
48
n/a
30
5.38
15.1
161.5
32 Ginter Park
24
30
88
5.08
46.2
447.0
34 Highland Park
21
30
97
3.97
40.6
384.7
37 Chamberlayne
33
35
68
5.32
37.3
362.0
45 Jefferson
30
60
62
3.24
31.0
200.9
62 Hull street
46
60
45
6.61
25.5
297.3
63 Midlothian
70
85
31
9.25
21.5
286.7
70 Forest Hill
70
70
33
8.36
17.3
275.9
71 Forest Hill
56
n/a
26
7.45
13.2
193.7
73 Ampthill
30
63
61
7.21
30.8
439.8
74 Oak Grove
33
60
58
6.49
30.3
376.5
1006
569.4
5,757.5
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
24.6
164.9
TOTALS
84
24.6
164.9
FY 2014 Saturday Total
1,090.0
594.0
5,922.4
Peak
Bus
4.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
40.0
2.0
2.0
42.0
TABLE 9: FY2014 SUNDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT & NO BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Average Sunday
Base
Daily Distance
Rev.
Rev.
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
Hrs.
Miles
1
Monument
30
n/a
60
10.3
60.0
615.9
2
Patterson
60
120
34
10.8
34.0
366.3
3
Fairfield
45
60
48
3.0
18.0
142.6
4
Whitcomb
45
60
48
2.1
12.0
102.2
5
Belmont
30
60
68
4.8
50.0
324.4
6
Broad/Main
30
60
68
8.8
50.9
601.0
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
68
4.2
34.0
284.9
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.4
6.2
89.1
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
60
n/a
30
5.4
15.1
161.5
32 Ginter Park
28
28
81
5.1
38.4
411.3
34 Highland Park
24
24
95
4.0
36.6
376.7
37 Chamberlayne
33
36
68
5.2
34.3
353.5
45 Jefferson
30
60
68
3.2
34.0
220.3
62 Hull street
57
57
40
6.0
19.4
240.6
63 Midlothian
65
65
35
5.3
18.0
187.0
70 Forest Hill
70
70
33
8.6
16.7
283.1
71 Forest Hill
70
n/a
26
7.7
13.1
199.5
73 Ampthill
34
60
61
7.2
30.8
439.8
74 Oak Grove
36
60
58
6.5
29.5
376.5
1001.0
551.0
5,776.1
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
24.6
164.9
84.0
24.6
164.9
FY 2014 Sunday Total
1,085.0
575.6
5,941.0
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
34.0
2.00
2.0
36.0
G-7 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 10:FY2015 WEEKDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT SCENARIO
Fixed Route
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
5
53
6
7
8
11
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
45
56
62A
62B
63
70
71
72
73
74
91
93
101
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Fairfield
Robinson
Belmont
Broad - East
Broad - West
Seven Pines/Nine Mile
West End (New Route)
Laurel
Grove
Henrico Gov't Center
Pemberton
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Laburnum
Hull - Chippenham Square
Hull - Broad Rock
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ruffin Road
Ampthill
Oak Grove
Laburnum Connector
Azalea Connector
Belt Boulevard Connector
Base
Period
30
30
30
20
30
30
30
15
30
33
60
60
n/a
n/a
45
20
18
23
30
n/a
60
60
30
40
42
55
30
30
60
n/a
28
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening Early/Late
Peak
Peak
Period
Period
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
60
120
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
30
120
20
20
30
120
20
30
n/a
n/a
20
20
30
30
33
50
n/a
n/a
18
16
n/a
n/a
55
55
n/a
n/a
34
30
n/a
n/a
49
48
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
60
8
8
30
30
10
10
32
30
15
15
30
30
20
20
30
60
240
240
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
90
30
30
60
90
20
20
30
60
35
35
70
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
21
21
60
60
30
30
30
30
55
55
n/a
n/a
28
28
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21
23
26
27
28
29
64
66
67
81
82
95
Mechanicsville Express
Glenside/Parham Express
Parham Express
Glenside Express
White Oaks Village
Gaskins Express
Stony Point Express
Spring Rock Green Express
Chippenham
Chesterfield Express
Commonwealth 20 Swift Creek
Richmond/Petersburg
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
180
90
n/a
35
38
90
27
30
60
75
60
30
30
90
90
34
37
90
26
30
60
90
75
25
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
86
87
XP
VCU Campus Connector
20
VCU Medical Center
8
VCU Gateway Express
10
Express Service to Monroe Campus
90
15
8
6
90
15
8
6
90
n/a
8
12
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
n/a
FY2015 Weekday Total
G-8 | P a g e
Daily
Trips
71
82
71
83
82
81
81
78
84
40
55
26
23
15
52
150
135
103
82
4
47
47
82
47
41
25
70
72
26
26
26
1907.0
8
2
10
10
4
14
24
12
9
11
13
30
147.0
84
255
246
8
593.0
2,647.0
Distance
(Miles)
10.27
10.77
2.97
2.13
4.77
5.15
4.80
9.51
4.19
2.69
6.77
6.58
8.71
7.44
6.33
5.15
3.98
5.24
5.15
12.73
8.06
8.81
10.58
9.78
8.67
7.29
7.02
6.41
12.88
4.21
2.39
12.97
13.00
11.16
8.31
7.20
13.01
8.37
7.90
7.19
13.31
19.77
20.29
1.96
0.85
0.76
13.49
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
71.0
728.8
82.0
883.5
35.5
210.5
29.5
176.6
58.5
391.1
58.0
417.2
58.0
388.8
54.5
742.0
42.0
352.0
11.0
107.5
31.8
372.1
12.3
171.0
15.2
200.4
8.7
111.5
33.3
329.1
75.6
772.3
60.8
537.6
64.9
539.8
59.7
422.3
2.8
50.9
26.5
378.8
38.0
414.1
99.0
867.2
29.9
459.9
27.7
355.6
12.5
182.3
34.3
491.3
46.2
461.8
23.8
335.0
7.7
109.4
5.4
62.2
1216.0
12022.7
3.7
103.8
1.2
26.0
5.0
111.6
5.0
83.1
1.5
28.8
7.0
182.1
10.9
200.9
5.7
94.8
4.8
64.7
7.4
146.4
9.7
257.0
16.5
608.7
78.4
1908.0
24.6
164.9
29.6
216.1
28.6
186.1
6.0
107.9
88.8
675.0
1,383.2
14,605.7
Peak
Buses
6.00
6.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
7.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
98.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
32.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
8.00
138.0
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 11: FY2015 SATURDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
1
Monument
30
n/a
48
10.27
2
Patterson
60
120
31
10.77
3
Fairfield
30
60
62
2.97
4
Whitcomb
30
60
62
2.13
5
Belmont
30
60
62
4.77
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
6
Broad -West
60
60
38
4.80
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
62
4.19
11 Laurel
n/a
n/a
8
2.69
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.42
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
48
n/a
30
5.38
32 Ginter Park
24
30
88
5.08
34 Highland Park
21
30
97
3.97
37 Chamberlayne
33
35
68
5.32
45 Jefferson
30
60
62
3.24
62A Hull - Chippenham Square
90
120
23
8.06
62B Hull - Broad Rock
90
120
23
8.81
63 Midlothian
60
90
33
10.58
70 Forest Hill
70
70
33
8.36
71 Forest Hill
56
n/a
26
7.45
73 Ampthill
30
63
61
7.21
74 Oak Grove
33
60
58
6.49
1025
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
84
FY2015 Saturday Total
1,109.0
Average Saturday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
48.0
492.7
31.0
334.0
31.0
184.1
15.5
132.1
46.5
295.7
28.5
195.7
28.5
182.4
31.0
259.8
2.1
21.5
6.2
89.1
15.1
161.5
46.2
447.0
40.6
384.7
37.3
362.0
31.0
200.9
19.0
185.4
19.0
202.6
37.5
349.0
17.3
275.9
13.2
193.7
30.8
439.8
30.3
376.5
605.7
5,766.0
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
630.3
5,930.9
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
42.00
2.00
2.00
44.00
TABLE 12: FY2015 SUNDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
1
Monument
30
n/a
64
10.27
2
Patterson
60
120
35
10.77
3
Fairfield
45
60
49
2.97
4
Whitcomb
45
60
49
2.13
5
Belmont
30
60
70
4.77
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
6
Broad - West
60
60
38
4.80
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
70
4.2
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.42
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
60
n/a
30
5.38
32 Ginter Park
28
28
81
5.08
34 Highland Park
24
24
95
3.97
37 Chamberlayne
33
36
68
5.20
45 Jefferson
30
60
68
5.2
62A Hull - Chippenham Square
90
90
25
8.06
62B Hull - Broad Rock
90
90
25
8.81
63 Midlothian
60
90
35
10.58
70 Forest Hill
70
70
33
8.6
71 Forest Hill
70
n/a
26
7.7
73 Ampthill
34
60
61
7.2
74 Oak Grove
36
60
58
6.5
1030.0
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
84
FY2015 Sunday Total
1,114.0
Average Sunday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
64.0
657.0
35.0
377.1
24.5
145.5
12.2
104.4
52.5
333.9
19.0
195.7
28.5
182.4
35.0
293.3
6.2
89.1
15.1
161.5
38.4
411.3
36.6
376.7
34.3
353.5
49.5
350.2
20.0
201.5
20.0
220.3
37.5
370.1
16.7
283.1
13.1
199.5
30.8
439.8
29.5
376.5
618.4
6122.2
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
643.0
6,287.1
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
37.00
2.00
2.00
39.00
Fixed Route
Fixed Route
G-9 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 13: FY 2015 – FY2017 BRT SERVICE STATISTICS
Premium Bus
Rte. # Route Pattern
BRT Broad Street BRT
FY2015 Weekday Total
Premium Bus
Rte. # Route Pattern
BRT Broad Street BRT
FY2015 Saturday Total
Premium Bus
Rte. # Route Pattern
BRT Broad Street
FY2015 Sunday Total
G-10 | P a g e
Base
Period
10
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening Early/Late
Peak
Peak
Period
Period
5
5
n/a
n/a
Service Frequency
Base
Late
Period
Period
10
n/a
Service Frequency
Base
Late
Period
Period
10
n/a
Daily
Trips
252
252.0
Distance
(Miles)
6.81
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
134.3
1714.9
134.3
1,714.9
Peak
Buses
13.00
13.0
Daily
Trips
210
210.0
Distance
(Miles)
6.81
11.3
Average Saturday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
111.9
1429.1
111.9
1,429.1
Peak
Buses
6.00
6.00
Daily
Trips
210
210.0
Distance
(Miles)
6.81
13.2
Average Sunday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
111.9
1429.1
111.9
1,429.1
Peak
Buses
6.00
6.0
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 14: FY2015 WEEKDAY OPERATING STATISTICS NO BRT SCENARIO
Fixed Route
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
5
53
6
7
8
11
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
45
56
62
63
70
71
72
73
74
91
93
101
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Fairfield
Robinson
Belmont
Broad - East
Broad - West
Seven Pines/Nine Mile
West End (New Route)
Laurel
Grove
Henrico Gov't Center
Pemberton
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Laburnum
Hull street
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ruffin Road
Ampthill
Oak Grove
Laburnum Connector
Azalea Connector
Belt Boulevard Connector
Base
Period
30
30
30
20
30
60
10
15
30
33
60
60
n/a
n/a
45
20
18
23
30
n/a
30
31
40
42
55
30
30
60
n/a
28
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening Early/Late
Peak
Peak
Period
Period
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
60
120
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
30
30
60
n/a
10
10
30
120
20
30
n/a
n/a
20
20
30
30
33
50
n/a
n/a
18
16
n/a
n/a
55
55
n/a
n/a
34
30
n/a
n/a
49
48
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
60
8
8
30
30
10
10
32
30
15
15
30
30
20
20
30
60
240
240
n/a
n/a
15
15
21
60
18
18
30
60
35
35
70
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
21
21
60
60
30
30
30
30
55
55
n/a
n/a
28
28
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21
23
26
27
28
29
64
66
67
81
82
95
Mechanicsville Express
Glenside/Parham Express
Parham Express
Glenside Express
White Oaks Village
Gaskins Express
Stony Point Express
Spring Rock Green Express
Chippenham
Chesterfield Express
Commonwealth 20 Swift Creek
Richmond/Petersburg
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
180
90
n/a
35
38
90
27
30
60
75
60
30
30
90
90
34
37
90
26
30
60
90
75
25
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
86
87
XP
VCU Campus Connector
20
VCU Medical Center
8
VCU Gateway Express
10
Express Service to Monroe Campus
90
15
8
6
90
15
8
6
90
n/a
8
12
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
n/a
FY2015 Weekday Total
G-11 | P a g e
Daily
Trips
71
82
71
83
82
46
165
78
84
40
55
26
23
15
52
150
135
103
82
4
103
85
47
41
25
70
72
26
26
26
1968.0
8
2
10
10
4
14
24
12
9
11
13
30
147.0
84
255
246
8
593.0
2,708.0
Distance
(Miles)
10.27
10.77
2.97
2.13
4.77
5.15
4.80
9.51
4.19
2.69
6.77
6.58
8.71
7.44
6.33
5.15
3.98
5.24
5.15
12.73
6.95
6.81
9.78
8.67
7.29
7.02
6.41
12.88
4.21
2.39
12.97
13.00
11.16
8.31
7.20
13.01
8.37
7.90
7.19
13.31
19.77
20.29
1.96
0.85
0.76
13.49
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
71.0
728.8
82.0
883.5
35.5
210.5
29.5
176.6
58.5
391.1
31.5
236.9
103.5
792.0
54.5
742.0
42.0
352.0
11.0
107.5
31.8
372.1
12.3
171.0
15.2
200.4
8.7
111.5
33.3
329.1
75.6
772.3
60.8
537.6
64.9
539.8
59.7
422.3
2.8
50.9
67.8
716.1
54.6
578.9
29.9
459.9
27.7
355.6
12.5
182.3
34.3
491.3
46.2
461.8
23.8
335.0
7.7
109.4
5.4
62.2
1193.8
11880.6
3.7
103.8
1.2
26.0
5.0
111.6
5.0
83.1
1.5
28.8
7.0
182.1
10.9
200.9
5.7
94.8
4.8
64.7
7.4
146.4
9.7
257.0
16.5
608.7
78.4
1908.0
24.6
164.9
29.6
216.1
28.6
186.1
6.0
107.9
88.8
675.0
1,361.1
14,463.6
Peak
Buses
6.00
6.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
7.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
98.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
32.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
8.00
138.0
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 15: FY2015 SATURDAY OPERATING STATISTICS NO BRT SCENARIO
Fixed Route
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
1
Monument
30
n/a
48
10.27
2
Patterson
60
120
31
10.77
3
Fairfield
30
60
62
2.97
4
Whitcomb
30
60
62
2.13
5
Belmont
30
60
62
4.77
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
6
Broad -West
30
60
62
4.80
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
62
4.19
11 Laurel
n/a
n/a
8
2.69
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.42
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
48
n/a
30
5.38
32 Ginter Park
24
30
88
5.08
34 Highland Park
21
30
97
3.97
37 Chamberlayne
33
35
68
5.32
45 Jefferson
30
60
62
3.24
62 Hull street
46
60
45
6.61
63 Midlothian
70
85
31
9.25
70 Forest Hill
70
70
33
8.36
71 Forest Hill
56
n/a
26
7.45
73 Ampthill
30
63
61
7.21
74 Oak Grove
33
60
58
6.49
1046
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
84
FY2015 Saturday Total
1,130.0
Average Saturday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
48.0
492.7
31.0
334.0
31.0
184.1
15.5
132.1
46.5
295.7
19.0
195.7
31.0
297.6
31.0
259.8
2.1
21.5
6.2
89.1
15.1
161.5
46.2
447.0
40.6
384.7
37.3
362.0
31.0
200.9
25.5
297.3
21.5
286.7
17.3
275.9
13.2
193.7
30.8
439.8
30.3
376.5
570.2
5,728.2
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
594.8
5,893.1
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
40.00
2.00
2.00
42.00
TABLE 16:FY2015 SUNDAY OPERATING STATISTICS NO BRT SCENARIO
Fixed Route
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
1
Monument
30
n/a
64
10.27
2
Patterson
60
120
35
10.77
3
Fairfield
45
60
49
2.97
4
Whitcomb
45
60
49
2.13
5
Belmont
30
60
70
4.77
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
6
Broad - West
30
60
70
4.80
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
70
4.2
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.42
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
60
n/a
30
5.38
32 Ginter Park
28
28
81
5.08
34 Highland Park
24
24
95
3.97
37 Chamberlayne
33
36
68
5.20
45 Jefferson
30
60
68
5.2
62 Hull street
57
57
40
6.0
63 Midlothian
65
65
35
5.3
70 Forest Hill
70
70
33
8.6
71 Forest Hill
70
n/a
26
7.7
73 Ampthill
34
60
61
7.2
74 Oak Grove
36
60
58
6.5
1052.0
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
84
FY2015 Sunday Total
1,136.0
Average Sunday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
64.0
657.0
35.0
377.1
24.5
145.5
12.2
104.4
52.5
333.9
19.0
195.7
35.0
336.0
35.0
293.3
6.2
89.1
15.1
161.5
38.4
411.3
36.6
376.7
34.3
353.5
49.5
350.2
19.4
240.6
18.0
187.0
16.7
283.1
13.1
199.5
30.8
439.8
29.5
376.5
584.8
5911.6
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
609.4
6,076.5
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
35.00
2.00
2.00
37.00
G-12 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 17: FY2016 WEEKDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT SCENARIO
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
5
53
6
7
8
11
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
45
56
62A
62B
63
70
71
72
73
74
91
93
101
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Fairfield
Robinson
Belmont
Broad - East
Broad - West
Seven Pines/Nine Mile
West End (New Route)
Laurel
Grove
Henrico Gov't Center
Pemberton
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Laburnum
Hull - Chippenham Square
Hull - Broad Rock
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ruffin Road
Ampthill
Oak Grove
Laburnum Connector
Azalea Connector
Belt Boulevard Connector
Base
Period
30
30
30
20
30
30
30
15
30
33
60
60
n/a
n/a
45
20
18
23
30
n/a
60
60
30
45
45
60
30
30
60
n/a
30
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening Early/Late
Peak
Peak
Period
Period
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
60
120
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
30
120
20
20
30
120
20
30
n/a
n/a
20
20
30
30
33
50
n/a
n/a
18
16
n/a
n/a
55
55
n/a
n/a
34
30
n/a
n/a
49
48
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
60
8
8
30
30
10
10
32
30
15
15
30
30
20
20
30
60
240
240
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
90
30
30
60
90
20
20
30
60
30
30
75
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
20
20
60
60
30
30
30
30
55
55
n/a
n/a
28
28
n/a
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
21
23
26
27
28
29
64
66
67
81
82
95
Mechanicsville Express
n/a
Glenside/Parham Express
n/a
Parham Express
n/a
Glenside Express
n/a
White Oaks Village
n/a
Gaskins Express
n/a
Stony Point Express
n/a
Spring Rock Green Express
n/a
Chippenham
n/a
Chesterfield Express
n/a
Commonwealth 20 Swift Creek n/a
Richmond/Petersburg
180
90
n/a
35
38
90
27
30
60
75
60
30
30
90
90
34
37
90
26
30
60
90
75
25
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
86
87
XP
VCU Campus Connector
20
VCU Medical Center
8
VCU Gateway Express
10
Express Service to Monroe Campus
90
15
8
6
90
15
8
6
90
n/a
8
12
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
n/a
FY2016 Weekday Total
G-13 | P a g e
Daily
Trips
71
82
71
83
82
81
81
78
84
40
55
26
23
15
52
150
135
103
82
4
47
47
82
48
40
24
72
72
26
26
48
1930.0
8
2
10
10
4
14
24
12
9
11
13
30
147.0
84
255
246
8
593.0
2,670.0
Distance
(Miles)
10.27
10.77
2.97
2.13
4.77
5.15
4.80
9.51
4.19
2.69
6.77
6.58
8.71
7.44
6.33
5.15
3.98
5.24
5.15
12.73
8.06
8.81
10.58
9.78
8.67
7.29
7.02
6.41
12.88
4.21
8.04
12.97
13.00
11.16
8.31
7.20
13.01
8.37
7.90
7.19
13.31
19.77
20.29
1.96
0.85
0.76
13.49
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
71.0
728.8
82.0
883.5
35.5
210.5
29.5
176.6
58.5
391.1
58.0
417.2
58.0
388.8
54.5
742.0
42.0
352.0
11.0
107.5
31.8
372.1
12.3
171.0
15.2
200.4
8.7
111.5
33.3
329.1
75.6
772.3
60.8
537.6
64.9
539.8
59.7
422.3
2.8
50.9
26.5
378.8
38.0
414.1
99.0
867.2
36.0
469.6
30.0
346.9
12.0
175.0
48.0
505.3
54.0
461.8
23.8
335.0
7.7
109.4
36.0
385.8
1276.1
12354.1
3.7
103.8
1.2
26.0
5.0
111.6
5.0
83.1
1.5
28.8
7.0
182.1
10.9
200.9
5.7
94.8
4.8
64.7
7.4
146.4
9.7
257.0
16.5
608.7
78.4
1908.0
24.6
164.9
29.6
216.1
28.6
186.1
6.0
107.9
88.8
675.0
1,443.3
14,937.1
Peak
Buses
6.00
6.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
7.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
102.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
32.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
8.00
142
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 18:FY2016 SATURDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
1
Monument
30
n/a
48
10.27
2
Patterson
60
120
31
10.77
3
Fairfield
30
60
62
2.97
4
Whitcomb
30
60
62
2.13
5
Belmont
30
60
62
4.77
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
6
Broad -West
60
60
38
4.80
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
62
4.19
11 Laurel
n/a
n/a
8
2.69
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.42
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
48
n/a
30
5.38
32 Ginter Park
24
30
88
5.08
34 Highland Park
21
30
97
3.97
37 Chamberlayne
33
35
68
5.32
45 Jefferson
30
60
62
3.24
62A Hull - Chippenham Square
90
120
23
8.06
62B Hull - Broad Rock
90
120
23
8.81
63 Midlothian
60
90
33
10.58
70 Forest Hill
75
75
30
8.36
71 Forest Hill
60
n/a
24
7.45
73 Ampthill
30
60
62
7.21
74 Oak Grove
30
60
62
6.49
1025.0
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
84
FY2016 Saturday Total
1,109.0
G-14 | P a g e
Average Saturday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
48.0
492.7
31.0
334.0
31.0
184.1
15.5
132.1
46.5
295.7
28.5
195.7
28.5
182.4
31.0
259.8
2.1
21.5
6.2
89.1
15.1
161.5
46.2
447.0
40.6
384.7
37.3
362.0
31.0
200.9
19.0
185.4
19.0
202.6
37.5
349.0
18.7
250.8
12.0
178.8
37.0
447.1
37.0
402.4
618.9
5759.2
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
643.5
5,924.1
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
43.00
2.00
2.00
45.00
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
5
53
6
8
22
24
32
34
37
45
62A
62B
63
70
71
73
74
84
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Fairfield
Whitcomb
Belmont
Broad - East
Broad - West
West End (New Route)
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Hull - Chippenham Square
Hull - Broad Rock
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ampthill
Oak Grove
VCU Campus Connector
FY2016 Sunday Total
G-15 | P a g e
TABLE 19:2016 SUNDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
30
n/a
64
10.3
60
120
35
10.8
45
60
49
3.0
45
60
49
2.1
30
60
70
4.8
60
60
38
5.15
60
60
38
4.80
30
60
70
4.2
n/a
n/a
12
7.4
60
n/a
30
5.4
28
28
81
5.1
24
24
95
4.0
33
36
68
5.2
30
60
68
5.2
90
90
25
8.06
90
90
25
8.81
60
90
35
10.58
75
75
30
8.6
75
n/a
24
7.7
30
60
68
7.2
30
60
68
6.5
1042.0
20
n/a
84
1.96
84.0
1,126.0
Average Sunday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
64.0
657.0
35.0
377.1
24.5
145.5
12.2
104.4
52.5
333.9
19.0
195.7
28.5
182.4
35.0
293.3
6.2
89.1
15.1
161.5
38.4
411.3
36.6
376.7
34.3
353.5
49.5
350.2
20.0
201.5
20.0
220.3
37.5
370.1
18.8
257.4
15.0
184.1
34.0
490.3
34.0
441.4
630.1
6196.5
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
654.7
6,361.4
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
37.00
2.00
2.00
39.0
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 20: FY2016 WEEKDAY OPERATING STATISTICS NO BRT SCENARIO
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
5
53
6
7
8
11
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
45
56
62
63
70
71
72
73
74
91
93
101
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Fairfield
Robinson
Belmont
Broad - East
Broad - West
Seven Pines/Nine Mile
West End (New Route)
Laurel
Grove
Henrico Gov't Center
Pemberton
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Laburnum
Hull street
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ruffin Road
Ampthill
Oak Grove
Laburnum Connector
Azalea Connector
Belt Boulevard Connector
Base
Period
30
30
30
20
30
60
10
15
30
33
60
60
n/a
n/a
45
20
18
23
30
n/a
30
31
45
45
60
30
30
60
n/a
28
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening Early/Late
Peak
Peak
Period
Period
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
60
120
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
30
30
60
n/a
10
10
30
120
20
30
n/a
n/a
20
20
30
30
33
50
n/a
n/a
18
16
n/a
n/a
55
55
n/a
n/a
34
30
n/a
n/a
49
48
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
60
8
8
30
30
10
10
32
30
15
15
30
30
20
20
30
60
240
240
n/a
n/a
15
15
21
60
18
18
30
60
30
30
75
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
20
20
60
60
30
30
30
30
55
55
n/a
n/a
28
28
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21
23
26
27
28
29
64
66
67
81
82
95
Mechanicsville Express
n/a
Glenside/Parham Express
n/a
Parham Express
n/a
Glenside Express
n/a
White Oaks Village
n/a
Gaskins Express
n/a
Stony Point Express
n/a
Spring Rock Green Express
n/a
Chippenham
n/a
Chesterfield Express
n/a
Commonwealth 20 Swift Creek n/a
Richmond/Petersburg
180
90
n/a
35
38
90
27
30
60
75
60
30
30
90
90
34
37
90
26
30
60
90
75
25
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
86
87
XP
VCU Campus Connector
20
VCU Medical Center
8
VCU Gateway Express
10
Express Service to Monroe Campus
90
15
8
6
90
15
8
6
90
n/a
8
12
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
n/a
FY2016 Weekday Total
G-16 | P a g e
Daily
Trips
71
82
71
83
82
46
165
78
84
40
55
26
23
15
52
150
135
103
82
4
103
85
48
40
24
72
72
26
26
26
1969.0
8
2
10
10
4
14
24
12
9
11
13
30
147.0
84
255
246
8
1798.5
3,914.5
Distance
(Miles)
10.27
10.77
2.97
2.13
4.77
5.15
4.80
9.51
4.19
2.69
6.77
6.58
8.71
7.44
6.33
5.15
3.98
5.24
5.15
12.73
6.95
6.81
9.78
8.67
7.29
7.02
6.41
12.88
4.21
2.39
12.97
13.00
11.16
8.31
7.20
13.01
8.37
7.90
7.19
13.31
19.77
20.29
1.96
0.85
0.76
13.49
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
71.0
728.8
82.0
883.5
35.5
210.5
29.5
176.6
58.5
391.1
31.5
236.9
103.5
792.0
54.5
742.0
42.0
352.0
11.0
107.5
31.8
372.1
12.3
171.0
15.2
200.4
8.7
111.5
33.3
329.1
75.6
772.3
60.8
537.6
64.9
539.8
59.7
422.3
2.8
50.9
67.8
716.1
54.6
578.9
36.0
469.6
30.0
346.9
12.0
175.0
48.0
505.3
54.0
461.8
23.8
335.0
7.7
109.4
5.4
62.2
1223.3
11888.5
3.7
103.8
1.2
26.0
5.0
111.6
5.0
83.1
1.5
28.8
7.0
182.1
10.9
200.9
5.7
94.8
4.8
64.7
7.4
146.4
9.7
257.0
16.5
608.7
78.4
1908.0
24.6
164.9
29.6
216.1
28.6
186.1
6.0
107.9
88.8
675.0
1,390.6
14,471.5
Peak
Buses
6.00
6.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
7.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
6.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
100.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
32.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
8.00
140
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 21: FY2016 SATURDAY OPERATING STATISTICS NO BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
1
Monument
30
n/a
48
10.27
2
Patterson
60
120
31
10.77
3
Fairfield
30
60
62
2.97
4
Whitcomb
30
60
62
2.13
5
Belmont
30
60
62
4.77
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
6
Broad -West
30
60
62
4.80
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
62
4.19
11 Laurel
n/a
n/a
8
2.69
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.42
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
48
n/a
30
5.38
32 Ginter Park
24
30
88
5.08
34 Highland Park
21
30
97
3.97
37 Chamberlayne
33
35
68
5.32
45 Jefferson
30
60
62
3.24
62 Hull street
46
60
45
6.61
63 Midlothian
70
85
31
9.25
70 Forest Hill
75
75
30
8.36
71 Forest Hill
60
n/a
24
7.45
73 Ampthill
30
60
62
7.21
74 Oak Grove
30
60
62
6.49
1046.0
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
84
FY2016 Saturday Total
1,130.0
Average Saturday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
48.0
492.7
31.0
334.0
31.0
184.1
15.5
132.1
46.5
295.7
19.0
195.7
31.0
297.6
31.0
259.8
2.1
21.5
6.2
89.1
15.1
161.5
46.2
447.0
40.6
384.7
37.3
362.0
31.0
200.9
25.5
297.3
21.5
286.7
18.7
250.8
12.0
178.8
37.0
447.1
37.0
402.4
583.4
5721.4
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
608.0
5,886.3
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
41.00
2.00
2.00
43.00
TABLE 22: FY2016 SUNDAY OPERATING STATISTICS NO BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
1
Monument
30
n/a
64
10.3
2
Patterson
60
120
35
10.8
3
Fairfield
45
60
49
3.0
4
Whitcomb
45
60
49
2.1
5
Belmont
30
60
70
4.8
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
6
Broad - West
30
60
70
4.80
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
70
4.2
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.4
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
60
n/a
30
5.4
32 Ginter Park
28
28
81
5.1
34 Highland Park
24
24
95
4.0
37 Chamberlayne
33
36
68
5.2
45 Jefferson
30
60
68
5.2
62 Hull street
57
57
40
6.0
63 Midlothian
65
65
35
5.3
70 Forest Hill
75
75
30
8.6
71 Forest Hill
75
n/a
24
7.7
73 Ampthill
30
60
68
7.2
74 Oak Grove
30
60
68
6.5
1064.0
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
84.0
FY2016 Sunday Total
1,148.0
Average Sunday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
64.0
657.0
35.0
377.1
24.5
145.5
12.2
104.4
52.5
333.9
19.0
195.7
35.0
336.0
35.0
293.3
6.2
89.1
15.1
161.5
38.4
411.3
36.6
376.7
34.3
353.5
49.5
350.2
19.4
240.6
18.0
187.0
18.8
257.4
15.0
184.1
34.0
490.3
34.0
441.4
596.5
5985.9
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
621.1
6,150.8
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
35.00
2.00
2.00
37.0
G-17 | P a g e
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 23: FY2017 WEEKDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT SCENARIO
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
5
53
6
7
8
11
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
45
56
62A
62B
63
70
71
72
73
74
91
93
101
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Fairfield
Robinson
Belmont
Broad - East
Broad - West
Seven Pines/Nine Mile
West End (New Route)
Laurel
Grove
Henrico Gov't Center
Pemberton
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Laburnum
Hull - Chippenham Square
Hull - Broad Rock
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ruffin Road
Ampthill
Oak Grove
Laburnum Connector
Azalea Connector
Belt Boulevard Connector
Base
Period
30
30
30
20
30
30
30
15
30
33
60
60
n/a
n/a
60
30
30
30
30
n/a
60
60
30
45
45
60
30
30
60
n/a
30
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening Early/Late
Peak
Peak
Period
Period
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
60
120
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
30
120
20
20
30
120
20
30
n/a
n/a
20
20
30
30
33
50
n/a
n/a
18
16
n/a
n/a
55
55
n/a
n/a
34
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
60
15
15
30
30
15
15
30
30
15
15
30
30
20
20
30
60
240
240
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
90
30
30
60
90
20
20
30
60
30
30
75
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
20
20
60
60
30
30
30
30
55
55
n/a
n/a
28
28
n/a
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
21
23
26
27
28
29
64
66
67
81
82
95
Mechanicsville Express
Glenside/Parham Express
Parham Express
Glenside Express
White Oaks Village
Gaskins Express
Stony Point Express
Spring Rock Green Express
Chippenham
Chesterfield Express
Commonwealth 20 Swift Creek
Richmond/Petersburg
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
180
90
n/a
35
38
90
27
30
60
75
60
30
30
90
90
34
37
90
26
30
60
90
75
25
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
86
87
XP
VCU Campus Connector
20
VCU Medical Center
8
VCU Gateway Express
10
Express Service to Monroe Campus
90
15
8
6
90
15
8
6
90
n/a
8
12
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
n/a
FY2017 Weekday Total
G-18 | P a g e
Daily
Trips
71
82
71
83
82
81
81
78
84
40
55
26
23
12
48
96
96
96
82
4
47
47
82
48
40
24
72
72
26
26
48
1823.0
8
2
10
10
4
14
24
12
9
11
13
30
147.0
84
255
246
8
593.0
2,563.0
Distance
(Miles)
10.27
10.77
2.97
2.13
4.77
5.15
4.80
9.51
4.19
2.69
6.77
6.58
8.71
7.44
7.41
6.47
6.12
5.24
5.15
12.73
8.06
8.81
10.58
9.78
8.67
7.29
7.02
6.41
12.88
4.21
8.04
12.97
13.00
11.16
8.31
7.20
13.01
8.37
7.90
7.19
13.31
19.77
20.29
1.96
0.85
0.76
13.49
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
71.0
728.8
82.0
883.5
35.5
210.5
29.5
176.6
58.5
391.1
58.0
417.2
58.0
388.8
54.5
742.0
42.0
352.0
11.0
107.5
31.8
372.1
12.3
171.0
15.2
200.4
9.0
89.2
40.5
355.6
72.0
621.5
72.0
587.7
72.0
503.1
59.7
422.3
2.8
50.9
26.5
378.8
38.0
414.1
99.0
867.2
36.0
469.6
30.0
346.9
12.0
175.0
48.0
505.3
54.0
461.8
23.8
335.0
7.7
109.4
36.0
385.8
1298.2
12221.0
3.7
103.8
1.2
26.0
5.0
111.6
5.0
83.1
1.5
28.8
7.0
182.1
10.9
200.9
5.7
94.8
4.8
64.7
7.4
146.4
9.7
257.0
16.5
608.7
78.4
1908.0
24.6
164.9
29.6
216.1
28.6
186.1
6.0
107.9
88.8
675.0
1,465.4
14,804.0
Peak
Buses
6.00
6.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.50
3.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
7.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
106.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
32.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
8.00
146.00
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 24: FY2017 SATURDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
1
Monument
30
n/a
48
10.27
2
Patterson
60
120
31
10.77
3
Fairfield
30
60
62
2.97
4
Whitcomb
30
60
62
2.13
5
Belmont
30
60
62
4.77
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
6
Broad -West
60
60
38
4.80
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
62
4.19
11 Laurel
n/a
n/a
8
2.69
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.44
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
60
n/a
34
7.41
32 Ginter Park
30
30
76
6.47
34 Highland Park
20
30
110
6.12
37 Chamberlayne
30
45
73
5.24
45 Jefferson
30
60
62
3.24
62A Hull - Chippenham Square
90
120
23
8.06
62B Hull - Broad Rock
90
120
23
8.81
63 Midlothian
60
90
33
10.58
70 Forest Hill
75
75
30
8.36
71 Forest Hill
60
n/a
24
7.45
73 Ampthill
30
60
62
7.21
74 Oak Grove
30
60
62
6.49
1035.0
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
84
FY2017 Saturday Total
1,119.0
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
5
53
6
8
22
24
32
34
37
45
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Fairfield
Whitcomb
Belmont
Broad - East
Broad - West
West End (New Route)
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
FY2017 Sunday Total
G-19 | P a g e
TABLE 25: FY2017 SUNDAY OPERATING STATISTICS BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
30
n/a
64
10.3
60
120
35
10.8
45
60
49
3.0
45
60
49
2.1
30
60
70
4.8
60
60
38
5.15
60
60
38
4.80
30
60
70
4.2
n/a
n/a
12
7.4
60
n/a
30
7.4
30
30
76
6.1
30
30
76
6.1
30
45
71
5.2
30
60
68
5.2
265.0
Average Saturday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
48.0
492.7
31.0
334.0
31.0
184.1
15.5
132.1
46.5
295.7
28.5
195.7
28.5
182.4
31.0
259.8
2.1
21.5
9.0
89.2
25.5
251.9
57.0
492.0
74.0
673.4
46.2
382.6
31.0
200.9
19.0
185.4
19.0
202.6
37.5
349.0
18.7
250.8
12.0
178.8
37.0
447.1
37.0
402.4
685.1
6204.2
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
709.7
6,369.0
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.50
3.00
4.00
2.50
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
45.0
2.00
2.00
47.00
Average Sunday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
64.0
657.0
35.0
377.1
24.5
145.5
12.2
104.4
52.5
333.9
19.0
195.7
28.5
182.4
35.0
293.3
9.0
89.2
22.5
222.2
47.5
465.3
47.5
465.3
45.7
372.1
49.5
350.2
172.2
1,614.1
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
3.00
10.5
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 26: FY2017 WEEKDAY OPERATING STATISTICS NO BRT SCENARIO
Rte. #
1
2
3
4
5
53
6
7
8
11
16
18
19
22
24
32
34
37
45
56
62
63
70
71
72
73
74
91
93
101
Route Pattern
Monument
Patterson
Fairfield
Robinson
Belmont
Broad - East
Broad - West
Seven Pines/Nine Mile
West End (New Route)
Laurel
Grove
Henrico Gov't Center
Pemberton
Hermitage
Crestwood/Westbrook
Ginter Park
Highland Park
Chamberlayne
Jefferson
Laburnum
Hull street
Midlothian
Forest Hill
Forest Hill
Ruffin Road
Ampthill
Oak Grove
Laburnum Connector
Azalea Connector
Belt Boulevard Connector
Base
Period
30
30
30
20
30
60
10
15
30
33
60
60
n/a
n/a
60
30
30
30
30
n/a
30
31
45
45
60
30
30
60
n/a
28
Service Frequency
AM
PM
Evening Early/Late
Peak
Peak
Period
Period
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
20
20
60
120
20
20
60
120
20
20
30
60
30
30
60
n/a
10
10
30
120
20
30
n/a
n/a
20
20
30
30
33
50
n/a
n/a
18
16
n/a
n/a
55
55
n/a
n/a
34
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
30
30
60
60
15
15
30
30
15
15
30
30
15
15
30
30
20
20
30
60
240
240
n/a
n/a
15
15
21
60
18
18
30
60
30
30
75
n/a
30
30
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
n/a
20
20
60
60
30
30
30
30
55
55
n/a
n/a
28
28
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21
23
26
27
28
29
64
66
67
81
82
95
Mechanicsville Express
Glenside/Parham Express
Parham Express
Glenside Express
White Oaks Village
Gaskins Express
Stony Point Express
Spring Rock Green Express
Chippenham
Chesterfield Express
Commonwealth 20 Swift Creek
Richmond/Petersburg
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
180
90
n/a
35
38
90
27
30
60
75
60
30
30
90
90
34
37
90
26
30
60
90
75
25
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
84
86
87
XP
VCU Campus Connector
20
VCU Medical Center
8
VCU Gateway Express
10
Express Service to Monroe Campus
90
15
8
6
90
15
8
6
90
n/a
8
12
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
n/a
FY2017 Weekday Total
G-20 | P a g e
Daily
Trips
71
82
71
83
82
46
165
78
84
40
55
26
23
12
48
96
96
96
82
4
103
85
48
40
24
72
72
26
26
26
1862.0
8
2
10
10
4
14
24
12
9
11
13
30
147.0
84
255
246
8
1798.5
3,807.5
Distance
(Miles)
10.27
10.77
2.97
2.13
4.77
5.15
4.80
9.51
4.19
2.69
6.77
6.58
8.71
7.44
7.41
6.47
6.12
5.24
5.15
12.73
6.95
6.81
9.78
8.67
7.29
7.02
6.41
12.88
4.21
2.39
12.97
13.00
11.16
8.31
7.20
13.01
8.37
7.90
7.19
13.31
19.77
20.29
1.96
0.85
0.76
13.49
Average Weekday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
71.0
728.8
82.0
883.5
35.5
210.5
29.5
176.6
58.5
391.1
31.5
236.9
103.5
792.0
54.5
742.0
42.0
352.0
11.0
107.5
31.8
372.1
12.3
171.0
15.2
200.4
9.0
89.2
40.5
355.6
72.0
621.5
72.0
587.7
72.0
503.1
59.7
422.3
2.8
50.9
67.8
716.1
54.6
578.9
36.0
469.6
30.0
346.9
12.0
175.0
48.0
505.3
54.0
461.8
23.8
335.0
7.7
109.4
5.4
62.2
1245.5
11755.3
3.7
103.8
1.2
26.0
5.0
111.6
5.0
83.1
1.5
28.8
7.0
182.1
10.9
200.9
5.7
94.8
4.8
64.7
7.4
146.4
9.7
257.0
16.5
608.7
78.4
1908.0
24.6
164.9
29.6
216.1
28.6
186.1
6.0
107.9
88.8
675.0
1,412.7
14,338.3
Peak
Buses
6.00
6.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
7.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.50
3.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
1.00
6.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
104.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
32.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
8.00
144.00
November 2011
GRTC Transit System
2012-2017 Transit Development Plan
Appendix G: 6-Year TDP Operating Statistics
TABLE 27: FY2017 SATURDAY OPERATING STATISTICS NO BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Base
Daily Distance
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
1
Monument
30
n/a
48
10.27
2
Patterson
60
120
31
10.77
3
Fairfield
30
60
62
2.97
4
Whitcomb
30
60
62
2.13
5
Belmont
30
60
62
4.77
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
6
Broad -West
30
60
62
4.80
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
62
4.19
11 Laurel
n/a
n/a
8
2.69
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.44
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
60
n/a
34
7.41
32 Ginter Park
30
30
76
6.47
34 Highland Park
20
30
110
6.12
37 Chamberlayne
30
45
73
5.24
45 Jefferson
30
60
62
3.24
62 Hull street
46
60
45
6.61
63 Midlothian
70
85
31
9.25
70 Forest Hill
75
75
30
8.36
71 Forest Hill
60
n/a
24
7.45
73 Ampthill
30
60
62
7.21
74 Oak Grove
30
60
62
6.49
1056.0
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
84
FY2017 Saturday Total
1,140.0
Average Saturday
Rev.
Rev.
Hrs.
Miles
48.0
492.7
31.0
334.0
31.0
184.1
15.5
132.1
46.5
295.7
19.0
195.7
31.0
297.6
31.0
259.8
2.1
21.5
9.0
89.2
25.5
251.9
57.0
492.0
74.0
673.4
46.2
382.6
31.0
200.9
25.5
297.3
21.5
286.7
18.7
250.8
12.0
178.8
37.0
447.1
37.0
402.4
649.7
6166.4
24.6
164.9
24.6
164.9
674.3
6,331.3
TABLE 28: FY2017 SUNDAY OPERATING STATISTICS NO BRT SCENARIO
Service Frequency
Average Sunday
Base
Daily Distance
Rev.
Rev.
Late
Rte. # Route Pattern
Period
Period
Trips
(Miles)
Hrs.
Miles
1
Monument
30
n/a
64
10.3
64.0
657.0
2
Patterson
60
120
35
10.8
35.0
377.1
3
Fairfield
45
60
49
3.0
24.5
145.5
4
Whitcomb
45
60
49
2.1
12.2
104.4
5
Belmont
30
60
70
4.8
52.5
333.9
53 Broad - East
60
60
38
5.15
19.0
195.7
6
Broad - West
30
60
70
4.80
35.0
336.0
8
West End (New Route)
30
60
70
4.2
35.0
293.3
22 Hermitage
n/a
n/a
12
7.4
9.0
89.2
24 Crestwood/Westbrook
60
n/a
30
7.4
22.5
222.2
32 Ginter Park
30
30
76
6.1
47.5
465.3
34 Highland Park
30
30
76
6.1
47.5
465.3
37 Chamberlayne
30
45
71
5.2
45.7
372.1
45 Jefferson
30
60
68
5.2
49.5
350.2
62 Hull street
57
57
40
6.0
19.4
240.6
63 Midlothian
65
65
35
5.3
18.0
187.0
70 Forest Hill
75
75
30
8.6
18.8
257.4
71 Forest Hill
75
n/a
24
7.7
15.0
184.1
73 Ampthill
30
60
68
7.2
34.0
490.3
74 Oak Grove
30
60
68
6.5
34.0
441.4
1043.0
638.1
6208.0
84 VCU Campus Connector
20
n/a
84
1.96
24.6
164.9
84.0
24.6
164.9
FY2017 Sunday Total
1,127.0
662.7
6,372.9
G-21 | P a g e
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.50
3.00
4.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
43.0
2.00
2.00
45.00
Peak
Buses
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
37.50
2.00
2.00
39.50
November 2011