Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study
Final Report
U R B I T R A N R E P O R T
URBITRAN
Submitted to
Middlesex County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Freeholder Director David B. Crabiel Freeholder Stephen J. “Pete” Dalina (Deputy Director) Freeholder Jane Brady Freeholder Camille Fernicola Freeholder H. James Polos Freeholder John Pulomena Freeholder Christopher Rafano
December 2003
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter/Section
Page
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................1 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................2 PART I – EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................8 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 Chapter 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Chapter 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Introduction................................................................................................9 Middlesex County Profile........................................................................10 Highway Network and County Communities .......................................10 Population.................................................................................................10 Development .............................................................................................15 Population Density ...................................................................................15 Major Employment Locations ...............................................................18 Age.............................................................................................................20 Income.......................................................................................................20 Automobile Ownership and Availability ...............................................23 Demographic Summary...........................................................................28 Travel Patterns.........................................................................................28 Key Destinations and Transit Generators .............................................31 Inventory of Transit and Paratransit Providers...................................35 General Public Services...........................................................................35 Municipal Elderly/Disabled Services .....................................................36 County Operated Services.......................................................................38 Other Services ..........................................................................................40 Stakeholder Interviews............................................................................41 Introduction..............................................................................................41 Existing Services.......................................................................................41 County Characteristics and Trends .......................................................44 Transit Needs............................................................................................44 County-Municipal Coordination ............................................................45 Improvement Concepts ...........................................................................46
i
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter/Section Chapter 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
Page
Employer Focus Groups..........................................................................48 Profile of Participants..............................................................................48 Perceptions of the State of the Middlesex County Economy ...............50 Traffic Congestion ...................................................................................50 Local Transportation And Labor Force ................................................50 Two or More Jobs ....................................................................................53 North/South Diferences ...........................................................................53 The Hispanic Market...............................................................................54 Support for a New Method of Organizing Public Transit ..................55 Conclusions...............................................................................................55
PART II – ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................57 Chapter 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Chapter 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Chapter 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 Chapter 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Assessment of AWTS Services and Operations ....................................58 Introduction..............................................................................................58 Service Area and Client Eligibility.........................................................58 Fare Structure ..........................................................................................59 Service Description ..................................................................................59 System Resources .....................................................................................62 Operating and Financial Data ................................................................65 Conclusions...............................................................................................66 Financial Baseline ....................................................................................68 AWTS Revenues.......................................................................................68 AWTS Expenditures................................................................................70 Board of Social Services ..........................................................................72 Other Providers........................................................................................74 Congruency Analysis ...............................................................................75 Major Employment Sites.........................................................................75 Access Link ...............................................................................................79 Senior Population.....................................................................................82 Service Delivery Models ..........................................................................84 Ocean County, New Jersey......................................................................84 Monmouth County, New Jersey .............................................................86 Somerset County, New Jersey.................................................................89 San Diego County, California .................................................................91 Rhode Island.............................................................................................94
ii
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter/Section
Page
PART III – REORGANIZATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION.....................97 Chapter 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 Chapter 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 Chapter 12 12.1 12.2 Future Transportation Objectives and Elements ...............................98 Reorganization Objectives ....................................................................98 Operating Cost Impacts ......................................................................107 Capital Cost Impacts ...........................................................................107 Reorganization Alternatives ...............................................................110 Introduction..........................................................................................110 Description of Alternatives..................................................................110 Conceptual Organizational Charts ....................................................111 Evaluation of Reorganization Alternatives .......................................120 Evaluation Criteria ..............................................................................120 Evaluation of Alternatives...................................................................121
PART IV – RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN..............124 Chapter 13 13.1 13.2 Chapter 14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 Recommended Alternative..................................................................125 Consultant Recommendation .............................................................125 Task Force Recommendation .............................................................125 Implementation Plan .............................................................................126 Implementation Timeline ...................................................................126 Functional Responsibilities .................................................................127 Recommended Capital Improvements...............................................129 Operating and Capital Costs...............................................................130 Funding Sources...................................................................................135 Potential Funding Plan .......................................................................138 Middlesex Transit Provider Profiles Stakeholder Meetings Selected AWTS Trip Data
APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C
iii
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
LIST OF TABLES Table Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 2-6 Table 2-7 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 6-1 Table 6-2 Table 7-1 Table 7-2 Table 7-3 Table 8-1 Table 8-2 Table 8-3 Table 9-1 Table 10-1 Table 10-2 Table 10-3 Table 14-1 Table 14-2 Table 14-3 Page Middlesex County Population, 1980-2000 .............................................12 Middlesex County Population Projections, 2000-2010 .........................14 Middlesex County Housing Units, 1990-2000........................................17 Middlesex County Income By Municipality And Type, 2000 ..............27 Means of Transportation To Work, 1990 ..............................................29 Means of Transportation To Work, 2000 ..............................................29 Commute Destinations of Middlesex County Residents, 2000.............30 Summary of Municipal Aging/Disabled Providers...............................37 Description of Middlesex County Board of Social Services Transportation Funding and Services ...................................................39 Description of AWTS Programs and Services (2003)...........................61 AWTS Operating and Financial Data, 2002 .........................................65 Funding, Budget, and Staffing of AWTS Programs (2003) .................69 AWTS Operating Budget (2003) ............................................................71 BSS Financial and Ridership Summary (2002) ....................................73 AWTS Annual One-Way Trips by Rider Type (FY 2003)...................82 Middlesex County Estimated Annual Transit Trips (Seniors 60+).....83 Middlesex County Estimated Unmet Transit Demand (Seniors 60+).83 San Diego Operators: Financial & Operating Statistics (FY 2003) ...94 Reorganization Objectives ......................................................................99 Range of Annual Operating Cost Impacts...........................................108 Range of Capital Cost Impacts .............................................................109 Operating Cost Impacts for New County DOT .................................132 Incremental Operating Cost Impacts for New County DOT.............133 Incremental Operating Cost Impacts for New County DOT.............134
iv
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 Figure 8-1 Figure 8-2 Figure 8-3 Figure 11-1 Figure 11-2 Figure 11-3 Figure 11-4 Figure 11-5 Figure 11-6 Figure 11-7 Figure 11-8 Page Middlesex County Communities and Road Network ...........................11 Population Density by Census Tract ......................................................16 Major Employment Sites.........................................................................19 Senior Citizens Age 65 & Over By Census Tract..................................21 Population Under The Age of 18 By Census Tract...............................22 Families Below Poverty By Census Tract..............................................24 Median Household Income By Census Tract ........................................25 Households With Zero Vehicles Available By Census Tract ...............26 Congruency Analysis (Local & Regional Bus Routes) .........................76 Congruency Analysis (Commuter Rail).................................................77 Congruency Analysis (Access Link) .......................................................81 Alternative I – Revised AWTS Organization......................................112 Alternative IIA – Transportation under Public Health & Education ..................................................................................................................113 Alternative IIB –Transportation under Parks & Recreation ............114 Alternative IIC – Transportation under Engineering & Planning ..115 Alternative III – Transportation under Public Works.......................116 Alternative IV – New County Department of Transportation ..........117 Alternative V – Transportation under Improvement Authority.......118 Alternative VI – Transportation Authority.........................................119
v
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was initiated and funded by the Middlesex County Board of Chosen Freeholders. A Project Task Force was formed at the outset of the study of key county stakeholders. These individuals are listed below. We thank all participating task force members for their expertise and guidance, which was essential to the study. In addition, the consultant interviewed over 50 individual stakeholders to gain additional input into the study, which included all members of the Board of Chosen Freeholders, and relevant county department heads and transportation managers. Municipal stakeholders consisted primarily of planning staff or consultants, and transportation managers. Other stakeholders included representatives from such organizations as Keep Middlesex Moving, the Middlesex County Improvement Authority, and the United Way, as well as a State Assemblyman. A list of all stakeholder meetings and participants is provided in Appendix B of this report.
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Task Force
Freeholder Liaison Freeholder Director David B. Crabiel Middlesex County Department of Planning Mr. George M. Ververides Rutgers' Edward J. Bloustein Urban Planning and Policy Development Program Dr. Richard K. Brail Keep Middlesex Moving Mr. Peter Cantu United Way Mr. George Heinze National Transit Institute Mr. Paul Larrousse Middlesex County Board of Social Services Ms. Angela Mackaronis Middlesex County Workforce Investment Board Ms. Patricia Roman Middlesex County Department of Human Services Mr. Thomas Seilheimer Middlesex County Office of Economic Development Mr. Carl Spataro Middlesex County Transportation & IDRC Mr. Elliot White
1
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE STUDY: MIDDLESEX COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Middlesex County is located within the heart of one of the most dynamic states in the nation. Major new trends are impacting the Middlesex County transportation environment. New growth and development in the southern portion of the County, increasing immigration in the northern part, the aging of the baby boomers, and economic globalization, are all current trends that have and will continue to impact the County and the State of New Jersey in meaningful and profound ways. Middlesex County grew by 12% between 1990 and 2000 and is projected to grow another 8% by 2010. This is a faster pace than New Jersey as a whole. In short, the transportation environment in Middlesex County has changed considerably over the past few decades and will continue to change as the developments mentioned above evolve into the future. The Middlesex County Board of Chosen Freeholders initiated this study with the recognition of this complex and evolving environment and the realization that the provision of transit in the County is fragmented between state, county, municipal, and private operators and also between different departments within the County government itself. This means that key transportation needs are unmet, and inefficiencies are present.
A unique and fluid transportation environment requires that Middlesex County implement a new organization model in order to provide efficient and effective transportation services to Middlesex County residents. Middlesex County Department of Transportation Organizational Structure
New County Department
Responsibilities Existing Functions
AWTS Central Vehicle Maintenance
New Functions
Expansion of demand-response (AWTS) New fixed-route service New shuttle service
Implementation Schedule
Transition to new department in July 2004 Full implementation by 2006
Incremental Costs
Year 1 (Jul- Dec 2004) – Additional Operating $286,000, Capital - $150,000 Year 2 (2005) – Additional Operating - $1,234,000, Capital - $1,340,000 Year 3 (2006) - Additional Operating - $1,271,000, Capital - $1,250,000
2
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
THE RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT A NEW MIDDLESEX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The study recommends that Middlesex County create and implement a new Middlesex County Department of Transportation. The new Department of Transportation will be a separate County Department and handle transportation issues exclusively. This option was one of six broad organization alternatives evaluated in the study. The new department will combine AWTS service (operations), planning, and maintenance, which are now in three different County departments. It will provide staff dedicated to the maintenance of AWTS and other transportation operations as well as take responsibility for central vehicle maintenance for all County vehicles. In addition, storage and maintenance of all vehicles will take place in one location and the head of the operations, administrative, and maintenance divisions will all report to one person, the Director of the Department of Transportation, who in turn will report to a single Middlesex County Freeholder. WHY A NEW ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE? The County commissioned this study because of the recognition that there was a need to address the shortcomings of how transportation is provided in the County. The consultant team conducted extensive stakeholder interviews, which included all members of the Board of Chosen Freeholders, and relevant county department heads and transportation managers. Municipal stakeholders consisted primarily of planning staff or consultants, and transportation managers. Other stakeholders included representatives from such organizations as Keep Middlesex Moving, the Middlesex County Improvement Authority, and the United Way, as well as a State Assemblyman, and others. Based on input from these stakeholders, an assessment of existing services, and an analysis of transportation needs, this study identified a series of transportation objectives in the following areas. Key objectives included:
• • •
• • •
Improve AWTS service quality Meet local needs through planning and coordination with NJ Transit Address current unmet needs by developing new service recommendations in the following areas: o Employment-related transportation o Elderly transportation o Disabled transportation Improve coordination with municipal transit operators, including a centralized transit broker who can schedule trips for multiple services. Explore contracting opportunities Expand advertising and create a brand identity for County transportation
3
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF A NEW COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION? The evaluation of which organizational alternatives could best meet the objectives above considered a range of criteria, including the following: 1. Accountability - County elected leaders and County officials want an accountable organization structure. This means that a clear chain of command will be in place in order for Middlesex County elected officials and citizens to assess the performance of the transportation system. A new County Department of Transportation will establish this chain of command by placing all transportation responsibility with one department. 2. Implementation - Establishment of a new County Department of Transportation within the County government will be straightforward and will not duplicate responsibilities of other departments. By contrast, legal and structural issues would need to be overcome if transportation functions were removed outside the direct County government structure. 3. Compatibility - Transportation will be the single focus of the new County department unlike other options or alternatives that place transportation under an agency or department with broader goals. Having transportation as its own department will result in an organization that is responsive to transportation issues, as opposed to one that has many different responsibilities. 4. Quality of Service - Consolidation of vehicle maintenance and planning functions with the transportation operator will allow for greater oversight and translate into improved service. Because of the singular focus of the new County Department of Transportation, this will likely yield improvements in ridership and more effective operation of service. 5. Responsiveness to Markets - With its broader mission, the new County Department of Transportation will be able to be responsive to the diverse County transportation needs identified in the study.
WHAT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE WILL THE NEW DEPARTMENT HAVE? The one key feature of the new Middlesex County Department of Transportation that deserves repeating is that all transportation functions, including planning, operations, and vehicle maintenance will now be combined into one new County Department of Transportation. The chart below displays new and expanded functions that will be divisions within the new Department. The new and expanded functions are shaded light green in the chart below. Three important new functions are coordination, marketing, and planning/programming. Although the following organizational structure is envisioned when the program is fully implemented, it should be noted that not all these positions will be immediately filled, and it may take many years to achieve this structure.
4
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
5
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
HOW WILL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TAKE PLACE?
One of the main reasons why the new Department of Transportation option was selected was that it could be implemented almost immediately. Transitioning to a new department can take place within a year, and by initially contracting out certain operations to a private provider, expanded services can be established in year two. The following bulleted list describes various steps ideally called for in the first three years of implementation. Taking all of these steps will go far towards achieving the transportation objectives that the study established. It is recognized that the availability of funding will determine whether the County is able to fully implement the following steps in the first three years of the program. ● Year 1 - 2004 (July 1- Dec. 31) o Transition AWTS from the Department of Human Services into the new County Department of Transportation* o Hire Department Director, new Coordination and Marketing Managers, and expand current Operations staff by hiring three new Vehicle Mechanics and one Safety/Training Specialist o Develop plans and procedure to improve and expand transportation services o Begin to develop management/maintenance systems and begin improvements to customer service, scheduling, and trip planning and marketing
*Current AWTS employees would continue to perform the same functions, but within a new
department.
●
●
Year 2 - 2005 o Hire Planning Manager, Service Planning Specialist, and additional staff including a second Information Specialist, Coordination Assistant/Countywide Broker, and Coordinator for Municipal/Regional services o Introduce expanded demand response service and new fixed route and shuttle services o Contract with third party operator for fixed-route services and vehicles o Continue to develop management/maintenance systems and continue improvements to customer service, scheduling, and trip planning Year 3 - 2006 o Hire additional staff including second Safety/Training Specialist, Capital Planning Specialist, Marketing Specialist, and two more staff members in the Coordination division o Install bus stops and shelters o Complete improvements to customer service, scheduling, and trip planning and dedicated management/maintenance systems o Phase in increase in demand response service and additional fixed-route and shuttle service Years 4-10 – 2007-2013 o Design and complete expansion of existing County Central Maintenance Facility o Expand the Coordination function to achieve full Countywide brokering o Consolidate most municipal transportation services into the Countywide system o Consolidate the BSS transportation services into the Countywide system o Phase in further increases in the demand response service o Phase in additional fixed-route and shuttle service o Continue installation of bus stops and shelters as warranted
•
6
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
WHAT NEW COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW DEPARTMENT? Implementing a new County Department of Transportation and the new staff positions and services recommended in this study will require a significant financial commitment. Costs include not only those required to transition to the new department and improve existing operations, but also those that are necessary to initiate new services to meet identified County transportation needs. This program will incur additional annual operating costs totaling $3.0 million by year three. This is in addition to $4.9 million in fully allocated transportation related costs that are already being spent on transportation through County and other sources. An estimated $2.7 million would also be required over the course of the three years for capital purchases of vehicles, computer software and bus stops. A major capital expenditure beyond the first three years is an expansion of the County’s central vehicle maintenance facility. Summary of Incremental Operating and Capital Costs Impacts ● Year 1 - 2004 (July 1- Dec. 31) o $286,000 – Operating (New personnel for 6 months) o $150,000 - Capital (Management systems/website/communications) Year 2 - 2005 o $1,234,000 – Operating (New personnel, increased demand-response service, new shuttle and fixed-route services) o $1,340,000 - Capital (Demand response vehicles, shuttle buses, support vehicles, management systems/website/communications) Year 3 - 2006 o $1,271,000 – Operating (New personnel, increased demand-response, shuttle, and fixedroute services) o $1,250,000 - Capital (Demand response vehicles, shuttle buses, support vehicles, management systems/website/communications, shelters/bus stops)
●
●
It is anticipated that the majority of costs associated with the new County Department of Transportation and the expanded services will be funded through the current channels, especially by Middlesex County. Although it is clear that County resources will need to play a major role, other funding sources may fund a percentage of this proposed program. This could include some state and federal programs, and potentially, private contributions. CONCLUSION This study was intended to generate an organizational model that will facilitate and produce a Middlesex County transportation system that is more effective and efficient and able to meet current and future unmet needs. Successful implementation of the New Middlesex County Department of Transportation will enable the County and its residents to navigate through the challenging transportation environment that lies ahead.
7
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
PART 1 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
8
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study was initiated by the County Board of Chosen Freeholders to explore the current role of County Government in the provision of transit. The study will recommend a model for a new County system and provide an implementation plan. Issues to be explored include the efficiency and effectiveness of current County transit services and the potential for greater coordination between the County and municipalities. The study began on May 20, 2003 with a kickoff meeting in New Brunswick. The first part of this report documents relevant existing conditions and provides a baseline for further investigations and proposals. It represents a data collection effort that included assembling demographic and socioeconomic data available through the 2000 Census and other sources, meeting with over 50 individual stakeholders, collecting basic data for all Middlesex County transit providers, and conducting Major Employer Focus Groups. Part Two includes analysis of the current transit services in the county and the establishment of a financial baseline. It also includes a look at other relevant service models in New Jersey and around the country. Part Three is the development and evaluation of several organizational alternatives, based on transportation objectives developed in earlier stages of the study. Finally, Part Four recommends an alternative and provides a preliminary implementation plan.
9
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 2
Middlesex County Profile
This chapter presents information necessary to identify and analyze potential unmet transportation needs in Middlesex County. Demographic data, transit generators, and the travel patterns of Middlesex County residents are featured below. Key demographic indicators used to define the Middlesex County population that may require mobility alternatives include: zero vehicle households, seniors over the age of 65, and low-income households. Furthermore, physical factors such as transit generators, key destinations, and journey to work travel flows are discussed in order to help define County population travel patterns. 2.1 Highway Network and County Communities
Middlesex County, known as the “heart” of New Jersey, is located in the center of the Garden State. It is bordered to the north by Union County and the Rahway River. New York City (Staten Island), Raritan Bay (located on the Atlantic Ocean), and Monmouth County border Middlesex County to the east. Mercer County, home to Princeton and Trenton, is located to the south. Somerset County borders to the west. The Raritan River serves as a natural dividing line between the northern and southern portions of Middlesex County. Middlesex County is advantageously positioned in the largest transportation corridor in the state of New Jersey as the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) runs roughly northeast-southwest through the County. The NJ Turnpike provides access to New York City to the north as well as Philadelphia and Trenton to the south. Additional major highways include the Garden State Parkway and I-287. The Garden State Parkway travels primarily in the northeastern portion of the County and provides access to the fast growing shore communities in central and southern New Jersey (Ocean and Monmouth Counties). In addition I-287 runs east-west through the northwestern portion of Middlesex County providing access to Morris and Somerset Counties. Important federal and state highways include: US 1, US 130, US 9, NJ 18, and NJ 27, NJ 34 and NJ 35. Figure 2-1 displays a view of Middlesex County’s highway network and the location of selected communities. 2.2 Population
Middlesex County is currently one of the fastest growing counties in New Jersey, having gained 154,169 residents between 1980 and 2000. Its growth rate of 26% during this time period is considerably higher than the 14% figure for the State of New Jersey. Furthermore, between 1990 and 2000 Middlesex County had the largest net population increase (+78,282) of all New Jersey counties. Table 2-1 shows the population figures for all of the County’s 25 municipalities between 1980 and 2000. Although not shown in the table, the most recent population estimate places the County population at 755,000 in July 2002.
10
Figure 2-1: Middlesex County Communities and Road Network
Union County
LEGEND
Middlesex County Municipality Major US & NJ Highway Railroad I-287 I-287
Rahway
G GS SP Pkw kwy y
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
Linden
Dunellen Middlesex
South Plainfield
US US 1 1 --9 9
7 7 J2 J2 N N
Carteret
Edison Metuchen
Woodbridge
Staten Island
Piscataway
Perth Amboy
NJ 18 NJ 18
Somerset Highland Park New Brunswick South Amboy Sayreville North Brunswick Milltown South River
NJ NJ
Raritan Bay
Somerset County
GS GS
US 9 US 9
27 27
East Brunswick Old Bridge
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Pk Pk wy wy
Matawan
South Brunswick
1 1 US US
Spotswood Helmetta
NJ NJ 18 18
Princeton
orr ido rrid orr o C C NE NE
Jamesburg
US US 130 130
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Plainsboro Cranbury
Monroe
Mercer County
Hightstown
Freehold
11
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 2-1: Middlesex County Population, 1980-2000 Place New Jersey Middlesex County Carteret Borough Cranbury Township Dunellen Borough East Brunswick Township Edison Township Helmetta Borough Highland Park Borough Jamesburg Borough Metuchen Borough Middlesex Borough Milltown Borough Monroe Township New Brunswick City North Brunswick Township Old Bridge Township Perth Amboy City Piscataway Township Plainsboro Township Sayreville Borough South Amboy City South Brunswick Township South Plainfield Township South River Borough Spotswood Borough Woodbridge Township
Source: United States Census Bureau
1980 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 7,365,011 7,748,634 7,748,634 7,904,000 7,987,506 8,095,542 8,414,350 595,993 671,810 682,661 692,900 702,458 716.176 750,162 20,598 19,025 19,158 19,130 19,086 19,094 20,709 1,927 2,500 2,517 2,545 2,613 2,760 3,227 6,593 6,528 6,705 6,828 6,594 6,602 6,823 37,711 43,548 44,643 45,455 44,829 46,499 46,756 70,193 88,680 89,923 90,402 93,993 95,705 97,687 955 1,211 1,424 1,482 1,399 1,454 1,825 13,396 13,279 12,853 12,894 13,287 13,266 13,999 4,114 5,294 5,460 5,633 5,605 5,748 6,025 13,762 12,804 12,816 13,008 12,901 13,038 12,840 13,480 13,055 13,077 13,364 13,181 13,217 13,717 7,136 6,968 7,114 7,212 7,032 7,022 7,000 15,858 22,256 21,724 21,291 24,711 26,562 27,999 41,442 41,711 42,138 41,266 41,534 41,768 48,573 22,220 31,287 32,933 33,894 34,032 35,174 36,287 51,515 56,493 59,104 59,879 59,409 59,976 60,456 38,951 41,967 40,971 40,467 42,262 42,481 47,303 42,223 47,089 47,911 49,259 50,936 51,911 50,482 5,605 14,213 15,201 15,536 15,636 15,739 20,215 29,969 34,998 35,540 36,405 37,352 38,042 40,377 9,322 7,851 7,784 7,867 7,860 7,864 7,913 17,127 25,799 28,015 30,932 30,716 33,392 37,734 20,521 20,489 20,691 20,981 20,682 20,903 21,810 14,361 13,692 13,650 13,857 13,921 14,045 15,322 7,840 7,983 8,044 8,140 8,174 8,255 7,880 90,074 93,092 94,265 95,152 94,714 95,659 97,203
Change 1980-2000 14% 26% 0.5% 68% 4% 24% 39% 91% 5% 46% -7% 2% -2% 77% 17% 63% 17% 21% 20% 261% 35% -15% 120% 6% 7% 0.5% 8%
12
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
The fastest rate of population growth in Middlesex County between 1980 and 2000 took place in the southern portion of the County. During this time period nine municipalities grew faster than the County average of 26%. With the exception of Edison Township, all of these municipalities are located south of the Raritan River and in southern Middlesex County. These fast growing, southern Middlesex municipalities include: Cranbury Township (68% population growth), Helmetta Borough (91%), Jamesburg Borough (46%), Monroe Township (77%), North Brunswick Township (63%), Plainsboro Township (261%), Sayreville Borough (35%), and South Brunswick Township (120%). Roughly 50% of the County’s population growth during between 1980 and 2000 came from the eight municipalities listed above. Furthermore, the majority of the growth in southern Middlesex County was located on the US 1 Corridor. Three townships contributed to this growth and they include: North Brunswick (+14,067 residents), Plainsboro (+14,610 residents), and South Brunswick (+20,607 residents). These three townships accounted for roughly one-third of all population growth in Middlesex County between 1980 and 2000. The location of Middlesex County’s population growth mirrors statewide growth trends as large population growth in New Jersey over the past two decades has taken place in the southern and western portion of the state. Jobs and residents have flocked to counties such as Middlesex, Monmouth, Mercer, Somerset, and Hunterdon. Table 2-2, displayed on the next page, shows population projections for Middlesex County and its municipalities for 2005 and 2010. Although the County will still grow faster than the State of New Jersey during the next decade, its growth rate will slow, according to New Jersey Department of Labor projections. Middlesex County is projected to grow by 8% between 2000 and 2010; slightly higher than New Jersey’s 6% percent population growth rate for the same period.1 Within Middlesex County, projections indicate that the population growth will continue to take place in the southern sections of the County along the US 1 Corridor and in Monroe Township adjacent to Monmouth County. Plainsboro and South Brunswick will still see the highest growth rates during the next decade as both are projected to grow by 21%. Monroe Township is projected to grow by 14% over the same time period. Nevertheless, significant new population growth is expected in the older, large cities of Middlesex County. Specifically two such cities, Perth Amboy and New Brunswick, are projected to garner much of this growth between 2000 and 2010. Over the next decade, Perth Amboy is projected to have a growth rate of 19% while New Brunswick will grow by 10% between 2000 and 2010. If these projections are correct Perth Amboy will have the third highest growth rate in Middlesex County and New Brunswick the sixth highest rate of growth by 2010. These projected, high growth rates for Perth Amboy and New Brunswick reflect recent increases in immigration rates to New Jersey’s older cities and boroughs. After years of
Between 1980 and 1990 Middlesex County grew by 13%. The County’s growth rate for the 1990-2000 period was 12%, according to data from the United State Census Bureau.
1
13
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 2-2: Middlesex County Population Projections, 2000-2010 Place New Jersey Middlesex County Carteret Borough Cranbury Township Dunellen Borough East Brunswick Township Edison Township Helmetta Borough Highland Park Borough Jamesburg Borough Metuchen Borough Middlesex Borough Milltown Borough Monroe Township New Brunswick City North Brunswick Township Old Bridge Township Perth Amboy City Piscataway Township Plainsboro Township Sayreville Borough South Amboy City South Brunswick Township South Plainfield Township South River Borough Spotswood Borough Woodbridge Township 2000 2005 2010 8,414,350 8,662,100 8,937,204 750,162 777,600 809,765 20,709 21,206 21,872 3,227 3,441 3,728 6,823 6,910 7,027 46,756 47,653 48,972 97,687 100,346 103,958 1,825 1,875 1,988 13,999 14,211 14,496 6,025 6,241 6,530 12,840 13,251 13,265 13,717 13,913 14,175 7,000 7,009 7,097 27,999 29,695 31,967 48,573 50,559 53,313 36,287 37,763 39,740 60,456 61,631 63,205 47,303 53,178 56,453 50,482 51,484 52,826 20,215 21,987 24,361 40,377 41,968 44,100 7,913 7.978 8,123 37,734 41,029 45,462 21,810 22,200 22,722 15,322 15,803 16,448 7,880 7,850 7,891 97,203 98,419 100,046 Change 2000-2010 6% 8% 6% 16% 3% 5% 6% 9% 4% 8% 3% 3% 1% 14% 10% 10% 5% 19% 5% 21% 9% 3% 21% 4% 7% 0.1% 3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau for 2000 data and NJ Dept of Labor for 2005 & 2010 projections
14
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
decline, cities like Jersey City, Paterson, and Elizabeth gained in population between 1990 and 2000. This growth was primarily due to Hispanic and Asian immigration and is reflected in 2000 US Census data. For example Perth Amboy, which grew by 13% from 1990-2000, lost 13% of its white population but had an increase of 11% in its Asian population and a 42% increase in its Hispanic population. New Brunswick has similar demographic statistics for the 1990-2000 period as its population increased by 16% primarily fueled by Hispanic (+135%) and Asian (+58%) population growth. In addition, as reported by the 2000 U.S. Census, large townships in the northern portion of the county, such as Edison and Piscataway Townships showed signs of large immigration as both registered large increases in their Asian and Hispanic populations.2 In summary it appears that while significant growth is taking place and will continue to take place in southern Middlesex County, within the next decade older, large municipalities such as Perth Amboy and New Brunswick, primarily in the northern and central portion of the County, will also show strong rates of growth. While higher income populations will drive growth taking place in southern Middlesex County, immigration is the key factor behind the population increases in the northern part of the County. The population data presented above indicates that the nature and type of population growth in Middlesex County needs to be understood and taken into account in planning for public transportation as well as in analyzing the current unmet transportation needs of County residents. 2.3 Development
Inseparable from population growth is residential development. With the exception of Highland Park, the number of housing units increased in all of the communities within Middlesex County from 1990 to 2000. This is shown in Table 2-3. Middlesex grew in terms of residential units by 9.4%, which is greater than the state as a whole. The southern part of the County developed most rapidly on a percentage-wise basis, with the five highest percentage increases occurring in Southern municipalities, ranging from Plainsboro at 17.8% growth to Helmetta at 47.3% growth. The greatest growth in raw number of units occurred in South Brunswick, which has an increase of 3,899. Other municipalities with a growth of over 2,000 units between 1990 and 2000 were Edison, Monroe, and Piscataway. 2.4 Population Density
Population density, measured in persons per square mile, is a key indicator of transit demand and is a crucial component used to help determine the nature, type, and feasibility of various types of transit service. Figure 2-2 shows the population density by census tract for Middlesex County. Information used for the map is based on 2000 United States Census data. With 750,162 people on 310 square miles of land area, Middlesex County has a population density of 2,422 residents per square mile. Middlesex County is denser than New Jersey, which has the highest population density of any state in the nation, with 1,134 residents per square mile. Figure 2-2 indicates that population density in Middlesex County is highest in
2
It should be noted that some of the future growth in large, older cities such as Perth Amboy, will come from the redevelopment of older neighborhoods by demographic groups other then immigrants. For example, Perth Amboy’s waterfront is currently being redeveloped as some young professionals and empty nesters relocate here.
15
Figure 2-2: Population Density By Census Tract
Union County
G GS SP Pk kw wy y
Rahway
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
Linden
Dunellen Population Density
per square mile of land area 13,400 to 26,300 6,000 to 13,400 3,400 to 6,000 1,800 to 3,400 100 to 1,800 (13) (29) (66) (40) (46)
South Plainfield
Middlesex Edison
I-287 I-287
US US
Woodbridge
1 1--9 9
7 7 J2 J2 N N
Carteret
Staten Island
Piscataway
Metuchen Perth Amboy Perth Amboy
NJ 18 NJ 18
Somerset
Highland Park New Brunswick New Brunswick South Amboy
Raritan Bay
Somerset County
27 27
Sayreville North Brunswick Milltown South River
US 9 US 9
GS GS
NJ NJ
East Brunswick Old Bridge
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Pk Pk wy wy
Matawan
South Brunswick
1 1 US US
Spotswood Helmetta
NJ NJ 18 18
Princeton
orr ido rrid orr o C C NE NE
Jamesburg
US US 130 130
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Plainsboro Cranbury
Monroe
Mercer County
Hightstown
Freehold
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
16
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 2-3: Middlesex County Housing Units, 1990-2000 Place New Jersey Middlesex County Carteret Borough Cranbury Township Dunellen Borough East Brunswick Township Edison Township Helmetta Borough Highland Park Borough Jamesburg Borough Metuchen Borough Middlesex Borough Milltown Borough Monroe Township New Brunswick City North Brunswick Township Old Bridge Township Perth Amboy City Piscataway Township Plainsboro Township Sayreville Borough South Amboy City South Brunswick Township South Plainfield Township South River Borough Spotswood Borough Woodbridge Township 1990 2000 Change 19902000 234,965 23,445 509 199 24 1,245 3,186 247 -35 176 7 210 117 2,947 337 1,746 774 219 2,371 1,381 1,883 58 3,899 484 500 163 798 Perc. Change 1990-2000 7.6% 9.4% 7.5% 21.6% 1.0% 8.1% 9.7% 47.3% -0.6% 8.5% 0.1% 4.3% 4.6% 28.6% 2.5% 14.3% 3.7% 1.5% 16.3% 17.8% 14.1% 1.9% 39.1% 7.1% 9.5% 5.4% 2.3%
3,075,310 3,310,275 250,192 273,637 6,811 7,320 922 1,121 2,496 2,520 15,395 16,640 32,832 36,018 522 769 6,106 6,071 2,064 2,240 5,097 5,104 4,920 5,130 2,553 2,670 10,312 13,259 13,556 13,893 12,186 13,932 21,122 21,896 15,017 15,236 14,575 16,946 7,752 9,133 13,352 15,235 3,052 3,110 9,963 13,862 6,823 7,307 5,269 5,769 2,995 3,158 34,500 35,298
Source: Middlesex County Planning Department in participation with the NJ-DOL-State Data Center Program
17
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
census tracts found in New Brunswick and Perth Amboy. Population densities range from 13,400 residents per square mile to 26,300 residents per square mile in certain census tracts located in these two cities. The sparsely populated census tracts are generally found in the southwestern and southeastern sections of the County. Areas of low population density with 100 to 1,800 residents per mile include large parts of South Brunswick, Plainsboro, Cranbury, and Monroe Townships. This part of the County is characterized by low-density, commercial and residential development that has been built over the last 20 to 30 years. In general the northern part of the County contains census tracts with higher population densities than tracts found in the southern part of the County. Middlesex County census tracts with high population densities generally tend to be either in older municipalities throughout the entire County such as Jamesburg, South Amboy, New Brunswick, and Carteret or in developments near the US 1/NJ 17/NJ Tpke corridor that stretch northeast to southwest through the northern part of the County. 2.5 Major Employment Locations
The location and density of employment is another indicator of transit demand. Like population density, when mapped, it can be used to help determine where transit service should be targeted and provided. Figure 2-3, Major Employment Sites, displays the location of major employers and large office/industrial parks in Middlesex County. Information used to produce the map is based on data collected from the Middlesex County Office of Economic Development. A complete list of the major employers and large office/industrial parks is found at the end of this chapter in section 2.10, Key Destinations and Transit Generators. There appear to be significant concentrations of employment in Middlesex County. Recent development in the southern Middlesex municipalities of Plainsboro, Cranbury, and South Brunswick has lead to two large concentrations. The first is centered near Exit 8A of the New Jersey Turnpike. Six large industrial and office parks are located here. Distribution facilities for large corporate clients as well as office parks predominate on the land here between US 130 and the New Jersey Turnpike. Another employment concentration is located west of the Exit 8A area, along US 1, in Plainsboro and South Brunswick. High-quality schools, the Princeton mailing address, as well as excellent residential housing have attracted major employers over the last 20-25 years. They include Dow Jones, Merrill Lynch, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb. The Princeton Forrestal Center is the largest office complex in the area. At over 2,200 acres the property is in both Plainsboro and South Brunswick Townships. Northern Middlesex County also contains concentrations of employment. The Raritan Center is a major industrial facility located in southern Edison Township. New Brunswick has Rutgers University and three other major employers (Johnson & Johnson, St. Peter’s Hospital, and the Robert Wood Johnson Hospital). In addition, there are major industrial/office parks located along I-287 in Piscataway, South Plainfield, and Edison Townships. Other concentrations include industrial sites in Carteret and major employers located in Woodbridge and Edison Townships. The major employers in these two townships typically are located where major highways intersect such as Amerada Hess located where the New Jersey Turnpike and US 1/9 meet. 18
Figure 2-3: Major Employment Sites
Union County
G GS SP Pkw kwy y
Major Industrial/Office Park Major Employer Middlesex County Municipality Major US & NJ Highway Railroad
Middlesex Dunellen South Plainfield Edison
US US 1 1 --9 9
7 7 J2 J2 N N
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
LEGEND
Carteret Industrial Park Carteret Industrial Park
Carteret
Telcordia Technology Telcordia Technology I-287 I-287
Siemens AG Siemens AG JFK Medical Center JFK Medical Center Engelhard Corp Engelhard Corp
Port Carteret Industrial Park Port Carteret Industrial Park
Woodbridge
Staten Island
Middlesex Business Center Middlesex Business Center Corporate Park 287 Corporate Park 287 Rutgers Industrial Park Rutgers Industrial Park
Piscataway
Amerada Hess Amerada Hess
Perth Amboy
NJ 18 NJ 18
Edison Industrial Park Edison Industrial Park Johnson & Johnson Johnson & Johnson
Highland Park
Raritan Bay Medical Center (Perth Amboy) Raritan Bay Medical Center (Perth Amboy) Raritan Center Raritan Center
South Amboy Sayreville
St. Peter's Hospital St. Peter's Hospital
New Brunswick
Robert Wood Johnson Hospital Robert Wood Johnson Hospital
Raritan Bay
Somerset County
Silverline Building Products Silverline Building Products
North Brunswick Milltown
Harts Lane Business Campus Harts Lane Business Campus
South River
NJ NJ Jersey Center Metroplex Jersey Center Metroplex
Colonial Oaks Industrial Park Colonial Oaks Industrial Park
East Brunswick
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Old Bridge Spotswood
Princeton Corporate Center Princeton Corporate Center
1 1 US US
South Brunswick
Helmetta
Dow Jones Dow Jones Merrill Lynch Merrill Lynch
Plainsboro
Keystone Keystone
Jamesburg
NJ NJ 18 18
Raritan Bay Medical Center (Old Bridge) Raritan Bay Medical Center (Old Bridge)
US 9 US 9
27 27
Technology Center of New Jersey Technology Center of New Jersey
GS GS
Pk Pk wy wy
US 1 US 1 30 30
Forsgate Corporate Center Forsgate Corporate Center Corporate Park Cranbury Corporate Park Cranbury Cranbury Campus Cranbury Campus Brainerd Park Brainerd Park
Monroe
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Bristol-Myers Squibb Bristol-Myers Squibb
Cranbury
Princeton Forrestal Center Princeton Forrestal Center
Mercer County
Milstone Square Milstone Square
Source: Middlesex County Office of Economic Development
19
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
2.6
Age
Key population cohorts used to help determine the Middlesex County population that is a major market for transit includes persons 65 and older as well as individuals under the age of 18. Seniors and the youth population usually encounter greater barriers to mobility than the population at large. Seniors may lack the income needed to own or operate a car and many seniors may not be able to drive or prefer not to do so. In addition, youths under the age of 18 usually have high mobility needs; nevertheless as a group they may be less likely than other age cohorts to have access to an automobile. In order to conduct an unmet needs analysis it is important to understand where large concentrations of these age groups currently reside in Middlesex County. According to the 2000 U.S. Census there are 92,270 persons 65 and older in Middlesex County. This amount equals 12% of the Middlesex County population, just slightly lower than the state average of 13%. As is displayed in Figure 2-4, the vast majority of census tracts in Middlesex County have roughly between 0% and 19% seniors. In general census tracts found in the northern and central part of Middlesex County have populations that have senior population rates of 10% and higher. With the exception of several higher concentrations, southern Middlesex County including Plainsboro, North Brunswick and South Brunswick have slightly lower percentages with 0% to 10% seniors. Areas with high concentrations of seniors include the retirement communities such as Concordia and Rossmoor just south of Jamesburg in Monroe Township. The four census tracts that comprise this area have 54% to 89% of their populations classified as seniors over the age of 65. In addition there are eight census tracts in the County that have between 19% and 54% seniors. These tracts are in northern North Brunswick, northeastern Old Bridge, as well as Woodbridge and Edison. The youth population is just under one quarter (24%) of the county population with 177,788 individuals. The New Jersey statewide average for youth population is 25%. Roughly 70% of the census tracts in the County are comparable with County and New Jersey averages. Twenty census tracts have youth populations greater than 29%. Most are concentrated in the southern portion of the County. They include tracts in South Brunswick, Monroe, Cranbury, and Old Bridge Townships. Other areas with high youth populations include New Brunswick, Perth Amboy, and Carteret. Figure 2-5 displays population under the age of 18 by census tract. 2.7 Income
Income is another demographic indicator used to measure potential transit use. Households or families with less income tend not have the disposable income to purchase and maintain private automobiles for all family or household members. Two measures of income are used in this profile: families below the poverty level3 and median household income. According to U.S. Census 2000 data, 4.2% of Middlesex County families are characterized as living below the poverty level. Areas that have the highest percentage of families living below the poverty
3
Families and persons are classified as below poverty level by the census if their total family income or unrelated individual income was less than the poverty threshold specified for the applicable family size, age of householder, and number of related children under 18 present. In 2000 thresholds fell between $8,794 and $38,322, depending upon these factors.
20
Figure 2-4: Senior Citizens Age 65 & Over By Census Tract
Union County
G GS SP Pkw kwy y
Rahway
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
Linden
Senior Population
by percent 72 to 89 (3) 54 to 72 (1) 19 to 54 (8) 10 to 19 (105) 0 to 10 (78)
Dunellen Middlesex
South Plainfield
Edison
I-287 I-287
US US 1 1 --9 9
7 7 J2 J2 N N
Carteret
Woodbridge
Staten Island
Piscataway
Metuchen Perth Amboy
NJ 18 NJ 18
Somerset
Highland Park New Brunswick South Amboy
Raritan Bay
Somerset County
27 27 NJ NJ
Sayreville North Brunswick Milltown South River
US 9 US 9
GS GS
East Brunswick Old Bridge
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Pk Pk wy wy
Matawan
South Brunswick
1 1 US US
Spotswood Helmetta
NJ NJ 18 18
Princeton
orr ido rrid orr o C C NE NE
Jamesburg
US US 130 130
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Plainsboro Cranbury
Monroe
Mercer County
Hightstown
Freehold
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
21
Figure 2-5: Population Under The Age of 18 By Census Tract
Union County
G GS SP Pk kw wy y
Rahway
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
Linden
Youth Population
by percent 29 to 36 (20) 22 to 29 (124) 15 to 22 (23) 8 to 15 (2) 1 to 8 (8)
Dunellen Middlesex
South Plainfield
Edison
I-287 I-287
US US
Woodbridge
1 1--9 9
7 7 J2 J2 N N
Carteret
Staten Island
Piscataway
NJ 18 NJ 18
Metuchen Perth Amboy Perth Amboy
Somerset
Highland Park New Brunswick New Brunswick South Amboy
Raritan Bay
Somerset County
27 27 NJ NJ
Sayreville North Brunswick Milltown South River
US 9 US 9
GS GS
East Brunswick Old Bridge
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Pk Pk wy wy
Matawan
1 1 US US
South Brunswick South Brunswick
Spotswood Helmetta
NJ NJ 18 18
Princeton
orr ido rrid orr o C C NE NE
Jamesburg
US US 130 130
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Plainsboro Cranbury Cranbury
Monroe Monroe
Mercer County
Hightstown
Freehold
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
22
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
level are found in Perth Amboy, eastern Carteret, western New Brunswick, and areas near Rutgers University in Piscataway Township. These census tracts have between 13% and 32% of their families living below the poverty level. Figure 2-6 shows the locations of these census tracts. The median household income for Middlesex County according to the 2000 U.S. Census was $61,446. This compares with a New Jersey median household income of $55,146. In general the western and southern portions of the County are wealthier than census tracts found to the north and east. Census tracts with the highest median household incomes ($98,000 to $119,000) include Plainsboro, Cranbury, and portions of North Brunswick, South Brunswick, East Brunswick, Edison, and Metuchen. The areas in Middlesex County with the lowest median household income correspond with those census tracts that have the highest percentage of families below poverty. These areas tend to be older boroughs with high immigrant populations such as Perth Amboy and New Brunswick. Figure 2-7 depicts median household income by census tract for Middlesex County. In addition Table 2-4 shown on the next page displays 2000 U.S. Census Bureau median household, median family, and per capita income data for all Middlesex County municipalities. 2.8 Automobile Ownership and Availability
The availability of vehicles is one of the most important indicators of how captive a household is to transit. Households with no access to automobiles are most in need of transit service for their basic mobility needs. Based on 2000 U.S. Census data, 11.5% of New Jersey households had no vehicle available and in Middlesex County 9% of all households had no vehicle available. It is interesting to note that based on a comparison of 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census data the number of vehicles per household decreased slightly not only in Middlesex County but for New Jersey as well. In Middlesex County the number of vehicles per household fell from 1.77 in 1990 to 1.71 in 2000. This parallels the New Jersey 1.63 to 1.60 decrease, for the same period, as well as decreases in other northern and central New Jersey counties. Possible factors contributing to this decrease include a decrease in the average household size as well as an increase in public transit usage. It should be noted that the decrease found in Middlesex County deviates from national trends where the number of vehicles per household has increased slightly from 1.68 to 1.69 between 1990 and 2000. Figure 2-8 illustrates census tracts in Middlesex County that have high concentrations of zero car households. Not surprisingly areas with the lowest incomes and highest percentage of families living below poverty have the highest percentage of households with zero vehicles available. Tracts in Perth Amboy and New Brunswick have 24% to 47% zero car households. It should also be noted that the census reports significant numbers of commuters who walked or rode their bike to work in these cities. Other areas with high zero car households include Spotswood, the retirement communities south of Jamesburg in Monroe Township, South Amboy, Carteret, Sayreville, and sections of Piscataway Township just to the west of Rutgers University and its Busch Campus.
23
Figure 2-6: Families Below Poverty By Census Tract
Union County
G GS SP Pkw kwy y
Rahway
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
Linden
Families Below Poverty
by percent 13 to 32 6 to 13 3 to 6 2 to 3 0 to 2 (15) (20) (59) (39) (62)
Dunellen Middlesex
South Plainfield
US US 1 1 --9 9
7 7 J2 J2 N N
Carteret Carteret
Edison
I-287 I-287
Woodbridge
Staten Island
Piscataway
Metuchen Perth Amboy Perth Amboy
NJ 18 NJ 18
Somerset
Highland Park New Brunswick New Brunswick South Amboy
Raritan Bay
Somerset County
27 27 NJ NJ
Sayreville North Brunswick Milltown South River
US 9 US 9
GS GS
East Brunswick Old Bridge
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Pk Pk wy wy
Matawan
South Brunswick
1 1 US US
Spotswood Helmetta
NJ NJ 18 18
Princeton
orr ido rrid orr o C C NE NE
Jamesburg
US US 130 130
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Plainsboro Cranbury
Monroe
Mercer County
Hightstown
Freehold
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
24
25
Figure 2-8: Households With Zero Vehicles Available By Census Tract
Union County
G GS SP Pk kw wy y
Rahway
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
Linden
Dunellen Zero Vehicle Households
by percent 24 to 47 12 to 24 7 to 12 4 to 7 0 to 4 (13) (25) (39) (55) (63)
South Plainfield
Edison
I-287 I-287
US US
Middlesex
Woodbridge
1 1--9 9
7 7 J2 J2 N N
Carteret
Staten Island
Piscataway
NJ 18 NJ 18
Metuchen Perth Amboy Perth Amboy
Somerset
Highland Park New Brunswick New Brunswick South Amboy
Raritan Bay
Somerset County
27 27 NJ NJ
Sayreville North Brunswick Milltown South River
US 9 US 9
GS GS
East Brunswick Old Bridge
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Pk Pk wy wy
Matawan
South Brunswick
1 1 US US
Spotswood Helmetta
NJ NJ 18 18
Princeton
orr ido rrid orr o C C NE NE
Jamesburg
US US 130 130
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Plainsboro Cranbury
Monroe
Mercer County
Hightstown
Freehold
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
26
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 2-4: Middlesex County Income By Municipality And Type, 2000 Place New Jersey Middlesex County Carteret Borough Cranbury Township Dunellen Borough East Brunswick Township Edison Township Helmetta Borough Highland Park Borough Jamesburg Borough Metuchen Borough Middlesex Borough Milltown Borough Monroe Township New Brunswick City North Brunswick Township Old Bridge Township Perth Amboy City Piscataway Township Plainsboro Township Sayreville Borough South Amboy City South Brunswick Township South Plainfield Township South River Borough Spotswood Borough Woodbridge Township Household $55,146 $61,446 $47,148 $111,680 $59,205 $75,956 $69,746 $60,125 $53,250 $59,461 $75,546 $60,723 $68,429 $53,306 $36,080 $61,325 $64,707 $37,608 $68,721 $72,097 $58,919 $50,529 $78,737 $67,466 $52,324 $55,833 $60,683 Family $65,370 $70,749 $54,609 $128,410 $67,188 $86.863 $77,976 $64,659 $71,267 $67,887 $85,022 $70,343 $77,869 $68,479 $38,222 $70,812 $74,045 $40,740 $75,218 $88,783 $66,266 $62.029 $86,891 $72,745 $62,869 $73,062 $68,492 Per Capita $27,006 $26,535 $18,967 $50,698 $26,529 $33,286 $30,148 $26,668 $28,767 $23,325 $36,749 $27,834 $29,996 $31,772 $14,308 $28,431 $26,814 $14,989 $26,321 $38,982 $24,736 $23,598 $32,104 $25,270 $23,684 $25,247 $25,087
Source: 2000 Census of Population & Housing, U.S. Census Bureau
27
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
2.9
Demographic Summary
After a review of the demographic data for Middlesex County, definite patterns can be highlighted and pointed out. Overall, the County is more dense and wealthier than the rest of New Jersey, but significant demographic differences exist within Middlesex County. The southern part of the County is less dense, wealthier, and in general has a smaller transit dependent population than the northern part of the County. The northern part of the Middlesex County has lower income levels and is denser with immigration driving the growth found in these older cities and townships. In summary, based on the demographic indicators discussed above there appears to be a significant market for transit in parts of Middlesex County. Areas that have high demand for transit and significant transit dependent populations include the older cities and boroughs found in Middlesex County. Populations in these communities tend to have a high percentage of households with zero vehicles available, families below the poverty level, low median household income, as well as a significant population under the age of 18. The primary areas where these conditions exist include New Brunswick, Highland Park, Perth Amboy, Carteret, South Amboy, as well as certain sections of the Milltown, South River, and Sayreville. In addition the retirement communities in Monroe Township are a large market for transit services as many seniors here do not have access to an automobile and have low household incomes. 2.10 Travel Patterns
According to 2000 U.S. Census data, most Middlesex County commuters drove alone to work (74.4%). Others carpooled (11.1%) or took public transit (8.7%). Of those utilizing transit to get to work, approximately equal numbers took the bus (3.6%) as the railroad (4.4%). Tables 2-5 and 2-6 display means of transportation to work for New Jersey and Middlesex County for 1990 and 2000. Middlesex County journey to work trends include: ● A slight increase in carpooling in contrast with a decrease in the nation and New Jersey ● Public transportation usage increase in Middlesex County and New Jersey in contrast with a national decrease of 0.6% ● Driving alone to work declined in Middlesex County countering both national and regional trends In addition, as reported by the 2000 U.S. Census, the mean travel time to work for Middlesex County residents age 16 and over was 31.5 minutes. This is slightly higher than the statewide average of 30.0 minutes spent traveling to work. Average travel time to work for Middlesex County in 1990 was 26.3 minutes, as compared 25.3 minutes for New Jersey as a whole. Possible reasons for this increase in travel time to work for Middlesex County as well as for New Jersey as a whole include dispersed destinations, increased traffic congestion, increase in trip chaining amount commuters (intermediate stops are made to and from work), as well as different data coding used by the U.S. Census in 1990 and 2000. Table 2-7 shows the commute destinations of resident workers in Middlesex County. This table is based on 2000 U.S. Census journey to work data. The majority of residents commute 28
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 2-5: Means of Transportation to Work, Middlesex County and New Jersey, 1990 Location New Jersey Middlesex % Drove Alone in 1990 71.6% 75.2% % Carpooled in 1990 12.4% 11.0% % Used Public Transportation in 1990 8.8% 8.1% % Biked or Walked in 1900 4.3% 3.4% % Used Bicycle or Similar in 1990 0.7% 0.6% % Worked at Home in 1990 2.1% 1.7%
Table 2-6: Means of Transportation to Work, Middlesex County and New Jersey, 2000 Location New Jersey Middlesex % Drove Alone in 2000 73.0% 74.4% % Carpooled in 2000 10.6% 11.1% % Used Public Transportation in 2000 9.6% 8.7% % Biked or Walked in 2000 3.4% 3.0% % Used Bicycle or Similar in 2000 0.7% 0.6% % Worked at Home in 2000 2.7% 2.1%
29
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 2-7: Commute Destinations of Middlesex County Residents County of Residence Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Place of Work Middlesex New York (State) Somerset Union Essex Mercer Monmouth Hudson Morris Bergen Passaic Hunterdon Pennsylvania (State) All Others Ocean Burlington Sussex Warren Camden Maryland (State) Atlantic Gloucester Cumberland Cape May Delaware (State) Salem Number of Commuters 201,811 34,920 27,358 26,653 16,082 12,952 12,605 8,706 6,715 5,826 2,082 1,502 1,407 1,354 1,122 712 297 238 236 140 129 107 102 76 49 5 Percentage 55.57% 9.62% 7.53% 7.34% 4.43% 3.57% 3.47% 2.40% 1.85% 1.60% 0.57% 0.41% 0.39% 0.37% 0.31% 0.20% 0.08% 0.07% 0.06% 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.001%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census & Middlesex County Planning Department
30
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
to work within Middlesex County itself (55.57%). Roughly 10% commute to New York State. The surrounding counties of Somerset, Union, Mercer, Monmouth, and Essex also receive a fair amount of Middlesex County commuters. 2.11 Key Destinations and Transit Generators
This section includes a list of important destinations within Middlesex County. Generators included are major employers, large medical facilities, colleges and universities, office and industrial parks, and regional shopping centers. Not all destinations could be mentioned due to the large size of Middlesex County. Only those destinations deemed most relevant, by size or importance, to the study were included. All data included in this section is from the Middlesex County Office of Economic Development.
Major Employers
(# of employees)
● Bristol-Myers Squibb (3,750-3,999) ● Merrill Lynch & Company (3,250-3,499) ● Prudential Insurance Company (3,000-3,249) ● Telcordia Technology (3,000-3,249) ● Johnson & Johnson (2,750-2,999) ● Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital (2,750-2,999) ● Silverline Building Products (2,750-2,999) ● J.F.K. Medical Center (2,500-2,749) ● Raritan Bay Medical Center (2,250-2,499) ● St. Peter’s University Hospital (2,250-2,499) ● AT & T (2,000-2,249) ● Down Jones & Company (1,500-1,749) ● Siemens AG (1,500-1.,749) ● United Parcel Service (1,500-1.749) ● Amerada Hess Corporation (1,500-1,499) ● Home Depot (1,250-1,499) ● Verizon (1,250-1,499) ● Aetna/US Healthcare (1,250-1,499) ● Engelhard Corporation (1,000-1,249) 31
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Colleges & Universities
(location)
● Middlesex County College (Edison) ● Rutgers, The State University (New Brunswick & Piscataway) ● Princeton University - Forrestal Campus (Plainsboro) ● University of Medicine and Dentistry (New Brunswick) ● DeVry Institute (North Brunswick) Major Health Care Facilities
(# of hospital beds)
● JFK Medical Center, Edison (501) ● Raritan Bay Medical Center, Old Bridge (110) ● Raritan Bay Medical Center, Perth Amboy (395) ● Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick (448) ● Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick (420) Large Middlesex County Parks and Active Recreation Areas
(size)
● Donaldson Park, Highland Park (90 acres) ● Thomas A. Edison Park, Edison (161 acres) ● Fords Park, Woodbridge (18 acres) ● Johnson Park, Piscataway/Highland Park (473 acres) ● Joseph Medwick Park, Carteret (82 acres) ● Merrill Park, Woodbridge (179 acres) ● Raritan Bay Waterfront Park, South Amboy/Sayreville (136acres) ● Roosevelt Park, Edison (217 acres) ● Spring Lake Park, South Plainfield (121 acres) ● Thompson Park, Monroe/Jamesburg (675 acres) ● William Warren Park, Woodbridge (126 acres)
32
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Dialysis Centers (location) ● DCI (North Brunswick) ● FMC (Colonia) ● Gambro (Edison) ● Gambro (Perth Amboy) ● Gambro (Old Bridge) ● FMC (South Plainfield) ● St. Peter’s Dialysis (New Brunswick) ● DCI (New Brunswick) ● Robert Wood Johnson Hospital Dialysis (New Brunswick) Major Shopping Centers and Regional Malls (square feet) ● Woodbridge Center Mall, Woodbridge, US 1 (1.8 million square feet) ● Menlo Park Mall, Edison, US 1 (1.3 million square feet) ● Brunswick Square Mall, East Brunswick, NJ 18 (827,191 square feet) ● Fashion Plaza, North Brunswick, US 1/US 130 (391,000 square feet)) ● Mid-State Mall, East Brunswick, NJ 18 (377,211 square feet) ● Centennial Square, Piscataway, Centennial Avenue (420,796 square feet) ● Middlesex Mall, South Plainfield, Stelton/Hadley Road (324,000 square feet) ● East Mill Village, Middlesex (332,564 square feet) Regional Hotels and Conference Centers (# of rooms) ● Brunswick Hilton, East Brunswick, Route 18/NJ Tpke (405 rooms, 27 conference rooms) ● Sheraton Edison, Edison, Raritan Center Parkway (278 rooms, 10 conference rooms) ● Hyatt Regency, New Brunswick, Albany Street (296 rooms) ● Doral Forrestal, Plainsboro, 100 College Road East (290 rooms, 37 conference rooms) ● The Westin Princeton at Forrestal Village, Plainsboro (305 rooms, 8 conference rooms) ● Sheraton at Woodbridge Place, Woodbridge, US 1/US 9 (253 rooms, 15 conference rooms) ● Hilton Woodbridge, Woodbridge, Garden State Parkway/Wood Avenue South (200 rooms) 33
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
● Clarion Hotel and Towers, Edison, Route 27/ I-287 (169 Rooms) ● Ramada Inn and Conference Center, East Brunswick, Route 18 and Eggers St,(137 rooms) ● Red Roof Inn, Edison, 860 New Durham Rd (133 Rooms) Major Industrial Parks (size & use) ● Corporate Park 287, Piscataway, I-287/S. Randolphville Road (130 acres/office park) ● Princeton Forrestal Center, Plainsboro, US 1/College Road (2250 acres/office and R&D) ● Carteret Industrial Park, Carteret, Federal/Blair Roads (535 acres/light industrial) ● Technology Center of New Jersey, North Brunswick, US 1/Milltown Road ● Raritan Center, Edison, Woodbridge Ave./Raritan Center Parkway ● Port Carteret Industrial Park, Carteret, Grant/Hayward Avenues (160 acres/flex/rail) ● Cranbury, Keystone, US 130/Route 535 (610 acres/mixed) ● Cranbury, Brainerd Park, Half Acre Road (219 acres) ● Cranbury, Corporate Park Cranbury, Route 515/Prospect Plains Road (200 acres/office/light industry) ● Cranbury, Cranbury Campus, 254 US 130 (270 acres/R & D/flex/light industry) ● Cranbury, Millstone Square, US 130/Station Road (121 acres) ● East Brunswick, Colonial Oaks Industrial Park, Lexington Avenue/Cranbury Road (250 acres/light industry) ● Edison, Edison Industrial Park, Carter Drive/Talmadge Drive (100 acres) ● Piscataway, Rutgers Industrial Park, Circle Drive North/Possumtown Road (300 acres/light industry) ● South Brunswick, Jersey Center Metroplex, US 1/Deans Lane (506 acres/office) ● South Plainfield, Middlesex Business Center, Hadley Road/Corporate Boulevard (105 acres/light industry/office) ● Forsgate Corporate Center, South Brunswick, Cranbury-South River Road/Route 32 (office/light industry) ● Harts Lane Business Campus, East Brunswick, Harts Lane/Tices Lane ● Princeton Corporate Center, South Brunswick, US 1/Independance Way (98 acres/office)
34
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 3
Inventory of Transit and Paratransit Providers
This chapter includes a profile of general public and agency transit providers in Middlesex County. In order to complete this chapter, providers were contacted via telephone by the consultant team and asked to provide basic information about their vehicles, service, passengers, etc, as well as operating and financial data. Due to the fact that providers in some cases did not return phone calls or were not able to provide requested data, the information collected first hand was supplemented with the most recent data assembled in other studies, including: • • • • Middlesex County FY 2002 Annual Report on Transportation and Profile of the Subregional Transportation Network, Middlesex County Department of Planning, August 2002 Middlesex County Transportation User Guide, Middlesex County Department of Planning, August 2002 Medical Transportation Study for the Needs of the Elderly in Mercer and Middlesex Counties in New Jersey, New Jersey Foundation for Aging, July 2002 Middlesex County Area Wide Transportation System (AWTS) Technical Management Study and Paratransit Plan Update, Middlesex County Department of Human Services, March 1998 General Public Services
3.1
There are a number of public transportation providers that operate in Middlesex County, providing the following services: • • • • Three commuter rail corridors (Northeast Corridor, New Jersey Coast, and Raritan Valley) with 10 stations in Middlesex, operated by NJ Transit Express bus services to New York City and other New Jersey counties, operated by NJ Transit and private providers Local bus routes that provide service between communities and provide limited circulation within urban areas, operated mainly by NJ Transit Community shuttles or circulators that provide local circulation and connections. Examples of these are the Hub City Trolley funded by the County to provide connections within New Brunswick, and Edison and Metuchen community shuttle services which provide access between neighborhoods and train stations in those communities. Ferry service from South Amboy to Manhattan, operated by Sea Streak Ferry The Rutgers University Campus Bus System, which includes routes that operate on New Brunswick city streets and which is open to the public
• •
Commuter/express buses and trains connect residential areas in Middlesex County to important business districts in Trenton, New York City, Newark, and Hoboken. There are a number of major commuter corridors in the County. These include the rail services along the Northeast Corridor between Trenton and New York City, as well as the New Jersey Coast and Raritan Valley lines. Route 9 has very frequent commuter/express bus service operating to New York City, Newark, and Jersey City. NJ Transit as well as a number of private carriers operate services. There is also a lot of commuter bus service along the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway, operating to park and ride lots and towns that are adjacent to these highways. Other express bus corridors are Route 27 and Route 18. 35
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Local bus shuttles connect train stations to major activity centers in Middlesex County. Local services are concentrated in the urbanized areas of the county such as in New Brunswick, Perth Amboy, Edison, and Metuchen. Other local services in the county provide access to urban areas of Middlesex County or in neighboring counties. NJ Transit allows local trips on the non-express portion of all commuter routes. Many of the less developed areas of the County have no dedicated local services; however, they generally do have express service to New York City Profiles of individual general public transit providers in Middlesex County are presented in Appendix A. 3.2 Municipal Elderly/Disabled Services
Most Middlesex County municipalities supplement AWTS and NJ Transit Access Link paratransit service by operating demand response transportation targeted at specific client groups. Transportation service of this nature is usually limited to seniors or the disabled and has a small service area. Only five Middlesex County municipalities do not directly provide such transportation services: Cranbury Township, Helmetta Borough, Jamesburg Borough, Plainsboro Township, and Woodbridge Township. These five municipalities contract out for this type of service. Cranbury, Helmetta, Jamesburg, and Plainsboro all have agreements with Monroe Township to provide demand response service for their elderly and the disabled populations. Woodbridge Township, along with Sayreville, has a similar agreement with AWTS.4 Table 3-2 presents a summary of the data collected from municipal elderly/disabled programs. Taken together all of these programs utilize 80 vehicles. Based upon the available, at least 251,313 one-way passenger trips were provided, of a cost of at least $2 million. In a few instances, we were unable to obtain cost and ridership data despite repeated attempts, so those totals are in actuality even slightly higher. Detailed profiles of the Middlesex County municipal elderly/disabled services are presented in Appendix A.
Woodbridge and Sayreville have interlocal service agreements with AWTS to provide subscription service for senior and disabled residents. AWTS data that has been collected does not disaggregate for these two municipalities. Thus, Woodbridge Township does not have a separate municipal profile presented in Appendix A. Sayreville does have a profile because it operates a small fixed route service that complements AWTS service.
4
36
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 3-1: Summary of Municipal Aging/Disabled Providers
Provider Carteret Office on Aging Dunellen Municipal Clerk East Brunswick Senior Center/Aging Twp of Edison Division of Senior Citizen Services Highland Park Senior Center Metuchen Senior Citizen Center
Vehicles 4 1 4 5 3 2
Pass. Trips 5,000 NA 20,105 15,500 8,820 5,500
Vehicle Vehicle Miles Hours Total Cost Fund Source NA NA NA 9,225 NA 1,500 NA NA NA 64,130 NA 12,500 $100,000 $18,000 NA NA $70,400 $45,000 Municipal CDBG Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal 35-40% from grants - the remainder is municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal and State Grant NA Municipal 96% township, 4% county Municipal, CDBG 99% municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal
Data Source NJFA study NJFA study R. Steinberg R. Bomba NJFA study NJFA Study
Data Year 2001 2001 2002 2002 2001 2001
Middlesex Borough Office on Aging Borough of Milltown Monroe Twp Transportation Office New Brunswick Dial-A-Ride New Brunswick Senior Citizen Resource Center North Brunswick Twp Department of Human Services Old Bridge Office on Aging Perth Amboy Office On Aging Piscataway Department on Aging Sayreville Office on Aging Dr Charles W Hoffman Senior Resource Center (South Amboy) South Brunswick Twp Department of Recreation & Community Affairs South Plainfield Senior Transportation South River Office on Aging Spotswood Office on Aging Woodbridge Division on Aging TOTALS
4 1 6 6 3 10 7 3 2 2 4 6
4,056 1,437 20,829 19,659 NA 11,701 64,993 24,000 86,662 13,520 8,296 24,283
NA 6,051 5,740 NA NA 8,900 7,560 NA NA NA NA NA
NA 76,659 66,603 49,255 NA 75,737 72,435 NA NA NA NA NA
$29,500 NA $231,634 $191,510 NA $211,000 $300,000 $84,000 $134,677 $127,808 Unable to provide $190,000
NJFA study M. Januska NJFA study A. Elmini NA R. Hermes NJFA study NJFA Study K. Roth AWTS M DeBlis C. Wildemuth
2001 2002 2001 2002 NA 2002 2001 2001 2002 2003 2002 2002
3 2 2
8,216 6,000 3,642
NA 1,250 1,482
NA 12,000 10,000
Municipal and County Office on Aging $50,000 NA NA Local govt & $35,000 county grant $264,189 Municipal
NJFA study C.May NJFA study AWTS
2001 2002 2001 2003
All All All service service by All service service by by AWTS AWTS by AWTS AWTS
80 251,313
NA
NA $2,082,718
37
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
3.3
County Operated Transportation
Middlesex County currently provides transportation through two different means. It directly operates service through its Area Wide Transportation Services, or AWTS, which provides mainly demand response and subscription services to special populations in the county. Due to the size and importance of AWTS, a full Chapter (Chapter 6) is devoted to it. The other way in which the County is involved in transportation is through the County Board of Social Services (BSS), which contracts out service for specific eligible populations. BSS provides transportation through four major funding sources for multiple purposes including Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) and Medicaid Non-Emergency Transportation. It provides these through contracts with four different taxi companies in four geographic regions. The Board of Social Services has agreements to reimburse these companies on a per loaded mile basis, and Medicaid recipients are permitted to use any of the contracted companies. The consumer does not pay for his or her trip. Medicaid also reimburses bus passes. Work First New Jersey participants are eligible to receive transportation up until receiving their first paycheck at a job. This can also be extended at the County’s discretion. In 2002, the Board of Social Services oversaw the provision of 106,094 trips at an annual cost of $2,574,733. 83% of the trips were for Medicaid purposes. The following tables provide more detail on BSS funding sources.
38
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 3-2: Description of Middlesex County Board of Social Services Transportation Funding and Services Funding Program
Title XIX
Funding Source
Federal – Social Security Administration
Principal Trip Types Taken
Medicaid (Medical Transportation)
Remarks
Supervised by NJ Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services; Administered by Middlesex County Includes individual Medicaid-eligible trips reimbursed
Program Funding/ Administration Issues
Title XX Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Federal Social Security Administration Federal – Social Security Administration
Income Eligible under Title XX guidelines (but not Medicaid) Medical Employment/Training (Work First) Fair Hearing Housing Emergency Assistance SSI/Legal Services
General Assistance (GA)
Medical Employment/Training (Work First) Fair Hearing Housing Emergency Assistance SSI/Legal Services Sources: BSS staff; statements of expenditures Note: All services provided through four contracts with vendors, based on geographically dividing the County (three-year contracts).
NJ Division of Family Development
BSS determines eligibility, but actual transportation can be provided by any carrier Eligible trips cannot be denied, according to Title XIX guidelines Supervised by NJ Division of Youth & Eligibility limited to low income Family Services; Administered by elderly and disabled Middlesex County Supervised by NJ Division of Family Eligibility limited to parents Development; Administered by and children Middlesex County Includes Work First public transit trips arranged through the BSS Includes trips reimbursed through the Training-Related Expenses (TRE) program Administered by Middlesex County Eligibility limited to single Includes Work First public transit trips adults and couples arranged through the BSS
39
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
3.4
Other Services
This section includes countywide services available to the specialized populations. Access Link provides demand-response paratransit service for disabled individuals with origins and destinations with ¾ miles of an existing New Jersey Transit Bus route. The Middlesex County Board of Social Services provides, through contactors, transportation to several different populations, including Medicaid recipients and Work First New Jersey participants. Appendix A includes detailed profiles of NJ Transit Access Link and transportation provided by Middlesex County Board of Social Services. AWTS, the other countywide specialized provider, is profiled and assessed in Chapter 6.
40
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 4 4.1 Introduction
Stakeholder Interviews
From June 9th to July 15th, 2003, the consultant team conducted 34 in-person interviews and one telephone interview, all of them arranged by County Planning Staff. The following groups were represented: • • • County government Municipal government Other transportation stakeholders
Interviewees from the County included all members of the Board of Freeholders, and relevant county department heads and transportation managers. Municipal stakeholders consisted primarily of planning staff or consultants, and transportation managers. Other stakeholders included representatives from such organizations as Keep Middlesex Moving, the Middlesex County Improvement Authority, and the United Way, as well as a State Assemblyman. A full list of the individuals interviewed appears in Appendix B. The results of the stakeholder interviews were divided into several thematic areas and are summarized below. It should be noted that the statements below are in many cases simply the views expressed by stakeholders, and may be grounded in perception rather than fact. 4.2 Existing Services
Most stakeholders were familiar with AWTS intended function, and expressed concerns about its ability to effectively perform them. A big issue was the fact that users need to reserve two to three weeks ahead to schedule a trip. One person pointed out that this was not always the case – that in the past AWTS seemed to be better in this respect. Stakeholders agreed that the system is overburdened and not able to keep up with demand. Trip denials are common. Several stakeholders pointed out deficiencies and inefficiencies in how it is operated. Scheduling procedures are antiquated, and driver attitudes are poor. A problem with driver retention was cited. One person mentioned that AWTS consumers have problems scheduling return trips for dialysis centers. Some stakeholders expressed the view that AWTS is not able to provide work trips for the disabled population on a consistent and reliable basis. This is an important issue for the disabled population of Middlesex County because a lack of reliable transportation is one main reason why many disabled citizens are unemployed. Another issue mentioned was the lack of public awareness of the system. It was also pointed out that there is a perception that AWTS buses are often empty, and therefore being operated inefficiently. A final concern was the inability of AWTS to provide personalized service, such as helping seniors to get from the curb to their door or helping disabled consumers them with their shopping bags. Insofar as municipalities utilized AWTS, it was to complement municipal services, especially for out-of-town trips.
41
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
The Medicaid non-emergency transportation that is provided was discussed by only a few of the stakeholders. It was pointed out that there is no linkage between it and AWTS, except for the fact that individuals ineligible for Medicaid transportation are referred to AWTS. Most trips are provided by contracted taxi companies (almost all of which utilize taxis that are not wheelchair accessible), and one interviewee questioned whether this was the most efficient process. The County was awarded a federally-funded Job Access Reverse Commute Grant (JARC), which it used originally to fund Info Line to provide a transportation broker role. AWTS took over the role of broker from Info Line in 2002 and, with the assistance of Work First funds, is providing a comprehensive delivery system for Work First clients. An additional JARC award is expected. Details of each municipal system are provided in Appendix A. As a general rule stakeholders felt positive about the local systems; however, they also felt that they were not necessarily meeting all of the needs with their limited resources. One stakeholder mentioned that transporting seniors to destinations outside of the city was a challenge. Another felt that service to the Senior Center throughout the day was needed (as opposed to a single trip in the morning and return trip in the afternoon), but not possible due to the inability to find additional qualified drivers. Some senior trip needs are also met through fixed route services and non-profit organizations. Those who mentioned New Jersey Transit’s Access Link complementary paratransit system pointed to its limited service area (serves within ¾ miles of a fixed route only). Another issue is that Access Link could be better marketed throughout Middlesex County. The general feeling about regional and commuter service operated by New Jersey Transit and private providers appeared to be that the Manhattan-bound commuter services were successful and the biggest issue was creating enough parking capacity at park and ride lots and train stations. There seems to be capacity issues throughout the county, from overcrowded park and ride lots in the southern portion of the County (at Exit 8A in South Brunswick and Route 130 in Monroe) to rail station lots in communities such as South Amboy. A new commuter-based service that has also been a success story is the Seastreak Ferry service in South Amboy, which started in February 2001. Ridership there has exceeded projections, and construction on a permanent ferry landing there will begin soon. By contrast, the perception of local routes provided by New Jersey Transit and others was that they did not adequately meet the needs of the riding public. They do not serve the municipalities’ needs very well at all, due to infrequent service, limited hours, and lack of coverage. Cities and towns that had this type of service, such as East Brunswick, Woodbridge and Perth Amboy, did not find it to be useful for their residents. Despite a lack of satisfaction with local NJT routes, most communities had good working relationships with New Jersey Transit when it came to commuter bus, rail, and capital improvements.
42
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
The consultant team learned about many local bus routes initiated by communities. Some of these were up and running, such as the Hub City Trolley in New Brunswick, Edison Light Transit and the Metuchen Community Shuttle. In other cases, cities and towns had initiated service in the past that had failed – this occurred in South Brunswick and Piscataway, to name two. There were also plans underway for several new community routes. Edison is currently designing a fixed-route system, and Monroe has received funding to develop a Township shuttle. These efforts clearly point to a need for local transportation that is not currently being met. Several stakeholders mentioned the existence of gypsy cabs or vans, which appear to be an instance of the underground economy filling a need not met by existing transportation resources. One specific “underground route” that was mentioned was from New Brunswick to the Exit 8A employment area. These services are viewed with concern, insofar as unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles are often utilized. In addition to transit providers, the consultant team also learned about two non-operating agencies that nevertheless can play a role in transportation. These are Keep Middlesex Moving (KMM) and the County Improvement Agency. KMM is the Transportation Management Association for the County, in addition to providing some services for Monmouth County. They are affiliated with the Middlesex County Improvement Authority but are self-supporting through grants and member fees. They have 45-50 company members. One of their major programs is administering and promoting the Statewide Rideshare Program in the County. They have just introduced an emergency ride home program, and they promote ridesharing to both employers and the general public. Working with employers in the area of TDM has been tough since the State pulled the plug on their trip reduction requirements in the early 1990’s. KMM also works closely with many municipalities, in such areas as transit planning (e.g., helping Monroe to implement a new community route), traffic calming, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and corridor planning. They believe they can be most effective by working with communities and can best reach employers through the communities. Marketing of transportation options is also something that they do. They have not become involved in operating transportation and are unlikely to do so in the future. Looking towards the future, they feel that a new County system would have the potential to increase awareness of transit, including much of what KMM does. They also feel that any additional financial support that they get should be unconstrained so that they can devote it towards working with the municipalities. The County Freeholders created the Middlesex County Improvement Authority (MCIA) in 1990, but the agency is independent of the County, and therefore has the flexibility and freedom to deal with politically difficult issues. Since its inception, the Improvement Agency has become involved in several areas, including issuing bonds for capital investments, a recycling, public golf course operation, economic development, nursing homes, and open space. It has also been involved in some transportation projects, including pedestrian related projects in Highland Park and Dunellen. They have also worked with communities on bonding for vehicle leases, including ones for municipal
43
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
senior transportation programs. Although their authorizing legislation places some restraints on their involvement in transportation, they could certainly finance bus facilities, despite the fact that they have not done so yet. An example of an Improvement Authority that has become more directly involved in transportation is the one in Hudson County, which was involved in the Hudson-Bergen light rail initiative. 4.3 County Characteristics and Trends
Some stakeholders made mention of demographic and employment trends that are relevant to transportation in Middlesex County, confirming much of what was found in our independent analysis (Chapter Two). Stakeholders were certainly aware of the growing senior population. Many reported the development of senior housing – in most towns planners could point to several projects that were either just completed or in the works. Monroe is the community that has the highest proportion of seniors, with seniors comprising close to 50% of its total population. Many seniors are new arrivals to this country. This has created new challenges for the municipalities, and many Senior Centers have responded by offering English as a Second Language courses. Edison and Woodbridge were mentioned as the most populous municipalities, and both of them also share a large and growing employment area, the Raritan Center. The cities of Perth Amboy, South Amboy, and New Brunswick were cited for their density and transit need as well. The area close to Exit 8A of the New Jersey Turnpike in South Brunswick and Cranbury, as well as the Princeton Forrestal Center in Plainsboro, were also cited as growing employment areas not well served by transit. These areas have a need for better employment transportation. Apart from this, the different communities have completely different characteristics, which require different approaches to transportation. The southern part of the county, while growing rapidly, is less dense and more difficult to serve with transit. A community like South Amboy, which is compact and relatively dense, is easier to serve but has its share of unmet needs as well. 4.4 Transit Needs
Several interviewees went beyond just describing the characteristics of the County and spoke about specific transit needs. Employment transportation was perceived to be a major need, even though demand has decreased slightly over the past few years due to the less robust state of the economy. A recent effort to address work transportation associated with Work First New Jersey identified a major gap, with no provider focusing on work transportation. There is a general belief that it is difficult to access jobs without an automobile. Access from central cities like New Brunswick to newer work sites like the Raritan Center and Exit 8A area is a clear gap in service.. Many interviewees expressed a desire for better transportation to these areas, including trips timed for 2nd and 3rd shift workers. Another unmet need is access to the County College.
44
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Despite the fact that there do exist services focused on seniors (AWTS and Municipal services), stakeholders felt that unmet needs were still significant among this population. The long waiting period for AWTS was cited as evidence. Needs include medical trips, as well as shopping. Seniors want access to specific shopping destinations that aren’t always provided by the municipal systems, and they want extended hours. Many communities have needs for better internal transit circulation. Sometimes, as in the case of South Brunswick and Plainsboro, this means connections to the rail station or express bus stop. Perth Amboy cited a need for better connections between neighborhoods and commercial areas of the city, and also mentioned future transit needs to get residents and visitors to its waterfront, which is expected to continue to be developed and improved. Other communities, including Piscataway and Cranbury mentioned the need for transportation to their employment centers. A Woodbridge stakeholder talked about connections between shopping centers and connections between train stations – the Township is unique in that it has two of each. It was also noted that many people have transportation needs that extend outside the county; as an example –gaining access to shopping and medical facilities in the Princeton and Freehold areas for residents of southern Middlesex County. Another area of improvement that stakeholders emphasized was marketing of the various services to the County’s residents. Apart from highlighting a general gap in information availability, stakeholders mentioned the need for a uniform identification for transit, such as a single logo or color, and a need for better information about connections between rail stations and local transit options. It was also mentioned that InfoLine does not have information of all the services available to County residents. 4.5 County-Municipal Coordination
Stakeholders talked about county-municipal coordination efforts that had already taken place. The interlocal agreements that AWTS has with Woodbridge, Sayreville, and Old Bridge was an example, although most stakeholders understood that other municipalities have been reluctant to coordinate their systems with AWTS in the past. East Brunswick had a pilot project with AWTS to operate a small fixed route service in the township that unfortunately did not succeed. Both Monroe and South Brunswick operate service for AWTS to fulfill some of the unmet need in the southern part of the County. Another example of County-City coordination cited was the New Brunswick Hub City Shuttle. However, stakeholders also felt that in general there is currently a fragmentation of resources and a severe lack of coordination in transportation provision. School trips, ADA service, medical transportation, work transportation, etc, are all provided separately. Many spoke about the tradition of local power in New Jersey and felt that cities and towns tended to have a parochial attitude, making coordination very difficult Stakeholders generally thought an increased involvement of the County in transportation would be good, but certain reservations were expressed as well. There was a desire
45
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
among some to keep service local and personalized, at least when it came to the senior and disabled populations. Others saw the potential benefit of coordination, particularly as the County and its senior population continues to grow and transportation needs grow along with it. Even those with a more positive view of coordination would be reluctant to commit to anything unless they could at the very least be assured that service would not decrease. Most would like to see a real benefit too. Stakeholder felt that the municipalities would need to be presented with a very well organized county system and get some clear guarantees before they are willing to contemplate coordination. Another stakeholder felt it was not advisable for the County to get involved in municipal service at all, since most are happy with their own service. One city reported that they had considered coordinating with AWTS some time ago but decided against it at the time just because it did not offer them any benefits in terms of increased or improved service. Some stakeholders discussed the possibility of smaller-scale coordination efforts, such as the County performing vehicle inspections for the different townships, or multiple cities and towns coordinating their vehicle purchases to receive volume discounts. 4.6 Improvement Concepts
The consultant team heard many ideas about how transportation in the County could be improved through changes in how County government approaches it. One issue clearly emphasized was the need to address existing performance, particularly with AWTS, before creating new services. As one interviewee stated, “If you are going to provide service you need to do it right”. Some suggested combining more user groups, such as seniors, students, and low-income individuals, to make it more efficient. A major theme was the need to make transportation a separate county function, as opposed to being dispersed throughout several departments. Many would like to see a transportation department that has its own operations, planning and maintenance functions and works to obtain the maximum amount of funds through grants. This would make AWTS and other county transportation services more accountable and efficient. County officials supported the concept of greater County involvement in transportation and coordination with municipalities. Many stakeholders felt that the County needs to play an increased role in transportation particularly in the area of coordinating all of the services, despite the obstacles it faces in this task. Interviewees talked about the County taking over call taking and scheduling functions for many of the municipalities’ demand response services. Others talked about the formation of an even more integrated and coordinated system that would be much more effective and efficient than the current array of providers. One suggestion was to use Middlesex County for a demonstration project of a coordinated system, which could be funded through the mass transit portion of the next State Transportation Trust Fund. Other stakeholders were hesitant about creating a much larger coordinated system, for the reasons described in the previous section on County-Municipal Coordination. In any event, it appears clear that reorganization of existing services, perhaps into a consolidated transportation department, is a more pressing need from County government’s point of view and ought to precede any significant expansion of County transportation.
46
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Other suggested transportation improvements included light rail, the use of school buses for community transit, a water taxi along the Raritan River, and better marketing of transit at the County level.
47
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 5
Employer Focus Groups
This chapter summarizes the results of two focus group sessions conducted with local employers, one in the south Middlesex County area on September 17 and one in the northern part of the county on September 18. The objective was to begin the process of understanding local transportation needs from the employer’s viewpoint. These sessions were exploratory and not intended to provide final answers. 5.1 Profile of Participants
There were four participants. Of the several persons invited to the south county group, only one attended, an initial indication that public transportation policy may perhaps be of marginal interest to employers in that area, though another explanation for low attendance may be simply that people were very busy. The south county participant was the human resource director of a warehousing firm that distributes retail products throughout the region. They are involved in local transshipment of retail goods. This involves receiving deliveries into their warehouse on palettes, providing very short-term storage before moving the goods along in the distribution chain, and loading into their local trucks for delivery to grocery stores or other retailers. All of their permanent employees are members of the Teamsters’ Union. In spite of the threat of a hurricane, three persons attended the north county group of the six invited. They included a manager of a major hotel, part of a national chain, a representative of a major mall, and a representative of a unique recycling company that recycles construction materials and is involved in research on new methods of highway construction. All three were in highly responsible positions and able to speak for their organizations. All participants have a direct business interest in local transportation issues not only because of an interest in labor mobility, but for other reasons as well. Both the hotel and the mall depend on traffic flow to make access easy for patrons. The warehousing and recycling companies use trucks extensively, and the state of the roadways in terms both of congestion and repair, have significant effects on their businesses. 5.2 Perceptions of the State of the Middlesex County Economy
Participants were asked their opinions of the state of the economy in the Middlesex county region. They all indicated that the economy remains “flat” in spite of national news to the contrary. The representative from the warehousing company located in the southern portion of Middlesex County said that they had laid off 200 or more workers since the beginning of the recession, and had no immediate plans to fill those positions again. They have also
48
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
closed several facilities. Currently they employ 70 to 75 workers on a full-time basis plus a number of temporary workers, and have no intention of expanding of their full-time labor force. For the Christmas season they will add temporary workers to handle the increased flow of goods. However, that represents only a seasonal up-tick in employment and not a pattern of growth. Besides the recession, they also face increased competition. She indicated that her company has lost several significant contracts to newer, lower cost operations. The challenges her company faces, then, are dependent not only on the current state of the economy, but also on the long-term competitive situation. In the north county area, the hotelier indicated that the economy, in his opinion, continues to be sluggish. (His hotel employs approximately 250 persons.) He also indicated that the hotel business, including restaurant and meeting facilities, as well as overnight accommodations, depends heavily on the fate of Metro Park. With some movement of companies out of Metro Park, some uncertainty is created for the state of the hotel business independent of recessionary trends. However, recession too hurts their business. He says that this recession has “…not been a train wreck," but that business has been off about ten percent (10%), which he says represents the approximate profit margin. He also indicates that his peers have experienced similar changes at competing hotels. He also observes that the hospitality industry is a lagging indicator of economic conditions and that it takes approximately one year after the end of a recession for the hospitality industry to recover. The reason, he says, is that the hospitality industry is highly dependent upon business travel budgets, which are developed an annual basis. Only after a recovery is clearly underway are managers given back the travel budgets that had been cut during lean times. Therefore, considering national news that growth is developing, he is beginning to think that there is a “glimmer of hope for recovery" in the coming year. The recycling company representative says they employ about 40 people. Their plan for growth includes a partnership with Rutgers University to explore new methods of highway construction. He is optimistic about his company’s future because of this alliance, and the fact that it allows his company to “reinvent itself” in a growth-oriented manner that would not be possible if they remained only in a construction mode. The mall representative indicates that the economy continues to be flat, and that the signs of recovery nationally are not particularly visible yet in their business locally. However, two major new stores are being built near his mall (not part of the mall). One is Wegman’s (a grocer) and the other is Galyans (sporting goods), both of which follow the “big-box” retail model, and are apparently only two components in a complex, which will be extremely large. Although the advent of new stores may mean increased competition for customers and for employees for current area businesses, the fact that major national chains see value in establishing major outlets suggests that they see significant growth potential beyond what the local businesses reported in the focus groups.
49
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Another participant pointed out that in the north county, several major industrial plants had closed or were about to close, including Ford, Frigidaire, and Oldsmobile, an indication to him that blue-collar employment was about to decline further. The juxtaposition of the closing of these kinds of plants with the development of the kinds of retail, warehousing, recycling, and hospitality industries represented by the focus group participants (or their competitors) suggests that the economy of Middlesex County is shifting from heavy industry to service employment, an impression the participants explicitly confirmed. As this transition occurs, the fact that there is increasing competition in the retail and warehousing industries suggests that the incoming companies have reason to be optimistic about the future of the emerging local service-based economy. However, the focus group participants, with the exception of the recycling company (which is bullish because of its research alliance with Rutgers), have a wait-and-see attitude about how the economy will affect their businesses in the next few years. Assuming that this apparent shift is really occurring as rapidly or more so in Middlesex County as it is nationally, the further development of the service industry will have profound implications for transportation needs given that employees in service industries have for many years been more closely associated with heavier use of public transportation than those in higher wage manufacturing jobs. 5.3 Traffic Congestion
Traffic congestion is thought to be especially problematic at the present time primarily because of the current spate of road and bridge construction. In spite of the congestion, none saw it as creating a problem with employee attraction or retention. Two members of the north county group indicated that congestion becomes very severe especially on Routes 1 and 9 which “…back up because of the mall traffic.” This creates a burden for the mall, which has to hire off-duty officers to direct traffic. However, the mall representative says that although the traffic congestion is "legendary.” Local residents regard it as only an inconvenience, not a fundamental problem for business. Looking forward, they suggest that the current widening of Route 1 and certain other improvements will lead to alleviating the problem. However, another participant points out that the addition of Wegman’s, Galyan’s and other stores will add to the traffic, offsetting any potential improvement. According to two members of the groups, the new Wegman’s will include 330,000 square feet, and employ 650 persons, an indication of the large scale that will tend to generate a great deal of additional traffic. 5.4 Local Transportation and Labor Force
Because public transportation policy involves labor force mobility, and thus employee recruitment and retention, participants were asked if they had difficulties recruiting or retaining employees during periods of general economic strength. They said that even in the booming period of the late 1990’s they had no labor shortages. Moreover, they all
50
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
indicated that transportation had never presented a significant recruitment problem for them. Most employees, they said, are able to drive to work. This means that transportation problems (other than heavy traffic) face only a small proportion of their employees. Among that proportion, some walk to work, and few arrive by bicycle at the hotel because they live close at hand, and some arrive via NJ Transit. Because they have not experienced a serious shortage of employees aggravated by transportation difficulties, they tended to see little impact on their employment practices of improved public transportation. They simply acknowledge the obvious – that better local transit would afford them access to a somewhat broader pool of labor. Yet, in describing their views of how their employees commute, they cited several factors that imply various needs for good, local public transit. For example, in the south part of the county, the warehouse human service director said most of their employees drive to work. However, because there is no public transit service, there are two alternative practices. First, temporary help agencies transport the workers they provide. Second, there is wide use of gypsy cabs (actually vans) to carry workers5 to her location and a variety of other low-density employment sites. The fact that these modes exist suggests that there is a south county market for local transportation for enough workers that they constitute a true market for the gypsy cab owners and a need for temp agencies to provide transport. Yet because the employees presently do get to work, her company does not face a transportation obstacle in recruiting needed employees. Therefore her concern is not a “business concern,” but the human concern that she perceives many of the gypsy cabs as overcrowded and inherently unsafe. A similar attitude seems to prevail in the north county. For example, the north county hotelier indicated two differing types of needs for local transportation in the hospitality industry. He said that some employees do arrive by train (NJ Transit). For them, the primary transportation challenge is getting from the NJ Transit train to the hotel. He says that he has “…heard stories of employees getting off work at 11:30 at night who have to walk through the graveyard just to get to the Metro Park train station. It makes me a little bit nervous." This is particularly true, he says, of employees commuting from Elizabeth and communities in the area near the airport. While these are by definition not local employees (because they arrive by train) they represent an additional local transportation need which they solve by making the long walking through what he considers unsafe territory.6
According to a county official present at both sessions, there is considerable concern on the part of local and state police about the safety and safe operation of those vans. 6 He indicated that this is also true of commuting employees at Metro Park in general. He has heard rumors that to meet this need, Metro Park is considering providing a shuttle service to the NJ Transit train station.
5
51
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
A second type of local transportation need in the hotel business is based on his perception that many hotel employees live in high density multifamily housing along Route 1 within about a mile or two of his facility. They walk to work. He says that there is no transportation other than taxis available to those employees, but that taxi drivers do not want the small fare for such a short trip, and that "…when they see you in that uniform, they pass you by." The mall representative indicated that he has no systematic way to know with accuracy where the mall store employees originate or how they commute, except that he is confident that the vast majority drive. However, he has also observed that that when they hold general meetings of all employees from various stores, he notices that a significant minority arrive on NJ Transit buses running from the Elizabeth area. As a result, he estimates (as does the hotelier) that probably between 10% and 15% of his employees use public transportation, but he acknowledges that this is based only on personal observation, and not on any survey or record-keeping. If 10% to 15% actually do use public transit to commute to these jobs in spite of the very limited scope of local service in the county, this would appear to be a strong indication that more extensive networks of local transit would attract considerable market share. He does not perceive transportation as a significant problem in recruitment or retention or other aspects of the retail business in his mall. The primary difficulty for the mall in terms of labor pool is to attract sufficient seasonal help among area teens to help with holiday trade. Also the mall is facing competition for its long-term employees because the incoming nearby chain stores are offering higher wages and better benefits in the stores about to open. The seasonal recruitment problem, he says, is not a lack of transportation, but the fact that, as he sees it, local teenagers eligible for this kind of employment do not consider the wage worth their time because they are from affluent families and do not need the income. The non-seasonal retention problem is a wage/benefit competition, and is also not transportation-related. The recycling company representative does not perceive a transportation problem or unmet need. He said that most of their manual workers drive. They tend to come, he says, from Perth Amboy, although the “…office staff come from somewhat farther out.” He says that “the commute can be tough” because of congestion, especially because of bridge construction. In any event, none of these employers saw labor transportation as a primary issue in operating their businesses or in employee recruitment or retention. Thus, while they tended to feel that expanded public transportation would be desirable as a public good, and might be marginally beneficial to their businesses, it would not, they believe, seriously alter their recruitment patterns. Nevertheless, although they could not articulate a need for public transit to serve their businesses, nor had they studied its potential for their businesses, all four indicated
52
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
several perceptions that are essentially arguments for creation of coordinated local transit services: • • • Traffic congestion is a problem for their driving commuters. Additional local public transportation would provide them with somewhat broader access to employees. There are identifiable needs for transportation at a very local level for the sake of convenience and safety of employees. These are now being met by methods that are undesirable because they are unsafe (dangerous walks, unsafe vehicles) or because they may inefficient in use of commuting time (one or two mile walks).
Moreover, the fact that various businesses in the south county clearly rely on temporary workers transported by their temp-agencies or by unregulated and perhaps unsafe gypsy cabs is indicative that a local transit need already exists, but is being met in an ad hoc manner. The hotelier also pointed out that occasionally some of his guests inquire about public transportation, but resort to using taxicabs to get from the train station to the hotel, although they would prefer public transportation. 5.5 Two or More Jobs
A factor one participant suggested limits the employment travel radius to a rather local area was holding multiple jobs, a practice that is typical of many of their service employees, especially recent immigrants. The transportation many employees require is thus not just for direct home to work commuting, but also for moving from a primary job to a second job. These tendencies, they said, tend to limit the employer’s potential for recruiting workers from a significant distance, and thus, in the one participant’s opinion, limits the likelihood that increasing public transportation between north and south county areas would greatly expand the pool of workers that realistically would want or be able to work for them. He argued that this tendency gives cause to believe that increased public transit would limit the degree to which the employer would enjoy improved access to a larger pool of labor. However, if he is correct, that dual job-seekers tend to want jobs that are in close proximity, this could also be interpreted to mean that efficient local transportation services might be heavily used by such workers if they enabled them to move more expeditiously between jobs. 5.6 North / South Differences
North and south county appear to differ both in the nature of their economic development/employment characteristics, and in terms of existing transportation solutions.
53
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
For example, the ratio of employees to square feet (650 for 330,000 sq ft) cited as an example of incoming north county retail business (Wegman’s) is far higher than it is for distribution and warehousing companies (according to one source, 75 persons for a roughly 200,000 sq ft facility) that appear to be a key element of economic development in the south county. If these are typical ratios and represent development patterns typical of the north and south counties, that would imply that the transportation challenges would be fundamentally different, with sites in the south possibly more scattered than in the north. This is certainly not proven by the small initial sampling, but it suggests an avenue for further inquiry that could have major implications for an eventual local transportation plan. Besides these patterns, the existing transportation solutions reported for the north and south counties were very different. In the north county, many of the service employees who do not drive to work were said to live relatively close to their workplaces and have limited transportation needs except within a very constrained local area. A smaller number were said to use public transit to commute from a distance. This contrasts with the south county area. With very limited affordable housing for workers, nor any public transportation to the area, most employees who are unable to drive to work are delivered to work in vans provided by their temporary agency, while others arrive in “gypsy cabs.” 5.7 The Hispanic Market
Many of the service sector employees discussed by the participants are of Hispanic origin. Two of the participants pointed out that within this cultural community, there is a great deal of word-of-mouth information-sharing about employment opportunities. This means that employers generally have sufficient applicants from available labor force for the lower paid jobs even in the absence of extensive advertising. However, the term “Hispanic” hides considerable cultural differences within that broad category because the "Hispanic" population originates in several different Spanishspeaking cultures such as the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico and others. This diversity brings with certain differing loyalties within the respective communities. Therefore, the Hispanic population should not be understood to be homogeneous in its communications patterns. One participant pointed out that in some cases there is withincommunity exclusivity in the word-of-mouth networks, limiting the flow of information about certain kinds of jobs to members of one Hispanic community or another who thereby maintain a near-monopoly on semi-skilled and skilled positions, at least within his company.7 Although this is not relevant to basic transportation planning, it may eventually be important in the context of public information efforts to inform people of new transit services if and when they are initiated.
If this proved true for many other employers, it would have implications for community-based communication about transit service in general.
7
54
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
5.8
Support for a New Method of Organizing Public Transit
The participants know virtually nothing about the current state of local transportation. They know of NJ Transit, but not how it interacts with any local transit services. Nor are they familiar with how public transportation is financed. The south county participant was unaware that there was any public transit anywhere in Middlesex County. None had ever heard of the employee tax benefit for use of public transportation which some consider to be a useful tool for employee recruitment and retention. In short, they were simply unable to discuss the matter of public transit policy. In spite of their lack of concrete contextual information, the groups were presented with two models of organizing new public transit services – a county department or a public transit authority independent of the county. They indicated that they were indifferent to the method of organization as long as the new approach was effective. They did not see any particular problem inherent in either approach. This is unusual in the author’s experience. In many localities people tend to develop localized suspicions of either county governments or autonomous authorities. We saw no evidence of this among these discussants, but the sampled group was very small and such attitudes may indeed exist among the public. This remains to be tested. Although they have not thought about the current limitations on transit service, they appear to understand that it is very limited and unresponsive. For example, two of them (hotel and mall) complained that it had been very difficult to obtain schedules from the NJ Transit system when they had requested them. Also, awareness of existing services was very low. Low visibility to these business people is indicative of a lack of service, or service poorly marketed. Thus, their consensus was that whatever administrative entity handled the function, the key is that it be effective in providing and marketing the service and responsive to the public. They saw no reason to believe that either model presented to them was preferable over the other in that sense. 5.9 • • Conclusions The employers that participated appear unaware of local transit service in Middlesex County, though they are aware that New Jersey Transit does provide some service. They perceive no pressing need to tap into an additional labor pool because they have no immediate need to expand. However, some other companies in their businesses, but not participating in the discussion are establishing major new locations, and clearly are expanding. Examples were cited in the distribution and retail sectors of the economy While they are not pessimistic about the future of the local economy, they have adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward it, and toward the future of their own businesses. The only exception to this is the recycling business whose representative was optimistic based on the “reinvention” of his business as a research oriented activity.
•
55
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
•
They identify various needs for local transportation, but they have too little information about transit policy to have thought the issue through or to have considered that an appropriate solution might be reorganization and expansion of local public transportation. They did identify several local transportation needs such as the need for shuttle service from the NJ Transit train station to Metro Park and to their own businesses, or the need to transport workers living within a mile or two of their worksites who do not have cars, or the dependence of temporary workers on the agencies to transport them or on gypsy cabs. Although they did not articulate the idea on their own, these identified needs suggest that a public transit solution might be appropriate. The participating employers had virtually no knowledge of the administrative/legal structure of the public transit industry, or its local manifestations in Middlesex County. Perhaps for this reason, they had no opinion as to the relative viability of two proposed types of transit authority to operate local service area -- a county department of transportation, or a separate transportation authority semi-independent of the county. Collectively their attitude was that the development of local service would be beneficial to the citizenry and the local economy, and that which ever administrative arrangement would “work best” would be acceptable to them.
•
•
56
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
PART II - ANALYSIS
57
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 6 6.1 Introduction
Assessment of AWTS Services and Operations
The Middlesex County Area Wide Transportation System (AWTS) provides both demand responsive and subscription paratransit services to senior citizens (i.e., those over 60 years of age) and persons with disabilities who reside in Middlesex County, New Jersey. It also a provider of Welfare to Work employment transportation as part of the Work First New Jersey program. The AWTS service supplements the NJ Transit Access Link service. NJ Transit’s Access Link is the complementary demand responsive service mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that serves passengers whose disabilities prevent them from utilizing the various NJ Transit fixed route services operated throughout Middlesex County and whose locations are within 3/4 of a mile of a NJ Transit bus route. As previously mentioned, AWTS supplements this Access Link service and operates throughout Middlesex County, utilizing 67 vehicles. AWTS service is also provided up to five miles outside of the County. In addition to the AWTS service, several Middlesex County municipalities also operate demand responsive services to serve specific client groups. The Middlesex County Board of Social Services (BSS) operates the Medicaid transportation system, while both the City of New Brunswick and the Township of North Brunswick have contracted AWTS to operate the “Hub City Trolley” fixed route bus service. The AWTS service also operates specific transportation services under contract with other municipalities, NJ Transit, as well as with several non-profit or social service entities. 6.2 Service Area and Client Eligibility
Service Area The AWTS services are available for interjurisdictional trips (i.e., trips between points in different municipalities) throughout Middlesex County. Service between points within the same jurisdiction is generally only provided if that municipality does not operate its own paratransit service. Service is also provided to locations up to five miles outside of Middlesex County. “Feeder” transportation service to accessible fixed route transportation services is provided. Trips on the AWTS service include (but are not limited to) trips to employment opportunities, post-secondary educational facilities, social and recreational activities, shopping centers, and non-emergency medical service providers. Client Eligibility Eligibility for this “curb-to-curb” paratransit service is restricted in that eligible clients must either be senior citizens more than 60 years of age or must be disabled. In addition, AWTS clients must be residents of Middlesex County. There are approximately 2,500
58
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
registered paratransit clients in the current database, meaning that AWTS interfaces with about one to 1.5 percent of the senior citizen and disabled population of Middlesex County. People with medical problems that require an aide do not need to register their aide; aides may utilize the AWTS services while assisting them. It should be noted that AWTS will also reserve and schedule vehicles for “Special Trips” for organizations that provide social, recreational and educational services to senior citizens and the disabled. At least five passengers must be included in the group for the trip to qualify as a Special Trip. All passengers must be registered with AWTS. Reservations must be made at least two weeks in advance. Special Trips may also be scheduled for evenings and weekends. However, AWTS will not operate Special Trips on holidays, on weekends containing a holiday, or on weekends on which the preceding Friday or following Monday is a holiday. Eligibility for Work First New Jersey trips is determined by the Board of Social Services, which administers that program for the County, and arranges for transportation from several providers, one of which is AWTS. Finally, client eligibility is not an issue for the two fixed route general public transit services operated by AWTS (i.e., the Old Bridge Community Shuttle and the previously mentioned Hub City Trolley bus route). 6.3 Fare Structure
AWTS does not charge a fare, except for Special Trips and passengers who are transported to competitive employment opportunities. These passengers are charged $1.50 for each one-way trip and $3.00 for a round trip. All other passengers may provide AWTS with a strictly voluntary donation. The suggested donation is $1.00 for each one-way trip and $2.00 for each round trip. However, passengers may donate whatever amount they wish. The donations may be mailed to AWTS in pre-addressed envelopes that are available on every vehicle. AWTS drivers will not accept either envelopes or cash donations. Finally, both the Hub City Trolley bus route and the Old Bridge Community Shuttle are provided free of charge. However, voluntary donations are accepted for the Old Bridge Community Shuttle. 6.4 Service Description
Span of Service AWTS paratransit vehicles operate Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The first pick-up is scheduled for 8:00 AM, and the last return pick-up is scheduled for 3:30 PM. Service after 3:30 PM is limited, and sometimes may operate as late as 10:00 PM on a limited basis. AWTS also operates subscription trips in addition to its demand
59
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
responsive service. Subscription trips are pre-arranged and occur on a consistent basis, thus allowing AWTS to regularly schedule these trips with a minimum of difficulty. The AWTS service does not operate on County holidays. As previously mentioned, AWTS also operates the Hub City Trolley fixed route bus service in the New Brunswick area. This service operates a loop shuttle route between 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM on every day of the week except Sunday. Service is also provided on all holidays except New Year’s Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. The Old Bridge Community Shuttle, also operated by AWTS, operates on weekdays. Morning peak period service operates between 5:15 AM and 8:06 AM, while evening peak period service operates between 4:15 PM and 7:36 PM. Service Types Both the demand responsive and subscription paratransit services are “curb-to-curb” in that vehicle operators are not permitted to assist passengers beyond the curb. However, vehicle operators may assist with up to two packages by carrying them to the front door of a home or into an apartment building lobby. In order to accommodate as many trips as possible, AWTS may sometimes schedule clients on a taxicab. AWTS contracts with two different taxicab companies to provide this type of service. Because of the sensitive nature of some medical service trips many dialysis clients are transported in this manner. As previously mentioned, the AWTS service also operates specific transportation services under contract with some other municipalities and NJ Transit as well as with several non-profit or social service entities. Both the City of New Brunswick and the Township of North Brunswick have contracted AWTS to operate the “Hub City Trolley” fixed route shuttle bus service that circulates throughout New Brunswick. The Township of Old Bridge and NJ Transit utilize AWTS to operate the Old Bridge Community Shuttle, which is a fixed route commuter service oriented to the Ticetown Road Park-andRide Lot. The Borough of Sayreville and the Township of Woodbridge also utilize AWTS for their supplementary paratransit needs (i.e., those trips not served by NJ Transit’s Access Link service) and have “interlocal” service agreements with AWTS. AWTS also has service agreements with the Township of South Brunswick and the Township of Monroe. Finally, the AWTS service also contracts with several non-profit and social service entities to provide service. These include the American Red Cross, Catholic Charities, and Cerebral Palsy of Middlesex County. Table 6-1 provides a summary of all the individual services provided by AWTS.
60
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 6-1: Description of AWTS Programs and Services (2003) Program Name
NJ Transit Woodbridge Sayreville Old Bridge Ryan White/HIV
Service Description
Basic General Senior/Disabled Service Local Senior/Disabled Service Local Senior/Disabled Service Peak Period Shuttle Transport HIV Positive/AIDS Patients to Treatment Facilities Service for FrailElderly/Seniors of various Ethnicities Transport Vets to Medical Treatment Facilities Transport Addicted Residents to Treatment/Detox Centers Welfare-to-Work Service Serves Board of Social Services clientele as well as general ridership for work, senior center activities and transportation links (train and bus) Supplement Other AWTS Programs
Coverage
In County and up to 5 miles beyond (on-demand) Woodbridge Township (on-demand) Sayreville Borough (on-demand) Old Bridge Township (fixed-route) Middlesex/Somerset/ Hunterdon County Residents County Residents - In County and up to 5 miles beyond In and out of County (to any VA hospital in NJ) In and out of County (to any facility in NJ, based on bed availability) In County New Brunswick (fixed-route)
Remarks
Five-year agreement Five-year agreement Started January 2003; three-year agreement Federal Grant; Middlesex County provides all transportation Targets established for minority passengers Number of trips determined by formula to maintain grant
NJ Senior Cit. Block Grant (SSBG) Military/Vets Affairs Addictions
Work First Hub City Trolley
Referred by Board of Social Services case workers, including childcare transportation Sponsored by County, City and North Brunswick Township; Operated by Coach USA by bid
Middlesex County
As Warranted
County-funded drivers; and various vendors for service in offhours, child care, distant locations, etc.
Source: AWTS Summary provided by staff; AWTS staff
61
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Reservation Policy AWTS recommends that reservations be made “as soon as possible” because of heavy demand for the service. In fact, it is recommended that reservations for regularly scheduled trips be made during the week of the 15th of the month for the following month (i.e., approximately two weeks ahead of the trip). It should be noted that this is quite a long advance reservation time for demand responsive paratransit service. Reservations may be made on Mondays through Fridays between 7:15 AM and 4:00 PM, although it is recommended that prospective passengers call between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM because call volume is lighter. Travel Policies Passengers are asked to be ready to meet the AWTS vehicle at the curb for their trip one hour prior to the scheduled pick-up time. The AWTS vehicle operator will beep the horn and wait five minutes before proceeding to the next scheduled pick-up location. A passenger who does not appear as scheduled and has not previously cancelled their trip is considered a “no-show” and AWTS has a no-show policy in place that involves temporary suspension of service for repeat offenders. Typically, only about one percent (i.e., 0.94%) of all scheduled AWTS trips result in a no-show, resulting in few suspensions due to enforcement of the no-show policy. Finally, trip reservations may be cancelled by calling AWTS up to one hour ahead of the scheduled pick-up time. Almost 13 percent (i.e., 12.88 percent) of all scheduled trips are eventually cancelled by the client. This is high compared with a cancellation rate of five percent or less typically observed in demand response systems. Part of the reason for such a seemingly high percentage of trip cancellations by AWTS clients is that many trips have to be scheduled two weeks in advance because of the level of demand on the system. If this is the case, many clients likely place a trip reservation just to “hold their place” and then cancel the reservation later on. Trips cancelled by AWTS and trips cancelled by organizations such as workshops amount to only about one percent (i.e., 1.12 percent) of all scheduled trips. AWTS does not have a policy to penalize clients that chronically cancel trips. Even when the proper procedure is followed in making a cancellation, the trip has been already scheduled and a cancelled trip may prevent another person from being accommodated. 6.5 System Resources
To gain a perspective on the size and nature of the AWTS service’s resources, a review of the staffing and vehicle fleet was performed. Staffing Based on information provided by staff, there are 79 employees involved in providing the various AWTS public transportation services. The vehicle operators (57) represent
62
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
almost three-quarters (i.e., 72 %) of all employees. In addition, there are ten substitute drivers not included in the above that are utilized on a daily basis. AWTS staff report that there is little trouble getting good drivers in the current employment market; prospective drivers receive two weeks of training and require a Commercial Driver’s License with a Class “C” endorsement. Maintenance accounts for about three percent of total staff, with two employees being assigned to vehicle maintenance from the Middlesex County Central Maintenance staff. Their work is charged to AWTS at $40.00 per hour plus the actual cost of parts. Gasoline and diesel fuels are also charged at cost. However, in discussions with staff from the Middlesex Central garage, other mechanics will be called in on an as-needed basis to support the vehicle maintenance of the AWTS vehicles. The remaining 25 percent of staff (20 employees) are involved in administration of the transit system. There are four program coordinators as well as two full-time and two part-time reservations intake workers, utilizing four telephone lines. There are also two schedulers and two full-time dispatchers. The AWTS dispatchers are on-duty from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Scheduling is computer-assisted in terms of data gathering but is primarily prepared manually. Driver runs, or tours, are pre-scheduled, but AWTS will acquire a mobile data transmission system in the future so that driver tours can be more easily updated on a “real time” basis. A cursory review of about ten driver tours from a typical weekday indicated that the make-up of the driver tours is satisfactory. Pick-ups and drop-offs are scheduled in a relatively logical sequence in terms of geography and vehicle utilization. In some cases a trip will involve pick-ups in multiple municipalities, but in these cases the passengers all tend to be going to the same final destination (e.g., some type of medical facility or a shopping center). In any event, the manual scheduling process currently utilized by AWTS results in a low trip denial rate of less than one percent (i.e., about 0.66 percent of all trips). However, AWTS staff acknowledges that the data for this performance may be suspect. Vehicle Fleet The AWTS services utilize an active fleet of 67 vehicles. When a full complement of drivers and vehicles are available for service, approximately 55 can be scheduled. However, the maximum number of vehicles in service is typically less. On a recent visit to AWTS, there were only 46 vehicles in service. Most AWTS vehicles are equipped with a wheelchair lift and all have a radio to communicate with the dispatcher. There are 18 of the 67 vehicles that are in need of immediate replacement because they have reached the end of their useful life.
63
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Vehicle Storage The AWTS vehicles are stored at three primary and three secondary locations. The primary locations are the Department of Human Services complex on Jersey Avenue in New Brunswick, Roosevelt Hospital in Edison and the municipal complex in Sayreville. The secondary storage locations are in East Brunswick, Woodbridge and homes of some drivers. This number of locations makes it especially difficult for control of drivers and vehicles. Vehicle Maintenance The maintenance of the AWTS fleet is the responsibility of the County’s Central Vehicle Maintenance division, which also maintains other vehicles in the County fleet. The vehicle maintenance complex is located on Apple Orchard Lane in North Brunswick, approximately a 10 minute ride from AWTS headquarters. Travel from the five other vehicle storage locations takes much longer. The maintenance building for most of the AWTS light duty vehicles was constructed in 1981 and includes 14 repair bays. The building for the heavy duty AWTS vehicles includes six repair bays. There are 11 mechanics assigned to the light duty area and five mechanics at the heavy duty area. Two of the mechanics are primarily assigned to the AWTS vehicles. Besides the 16 mechanics, there are four foreman, three parts clerks and eight other administrative employees. This staff of 31 employees is responsible for maintenance of over 1,000 pieces of equipment of which about 700 are vehicles. The best indicator of vehicle maintenance staff size needs is the amount of vehicle miles operated. Data for 2002 indicated that AWTS vehicles operated about 1.4 million miles. With two mechanics, the ratio of miles to mechanic is 700,000 miles. The average for this statistic at other systems is generally in the 200,000 to 300,000 miles range. This information is from September 1992 guidelines, prepared for the Federal Transportation Administration. This guideline indicates that AWTS should have about five to six mechanics assigned to the vehicle maintenance function. A further issue is the fact that, while AWTS vehicles are a priority in terms of maintenance work, they are not the highest priority. Sheriff and Emergency vehicles are a higher priority. During a recent visit to the Central Vehicle Maintenance complex, 12 AWTS vehicles were awaiting repair or other maintenance work such as Preventive Maintenance Inspections. The complex does not have an automatic vehicle washer. Vehicle washing is done by hand. The Preventive Maintenance (PM) Inspections for AWTS vehicles are scheduled for every 3,000 miles. Five month information for a sample of ten AWTS vehicles indicated
64
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
that the PM inspection interval is satisfactory, with only two of the ten vehicles exceeding the 3,000 mile interval by more than 1,000 miles. The vehicle maintenance records are computerized. Vehicle maintenance on each AWTS vehicle can be tracked. However, one shortfall is the fact that the vehicle records do not include the mileage when the work was performed. This information would aid in assessing vehicle performance. 6.6 Operating and Financial Data
To indicate operating and financial data at AWTS, operating statistics and cost information were obtained for calendar year 2002. Operating expense and revenue reports compiled by AWTS, as well as monthly and annual ridership reports, were the sources of this information. The results are presented in the accompanying table. Table 6-2: AWTS Operating and Financial Data, 2002 Funding Program Trips (Passenger Boardings) Costs* Cost per Trip
Casino County Veterans Other Total
Demand Responsive 106,930 4,144 1,810 48,745 161,629
Fixed Subscription Route 6,590 24,284 82,091 0 0 88,681 0 354 31,799 56,437
Taxi 13,073 0 0 0 13,073
Total 150,877 86,235 2,164 80,544 319,820 $1,618,500 $10.73 $603,245 $25,000 $702,143 $2,948,889 $7.00 $11.55 $8.72 $9.22
* Operating and Administrative Costs - EXCLUDES Capital Costs and Fringe Costs
The number of boardings in 2002 was segregated based on the funding mechanism, which provides the subsidy for that particular trip. These four programs are the casino reinvestment funds received from the State of New Jersey (i.e., the Senior Citizen and Disabled Residents Transportation Assistance Program), funds from Middlesex County, funds from the Veterans’ Administration and funds from various other sources such as the Federal Transit Administration and municipalities within the county. The boardings were also classified by “mode”, with demand responsive clearly being the most numerous. Finally, it should be noted that the operating and administrative costs do not include either capital costs or fringe (i.e., overhead) costs; these are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7. In this limited analysis, the cost per trip was calculated at $9.22 for all of the AWTS services, as seen in the Table 6-1.
65
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
6.7
Conclusions
From this review of AWTS, the following conclusions can be reached: • The demand for AWTS services could increase significantly if more eligible residents made use of the services. Currently, only about 1.5% of the eligible county residents are registered with AWTS. The brochures to advertise AWTS services are well laid-out and easily understood. The two week in advance to make a reservation is much too long. Most systems have an advance reservation period of only several days. However, it should be noted that the current two week advance reservation policy has been in effect for over six years. The number of “no-shows” is reasonable and consistent with experiences at other systems. The number of trip cancellations is extremely high at nearly 13 percent and can prohibit other clients from utilizing the services. There is no AWTS policy to punish clients who make a significant number of trip reservations that are later cancelled. AWTS often does not provide the full level of services. An insufficient number of drivers and/or operable vehicles are the major reasons for this is shortfall in service. Driver tours that are operated appear to be designed in an effective manner. About one-quarter of the AWTS fleet has reached their useful life and is in need of replacement. The fact that AWTS vehicles are stored in six different locations makes control of drivers and vehicles a major challenge. The Central Vehicle Maintenance complex is a well laid-out facility with all necessary shop and garage equipment except for an automatic vehicle washer. Lack of such a washer requires that the AWTS vehicles be washed by hand or at a local car wash. The number of mechanics assigned to the AWTS fleet is too low. If AWTS were a stand alone operation with 67 vehicles that operated about 1.4 million miles per year, a complement of five or six mechanics would be needed. The PM inspection program appears to be adequate in that eight of the ten vehicles that were reviewed were performed within the 3,000 mile interval. Lack of vehicle mileage on the computerized vehicle repair records makes assessing vehicle performance difficult. 66
• •
• •
• • • • •
•
• •
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
• •
Costs reports by AWTS vary widely by the different services types for the different funding agencies. There is no detailed information by service type or individual driver tour to assess the performance of the different service types. There is no data record on vehicle miles and hours.
As seen above, there are a significant number of issues related to the current AWTS services. Many of the issues such as use of the Central Vehicle Maintenance and lack of detailed performance information reduce the accountability of AWTS.
67
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 7
Financial Baseline
The purpose of this chapter is to make transparent the existing revenues of and expenditures of transportation services provided by the county. This requires fully allocating the costs spent on transportation, even when they include such things as administrative costs and fringes that are not within the budget of the operating department. Only by fully allocating costs is it possible to gain a complete understanding of what the county spends on transportation now and build a baseline to project additional costs that may be incurred as the result of a new program. 7.1 AWTS Revenues
AWTS has a total operating budget of $4,948,247 in 2003. This budget is constructed form multiple funding sources, most of which are directed towards specific programs that it operates. These are summarized in Table 7-1 and discussed below. AWTS largest program is its basic demand response senior and disabled service, and this is funded primarily by the State’s Casino Revenue Fund. This NJ Transit program is by far the largest funding source for AWTS, contributing $1.7 million to its paratransit program in 2003. This money funds 46 of 88 AWTS’ administrative, operating and maintenance staff positions. Middlesex County then uses some of its general revenues to match this, funding some drivers and also indirect services and fringe benefits provided by the Department of Human Services and other departments. $142,000 of this is also passed through to contracted operators, such as taxi companies. The Senior Citizen and Disabled Resident Transportation Assistance Program is funded from the State’s Casino Revenue Fund. Atlantic City casinos pay eight percent of their gross revenues into this fund to support programs that benefit New Jersey senior citizens and persons with disabilities. About 85 percent of the annual transportation appropriation is distributed among New Jersey’s 21 counties. The remaining 15 percent is allocated to NJ Transit to provide technical assistance to the counties, to coordinate programs within and among the counties, and for bus and rail accessibility projects. As described in Chapter 6, AWTS has three interlocal arrangements for providing municipal demand response (Woodbridge and Sayreville) and fixed route (Old Bridge) services. It will receive a combined total of $ 432,997 from those municipalities in 2003 to operate the services. This funded 10 staff positions. A slightly different arrangement is with the Hub City Trolley, which serves Board of Social Services clientele and the general public in New Brunswick. This service is funded jointly by the County (50%), the City of New Brunswick, and the Township of North Brunswick. Total funds for 2003 are $154,690. In recent years, AWTS has taken on the responsibility of providing some of the counties transportation for welfare to work transportation, called Work First in New Jersey. This is part of a tripartite agreement, whereby clients of both the Board of Social Services and
68
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 7-1: Funding, Budget & Staffing of AWTS Programs (2003)
A. Program-Specific Services Operated by the County Funding Source Operating Funded Remarks Budget (a) Staffing (b) NJ Transit Casino Revenue Grant Interlocal Woodbridge Township Interlocal - Sayreville Boro Interlocal – Old Bridge Township Ryan White/HIV Title I Grant Department of Aging NJDMVA – Veteran’s Admin. NJHSS Addictions Service Grant Work First NJ $1,710,071 $264,189 127,808 $41,000 $182,691 $184,978 $23,200 $99,850 46 6 3 1 5 7 1 4 Administration plus Operating and maintenance staff
Program Name NJ Transit Woodbridge Sayreville Old Bridge Ryan White/HIV SSBG Military/Vets Affairs Addictions Work First Subtotal
$104,594 3.5 Salaries $2,738,381 76.5 B. Other County Operated Services and Contributions Middlesex Middlesex County $1,650,176 11.5 (c) Includes County-funded County General Revenues AWTS drivers, and matching allocations to AWTS for fringe benefits and indirect services provided by the County Human Services and Administration/ Finance departments Subtotal $1,650,176 11.5 C. Service Operated by Contractors NJ Transit NJ Transit Casino $142,000 Revenue Grant Hub City Interlocal – Hub City $154,690 Funded ½ by County and Trackless Trackless Trolley ½ locally by New Trolley Brunswick/North Brunswick Work First Work First NJ $258,000 Ryan Ryan White/HIV Title $5,000 White/HIV I Grant Subtotal $559,690 0 $4,948,247 88 Grand Total Source: AWTS staff input & budget (a) Excludes $108,027 estimated in fares and donations, used only for program enhancement (b) Direct staffing only (excludes allocations from other departments such as Public Works) (c) Includes 1.5 employees assigned to process fares and donations.
69
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
the Workforce Investment Board are referred to AWTS, which either provides transportation directly or contracts out the service. Altogether, AWTS is receiving $362,594 in funds for Work First transportation. $258,000 of that is passed through to contractors, who are able to meet employment transportation needs that AWTS cannot. AWTS also received several grants, which it uses to fund programs for specific populations. In 2003 this included the following: • Ryan White CARE Act federal grant - $182,691 – This was used to transport HIV positive/AIDS patients to treatment facilities in Middlesex, Somerset, and Hunterdon County • NJ Senior Citizen Block Grant - $184,978 – This grant fund transportation for frail and elderly seniors, with targets established for minority passengers • Military/Vet’s Affairs Grant - $23,200 – Another state grant, this one used for medical transportation for veterans • NJHSS Addictions Service Grant - $99,850 – Used for transporting addicted residents to treatment/detox centers Taken together, these four special grants fund 17 AWTS positions. Finally, it is important to note that the county invests a considerable amount of its own general revenue funds in transportation. This includes drivers that it funds directly, fringe benefits, and indirect services provided by various county departments. In total, this amounts to $1.65 million, a significant contribution to the $4.95 million in total that it spends on transportation. 7.2 AWTS Expenditures A key to understanding AWTS operating expenses is that only a portion of its fully allocated expenses are direct expenses. Both direct and indirect expenses are shown in Table 7-2 below. Direct expenses total $4,359,494. This includes all of the AWTS administrative staff and their fringe, drivers and their fringe, rent and utilities for AWTS facilities, and fuel, as well as all contracted services. There are also small amounts of miscellaneous expenses incurred by AWTS. Fully allocating transportation costs means adding $588,753 in indirect expenses from administrative elements of Human Services, general County administration, and public works. Maintenance, which is done entirely in Public Works is the largest piece of this, totaling $249,675 for labor and parts. Indirect administrative expenses from the Department of Human Services and elsewhere amount to $339,078.
70
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 7-2: AWTS Operating Budget (2003) Indirect Expenses from Other County Departments Public Human Law/Public Works Services Admin Safety [c] Subtotal
$102,865 $39,623 $102,865 $39,623
Direct Expenses Administration
Personnel Fringe Rent/Bldg Utilities (b) Other Subtotal $214,200 $82,638 $110,000 $19,100 $425,938 $2,321,583 $894,794
Total
$317,065 $122,261 $110,000 $19,100
$142,488
$196,590
$339,078
$765,016 $2,321,583 $894,794
Operations
Personnel Fringe Maintenance - Labor (d) Maintenance - Parts (d) Fuel Other Subtotal $129,800 $27,689 $3,373,866 $3,799,804 $559,690 $4,359,494 88.1% $142,488 $196,590 (a) $249,675 $588,753 11.9% $142,488 $196,590 $249,675 $249,675 $249,675 $588,753
$144,812 $104,864
$144,812 $104,864
$144,812 $104,864 $129,800 $27,689 $3,623,541 $4,388,557 $559,690 $4,948,247 100.0%
In-house Subtotal Contract Services TOTAL Percent of Total
Sources: AWTS budget; AWTS & County Admin/Finance staff (a) Services provided by this department are not allocated to AWTS (b) For Jersey Avenue facility (c) Includes Central Vehicle Maintenance (d) Maintenance cost breakdown based on 6 months of actual changes (58% labor, 42% parts)
71
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
7.3
Board of Social Services
As described in Chapter Three, the Board of Social Services (BSS) receives money that it uses to pay for contracted transportation for its customers. This came from four sources: Social Security Title XIX (Medicaid), Social Security Title XX, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and State General Assistance (GA). The breakdown of 2002 funding from these programs is shown in Table 7-3. These funding sources are also described below. Social Security Title XIX BSS receives the majority of its transportation funding for this program, at $1.8 million. Medicaid funding from the Federal Social Security Administration enables the State to furnish medical transportation assistance on behalf of families with dependent children, and of aged, blind or disabled individuals whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services. This program is supervised by the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, and is administered by Middlesex County. Funding covers transportation provided by various carriers as well as reimbursement of individual Medicaid-eligible trips via public transit. Social Security Title XX BSS also receives some non-Medicaid funding from the Federal Social Security Administration for transportation to eligible low income elderly and disabled persons. In 2002 this totaled less than $10,000.This program is supervised by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services, and is administered by Middlesex County. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) The Federal Social Security Administration’s TANF program provides funding for transportation of income-eligible parents and children for a variety of trip purposes: medical, employment/training (Work First), Fair Hearing, Housing assistance, emergency assistance, and SSI/Legal Services. BSS received $358.800 of these funds in 2002. Work First public transit trips are included, as are trips reimbursed through the TrainingRelated Expenses (TRE) program. This program is supervised by the New Jersey Division of Family Development, and is administered by Middlesex County. General Assistance This program consists of State funding for transportation of income-eligible single adults and couples. Similar to the Federal TANF program described above, trip purposes may include medical, employment/training (Work First), Fair Hearing, Housing assistance, emergency assistance, and SSI/Legal Services. Work First public transit trips are included, as well. BSS received $337,485 in transportation funds from this program in 2002.
72
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
7-3: BSS Financial and Ridership Summary (2002) Funding/ Operating Expenses
Program
Trip Type
Trips Taken
Title XIX (Social Security) Title XX (Social Security) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) --------------------General Assistance (GA)
$1,868,496 Medicaid $9,952 Income Eligible $358,800 Medical (a) Work First - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fair Hearing $337,485 Housing Emergency Assistance SSI/Legal Services TANF/GA Subtotal $2,574,733
Remarks 83% of total trips 88,574 provided 770 12,345 Started in 3,101 May 34 1,183
39 48 16,750 106,094
Total
Sources: BSS staff; statements of expenditures Note - Additional expenditures not shown include:
$92,945 for Food Stamps Employment & Training - Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWD) $35,491 for individual and transit trips reimbursed (a) TANF allocation for transportation - Training-Related Expenses (TREs)
73
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
7.4
Other Providers
Although an in-depth analysis of financial data for transportation providers outside of County government, the consultant team did as part of its survey of municipal elderly/disabled services and general public providers in the county request basic financial operating data. Details are included in Chapter 3 and Appendix A, but highlights include the following: • • • Financial data was obtainable from 15 of 22 elderly/disabled transportation programs. Taken together, those 15 programs expended just over $2 million in annual operating costs. NJ Transit spends about $45 million in Middlesex local and express bus operations, not including its Access Link paratransit service. NJ Transit incurs $1.75 million in operating costs for its Access Link program in Region 5, which includes Middlesex, Monmouth, and parts of Ocean Counties.
74
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 8
Congruency Analysis
Part I of this report documented the array of transportation resources in Middlesex County, described the socioeconomic character of the County, and discussed unmet transportation needs from the perspectives of County stakeholders. Some clear indications of transportation need could be inferred from these components. The goal of this chapter is to follow up in areas where need was indicated and attempt to better understand that need by comparing resources and demand. Three areas of particular interest that emerged out of the first Technical Memorandum include: ● ● ● Access to Employment Potential for Increased Utilization of NJ Transit Access Link by Persons with Disabilities Unmet Needs Among the Senior Population
This congruency analysis will look at each issue in greater detail and will compare existing service with some measure of demand. 8.1 Major Employment Sites
A major perceived unmet need among Middlesex County stakeholders was transportation to employment sites within the County, and this was reinforced by the employer focus groups. Chapter 2 listed and located both major employers and industrial/office parks. Although this by no means represents all of the employment in the County, the extent to which transit serves the larger sites provides some indication of how accessible employment is via transit in Middlesex County. Figures 8-1 and 8-2 illustrate how employment sites match up geographically with local bus routes and rail stations. A ¼ mile buffer is shown around each local route and a ½ mile buffer is shown around each train station to represent a reasonable walking distance. The figure clearly indicates better geographic coverage in the northern part of the County. Coverage is probably best in New Brunswick, which is served by frequent commuter rail service, NJ Transit and Suburban local routes, as well as municipal and Rutgers University services. St. Peters Hospital, Robert Wood Johnson Hospital, and Johnson & Johnson, all with 2000+ employees, are within ¼ mile of a local bus route, and the Rutgers University campuses are well served by their own system, with connections to other services. Local bus access to New Brunswick employment is available from most communities in the northern and central part of the county, and some employees may be able to use commuter rail if they live close to a Northeast Corridor stations in Edison or Metuchen. That being said, frequency and span of service limits the ability of transit to provide employment trips. New Jersey Transit local bus routes into New Brunswick generally provide 60-minute headways, a level of service that makes it unattractive for users who have other options. Most routes operate from early morning (6 or 6:30 AM) to mid evening (9 or 10 PM), making it feasible for the standard workday but difficult for those who work non-traditional hours. Saturday and/or Sunday service is often provided on these local routes, albeit with a reduced span. Connections between New Brunswick and the southern part of the County do not exist.
75
Figure 8-1: Congruency Analysis (Local & Regional Bus Routes)
G G S SP Pk kw wy y
LEGEND
Major Industrial/Office Park Major Employer Local & Regional Bus Route 1/4 Mile Buffer Middlesex County Municipality Rutgers University Major US & NJ Highway Railroad
Dunellen
Union County
South Planfield Edison
Carteret Industrial Park Carteret Industrial Park
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
Middlesex
Telcordia Technology Telcordia Technology I-287 I-287
JFK Medical Center JFK Medical Center Engelhard Corp Engelhard Corp
Woodbridge
US US
Siemens AG Siemens AG
7 7 J2 J2 N N
1--9 19
Port Carteret Industrial Park Port Carteret Industrial Park
Carteret
Staten Island
Amerada Hess Amerada Hess
Perth Amboy
Middlesex Business Center Middlesex Business Center Corporate Park 287 Corporate Park 287 Rutgers Industrial Park Rutgers Industrial Park NJ 18 NJ 18 St. Peter's Hospital St. Peter's Hospital
Highland Park New Brunswick Piscataway
Edison Industrial Park Edison Industrial Park
Johnson & Johnson Johnson & Johnson Raritan Bay Medical Center (Perth Amboy) Raritan Bay Medical Center (Perth Amboy) Raritan Center Raritan Center
Sayreville South Amboy
Robert Wood Johnson Hospital Robert Wood Johnson Hospital
North Brunswick
Raritan Bay
Somerset County
Jersey Center Metroplex Jersey Center Metroplex
Silverline Building Products Silverline Building Products
Milltown
Harts Lane Business Campus Harts Lane Business Campus
South River
NJ NJ
Colonial Oaks Industrial Park Colonial Oaks Industrial Park
East Brunswick
US 9 US 9
27 27
Technology Center of New Jersey Technology Center of New Jersey
GS GS
Pk Pk wy wy
Old Bridge
Co Co rrrr ido ido rr
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Princeton Corporate Center Princeton Corporate Center
Spotswood
1 1 US US
NE NE
South Brunswick
Helmetta
Dow Jones Dow Jones Merrill Lynch Merrill Lynch
Plainsboro
Keystone Keystone
Jamesburg
NJ NJ 18 18
Raritan Bay Medical Center (Old Bridge) Raritan Bay Medical Center (Old Bridge)
US 1 US 1 30 30
Forsgate Corporate Center Forsgate Corporate Center Corporate Park Cranbury Corporate Park Cranbury Cranbury Campus Cranbury Campus Brainerd Park Brainerd Park
Monroe
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Bristol-Myers Squibb Bristol-Myers Squibb Princeton Forrestal Center Princeton Forrestal Center
Cranbury
Mercer County
Millstone Square Millstone Square
76
Figure 8-2: Congruency Analysis (Commuter Rail)
Dunellen Middlesex ! South Planfield Edison
JFK Medical Center JFK Medical Center
!
Woodbridge !
US US
!
Major Industrial/Office Park Major Employer Middlesex Rail Station 1/2 Mile Buffer Middlesex County Municipality Rutgers University Major US & NJ Highway Railroad
G G S SP Pk kw wy y
LEGEND
Union County
y y ae allle nV nV Telcordia Technology Telcordia Technology a rriitta Ra Ra I-287 I-287
Piscataway
Carteret Industrial Park Carteret Industrial Park
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
Siemens AG Siemens AG
7 7 J2 J2 N N
1-1 9 9
Port Carteret Industrial Park Port Carteret Industrial Park
!
Carteret
Staten Island
Middlesex Business Center Middlesex Business Center Corporate Park 287 Corporate Park 287
!
Engelhard Corp Engelhard Corp
!
Amerada Hess Amerada Hess
Perth Amboy
Rutgers Industrial Park NJ Rutgers Industrial Park NJ 18 18 St. Peter's Hospital St. Peter's Hospital Robert Wood Johnson Hospital Robert Wood Johnson Hospital
! !
Edison Industrial Park Edison Industrial Park
!
Johnson & Johnson Johnson & Johnson
Highland Park
Raritan Bay Medical Center (Perth Amboy) Raritan Bay Medical Center (Perth Amboy)
South Amboy !
New Brunswick
Raritan Center Raritan Center
Sayreville
Raritan Bay
North Brunswick
Somerset County
Jersey Center Metroplex Jersey Center Metroplex
Silverline Building Products Silverline Building Products
Milltown
Harts Lane Business Campus Harts Lane Business Campus
South River
NJ NJ
US 9 US 9
27 27
Technology Center of New Jersey Technology Center of New Jersey Colonial Oaks Industrial Park Colonial Oaks Industrial Park
East Brunswick
GS GS
Pk Pk wy wy
North Jers North Jers ey Coastt ey Coas Line Line
Old Bridge
Co Co rrrr ido ido rr
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Princeton Corporate Center Princeton Corporate Center
Spotswood
1 1 US US
NE NE
South Brunswick
Helmetta
Dow Jones Dow Jones Merrill Lynch Merrill Lynch
Plainsboro
Keystone Keystone
Jamesburg
NJ NJ 18 18
Raritan Bay Medical Center (Old Bridge) Raritan Bay Medical Center (Old Bridge)
US 1 US 1 30 30
Forsgate Corporate Center Forsgate Corporate Center Corporate Park Cranbury Corporate Park Cranbury Cranbury Campus Cranbury Campus Brainerd Park Brainerd Park
Monroe
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Bristol-Myers Squibb Bristol-Myers Squibb Princeton Forrestal Center Princeton Forrestal Center
Cranbury
Mercer County
Millstone Square Millstone Square
77
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Outside of New Brunswick, local bus route coverage is best in the northeast part of the County, in communities like Edison, Metuchen, Woodbridge, and Perth Amboy. Several employment centers are within or close to a ¼ mile buffer of a local route, including JFK Medical Center in Edison, Siemens AG, Engelhard Corporation, and Amereda Hess in Woodbridge, and Raritan Bay Medical Center in Perth Amboy. Two major malls, Menlo Park Mall and Woodbridge Center, which are also employment centers, are served by local bus routes as well. Unlike downtown New Brunswick, which is the terminus of a number of routes, the employment centers in this part of the county are typically served by one or two routes providing connections to limited parts of the County. There are also issues with frequency and span that limit employment trips even more than in New Brunswick. Because many of the routes in this area are essentially rail shuttles called “MetroPark Loops”, these routes operate on weekdays during peak times only, and are not extremely useful for employees working in Middlesex County. As an example of the limitations, JFK Hospital is served by NJ Transit Route 801, a “Metro Park Loop” which provides only peak hour service between the Metro Park rail station and a few sections of Woodbridge and Edison. As another example, the Raritan Center, a large and growing employment center has only nominal local bus coverage, with only two round trips per day on Route 813 from Perth Amboy and Fords. In addition, there are two New Jersey Transit Wheels routes, the 978 and 979, which provide four peak hour round trips per day from both Newark and Irvington respectively to employment sites at the Raritan Center. Nonetheless, this leaves this employment center with significant service gaps. There is no direct service from New Brunswick or the southern part of Middlesex County for instance, and no service beyond traditional peak commuting hours. Employment centers not served at all by local transit routes in the northern part of the County are Rutgers Industrial Park, Telcordia Technology, and Corporate Park 287 in Piscataway, Middlesex Business Center in South Plainfield, Edison Industrial Park in Edison, and Carteret Industrial Park and Port Carteret Industrial Park in Carteret. Transit coverage is less complete in the central part of the County, apart from downtown New Brunswick. Of the five major employment centers identified, three (Harts Lane Business Campus, Colonial Oaks Industrial Park, and Raritan Bay Medical Center) were not accessible by local bus routes. The two other sites, Silverline Building Products and the Technology Center of New Jersey, are both in North Brunswick, and are served by Route 814 with has 60-minute headways. As indicated on Figure 8-1, there are two significant employment areas in the southern part of Middlesex County; one centers near New Jersey Turnpike Exit 8A, and includes numerous warehousing and office parks in Cranbury and South Brunswick. Although express bus routes run in proximity to this area, along different sections of the New Jersey Turnpike and Route 130, these do not provide local employment trips. One route that could provide access to local employment is the Route 130 Connections Shuttle, which is provided by Mercer County and extends from the Hamilton Rail Station through East Windsor and into Cranbury and South Brunswick. Five of the six office/industrial parks identified were either within or close to a ¼ buffer around this route. Unfortunately, there are currently only four weekday round trips per day
78
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
that extend into the study area, which limits its utility. Even if additional trips on this route were expanded, only a very small portion of the employment market in Middlesex County is served by this option. There is no connection, for instance, between New Brunswick and urban centers in the northern part of the County. The other area with significant employment is in northwest Plainsboro/southwest South Brunswick along US 1. Several major employers and employment centers are served by NJ Transit’s Route 600, which runs between Trenton and Plainsboro. Work sites within the ¼ buffer are Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merrill Lynch, the Princeton Corporate Center, and the Princeton Forrestal Center. Despite the coverage, both geographic and level of service limitations must be noted. This route provides access to these worksites from areas in Mercer County, but none from the rest of Middlesex County. In addition, as with all NJ transit local routes in the county, frequency and span of service are limited, although in the case of Route 600 frequencies do increase to every 30 minutes during the AM and PM peaks. Due to the importance of the Route 1 corridor for employment, a coalition of transportation stakeholders called the Central Jersey Transportation Forum has begun to investigate the possibility of establishing Bus Rapid Transit service in the area as a way to increase mobility and alleviate congestion in Central New Jersey, including southern Middlesex County. In summary, transit access to worksites in Middlesex County is limited. While Figure 8-1 shows clearly the geographical limitation, particularly the lack of connections between worksites in the southern part of the county and population centers in the north, low frequency service and limitations on service hours also provide barriers to use of local routes for employment purposes. While commuter rail frequencies are higher, the limited number of stations and north-south orientation of the two Middlesex county commuter rail corridors means there is a limited catchment area for local employment trips. The employment center best served by transit appears to be New Brunswick, with a variety of services and local bus routes connecting it with surrounding communities. The biggest needs may be the newer employment centers within the County. In the north, the Raritan Center has only minimal transit service from Perth Amboy, Fords and destinations outside of the County, and the two major centers in the southern part of the county have transit connections from Mercer County in the south only, and significantly, have no connections to the North whatsoever. This is a significant issue as there is a current problem for employers in the southern Middlesex County employment centers getting and finding employees for service related jobs at hotels and office complexes. 8.2 Access Link
Stakeholder input indicated that New Jersey Transit’s complementary ADA service (Access Link) is not widely used due to the restrictions inherent to the service. These include the requirement are the individuals must be determined to be eligible and also that their origins and destinations must be within ¾ mile of a local NJ Transit bus route. A question raised at the Study Task Force Meeting was whether Access Link, despite its limitations, represents an underutilized resource in Middlesex County, and whether some of the trips that AWTS is currently attempting to serve with its own overburdened resources could be shifted to Access Link.
79
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
By making some reasonable assumptions, it is possible to estimate the extent to which AWTS passengers would likely be considered eligible for Access Link service. Table 8-1 breaks down AWTS demand response and subscription route by user type. The more generic breakdown of seniors versus disabled does not accurately represent the number of users potentially eligible for Access Link service, which is assessed for each individual by NJ Transit based upon lack of ability to use the fixed route system. First of all, many seniors are disabled and eligible for Access Link. Secondly, the vast majority of disabled persons that AWTS serves is developmentally disabled (and therefore listed as ambulatory in Table 8-2), and may or may not be eligible for Access Link. In the senior category, we can assume that all ambulatory seniors are ineligible for Access Link service and all seniors who are not ambulatory are eligible. We may also assume that half the semi-ambulatory seniors might be declared eligible for Access Link insofar as there partial disability prevents them from using the fixed route bus. For the disabled population, the ambulatory category represents mostly developmentally disabled persons. Their ability to use the fixed route will depend upon the severity of their developmental disability. Lacking any more specific information, we may assume that ½ of these individuals are Access Link-eligible. We may make this same assumption for the semi-ambulatory category, and assume that all non-ambulatory individuals are eligible. The final column of Table 8-1 reflects these assumptions and results in an estimated 61,817 trips that could have been made by Access Link instead of AWTS if the individual eligibility were the only consideration. However, there are two other important considerations to be taken into account. Is the trip occurring within the service span of Access Link service (which is determined by the local route span of service), and does the trip fall within the geographic constraints of Access Links coverage in the county? To answer these questions, we first mapped out the Access Link service area, which is represented on Figure 8-3 as ¾ mile buffers around NJ Transit local routes. This provides a visual representation of Access Link’s coverage, and indicates that, as with local routes, Access Link may be feasible in the northern part of the County for some, but is not available in most of the southern part of the County. Even in the section of Plainsboro where Access Link is available, users could only travel south, as service must “shadow” a local bus route. In addition, there are no local bus routes connecting the southern and northern parts of the county. Next, we looked to weekday reports collected from AWTS from May 5th to 9th, 2003, which included both demand response and subscription trips. These reports indicate for each passenger trip whether the passenger is ambulatory or non-ambulatory. Because we are assuming that all non ambulatory passengers are eligible for Access Link, we took a random sample of demand response trips made by these passengers and determined whether each trip could have been made by Access Link based on time of day that the trip was made and the origin and destination of the trip. The results are interesting. It was possible to determine the feasibility of using Access Link for 23 of 25 trips sampled8. Of these 23 AWTS trips, it appears that five, or 22% of the trips, could have been made on Access Link. All trips that were within the Access Link service area were also feasible based on time of day. Appendix C shows the full results.
8
Two trip locations could not be located precisely enough to definitively determine feasibility.
80
Figure 8-3: Congruency Analysis (Access Link)
NJ NJ Tp Tp ke ke
LEGEND
Local Bus Route 3/4 Mile Buffer Middlesex County Municipality Major US & NJ Highway Railroad I-287 I-287
1--9 19
Dunellen South Plainfield Middlesex Edison
G G S SP Pk kw wy y
Union County
Rahway
Linden
Woodbridge
US US
7 7 J2 J2 N N
Carteret
Staten Island
Piscataway Metuchen Perth Amboy
NJ 18 NJ 18
Somerset Highland Park New Brunswick Sayreville South Amboy
Raritan Bay
Somerset County
North Brunswick Milltown South River
GS GS
US 9 US 9
NJ NJ
27 27
East Brunswick
NJ NJ T Tpk pke e
Pk Pk wy wy
Matawan
Old Bridge
South Brunswick
1 1 US US
orr ido rrid orr o C C NE NE
Spotswood Helmetta
NJ NJ 18 18
Princeton
Jamesburg
US 1 US 1 30 30
Plainsboro
Monmouth County
US 9 US 9
Cranbury Monroe
Mercer County
Hightstown
Freehold
81
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 8-1: AWTS Annual One-Way Trips by Rider Type (FY 2003) Ridership Type Seniors (all) Ambulatory Semi-Ambulatory Wheelchair Disabled (under 60 yrs only) ` Ambulatory Semi-Ambulatory Wheelchair TOTAL
* Does not include taxi and fixed route ridership Source: AWTS
Annual One-Way Trips* 115,160 102,961 7,644 4,555 102,429 96,733 1,245 4,451 217,589
Estimated Trips by Access Link Eligible 8,377 0 3,822 4,555 53,440 48,366 623 4,451 61,817
Because this was a very small sample that did not include all of the AWTS trip types, one should not rush to make generalizations. However, it indicates at the very least that AWTS does provide some trips that could be made by Access Link. In order to take full advantage of existing resources, the County should investigate further how many AWTS consumers could be handled by Access Link instead, thereby freeing up resources for other trip needs. As opposed to merely referring existing and potential consumers to Access Link, Middlesex County would be better served by developing a more organized approach. This may include coordinating with New Jersey Transit and informing them of their new policy, so that Access Link will be prepared to absorb additional riders. It may also mean providing information to AWTS consumers about Access Link, and helping them set up required appointments for eligibility assessment. 8.3 Senior Population
Seniors are another major population that requires transit service in Middlesex County. It is useful to obtain an estimate of the degree that their demand for transit is being met by existing resources. This can be done by comparing the number of actual annual senior trips with the number of trips that might be expected if transit were universally available and accessible to seniors. To estimate the number of transit trips that Middlesex County seniors make each year, data collected from AWTS, the County Board of Social Services, and municipal providers was assembled and disaggregated for senior trips only. Additional senior trips made with non-profit agencies were also added. Because it was not possible to obtain specific data on senior trips made on fixed route services, such as NJ Transit, Rutgers Shuttle, etc., a figure of 100,000 was used as a rough estimate for this category. Totaling all of the senior trips results in an estimate of 519,301 one-way trips per year. This is shown in Table 8-2 below.
82
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 8-2: Middlesex County Estimated Annual Transit Trips - Seniors (60+) Total Transit Trips Senior Transit Trips 217,589 115,160 106,094 60,000 251,313 238,725 NA 5,416 NA 100,000 NA 519,301
AWTS Board of Social Services Municipal Programs Non-profit Programs* Fixed Route (est.) TOTAL
In order to develop estimates of the senior transit trips that would be found if there were few constraints, transit trip rates observed in locations known to offer high quality service may be applied. The trip rate used, 8.4 annual transit trips per senior, was derived from experience in Pennsylvania where transit fares for seniors are free during off-peak hours.9 As indicated in Table 8-3 below, that trip rate applied to the total senior population of 105,643, results in an estimated 887,401 annual one-way transit trips that could be expected if service were more widely available. That represents 368,100 more trips than are currently being made. Simply put, although the majority of senior transit demand is being met by various resources, there is an estimated unmet demand of over 350,000 trips. Table 8-3: Middlesex County Estimated Unmet Transit Demand - Seniors (60+) Population Annual Transit Est. Annual Actual Trips Estimated Unmet 60+ Trip* Rate Trip Demand Trip Demand 105,643 8.4 887,401 519,301 368,100
*All Trips are one-way
It should be noted that many of these trips are likely being made through other resources, whether that is unsubsidized (and therefore expensive) taxi rides, rides with friends or family, etc. It is also likely that some trips are not being made at all because of the limitations of transit. This analysis would indicate that additional service (if resources were available) or more efficient use of existing resources would result in more transit trips being made by seniors. This appears to be consistent with AWTS experience with its difficulty in fully meeting existing demand.
9
SG Associates, Inc, Public Transportation Needs Assessment and Action Plan, Governor’s Task Force on Public Transportation Issues, Little Rock, 1992.
83
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 9
Service Delivery Models
This section presents a description of five separate service delivery models in place at other transportation systems both in New Jersey and elsewhere in the United States. The description of the three New Jersey systems focuses on organizational structures, service types, fares, operational characteristics, vehicle maintenance, and vehicle storage. The descriptions of the two national models focus on institutional, funding, and operating arrangements. For all five models, the noteworthy features applicable to the Middlesex County situation are presented. 9.1 Ocean County, New Jersey
Ocean County is a New Jersey system that has made impressive strides in the operation of its public transportation services throughout the County. It is noted by staff at New Jersey Transit as the model county in terms of providing an efficient and effective system. It is similar in size to AWTS in that it operates 69 vehicles in both modified fixed-route and demand response services. Organizational Structure The Ocean County transportation system is under a Director who is in charge of the Department of Transportation and Vehicle Services. There are three Division Director positions under the Director: ● ● ● Administrative & Finance - Service Coordination, Planning, Call Center & Scheduling Operations - Dispatch and Vehicle Operators Vehicle Services - Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
The Director of Transportation and Vehicle Services has one Freeholder liaison. Support is given to the Ocean County transportation function by several other Ocean County departments including finance, payroll, legal and human resources. Like Middlesex County, expenses associated with these support services are not accounted for in the total cost of operating the County transportation system. However, unlike Middlesex County, the entire cost of fringes is included in the transportation system budget. The Ocean County transportation employees are part of the County employees union. Service Types The system operates both modified fixed-route and demand response services. Most of the service is operated Monday through Friday from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. However, the regular hours for the demand response service are from 9:15 AM to 3:30 PM. Limited weekend service is provided. Unlike Middlesex County, Ocean County operates a significant amount of local fixed route services.
84
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Fares A voluntary donation policy is applicable on all demand response trips. The suggested donation is $1.00 for each one-way trip. On the modified fixed-routes, a modest fare is assessed that varies depending on the length of the trip taken. The zone fare structure varies from $1.00 for a short trip to up to $2.00 for a long trip. Revenues from the donation and fare system are minor. Other Services Unlike Middlesex County, Ocean County municipalities do not operate a significant amount of services. Only a few communities provide local intra-community transportation services for their residents. Strafford has the largest municipal operation with three vehicles. Because of the limited amount of local municipal services, there is no coordination of the municipal and County services. NJ Transit operates a number of fixed routes in Ocean County; however, many of them are New York City commuter routes. As a result, there is only a limited amount of NJ Transit Access Link services shadowing the few local routes that exist. The Ocean County Board of Social Services operates the Medicaid transportation throughout the County. Operations Characteristics For the demand response portion of the service, Ocean County has a unique advanced reservation system. The system requires that clients call for a reservation on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday the week before the trip is needed. It is basically a week in advance reservation system. However, someone could call in on Wednesday for a reservation for a trip for the following Monday. In this case, the reservation would be made five days in advance of the trip. Likewise, someone could call in on Monday for a trip reservation for the following Friday. This would be an 11-day advance reservation trip. Ocean County has a brochure that explains this reservation process. Ocean County has a reasonable no-show rate of about 1% and an average cancellation rate of about 5%. Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Most of the Ocean County vehicles are stored at the operations, maintenance and storage complex located in Toms River. There are two other storage locations – one in the southern part of the County is Strafford where six vehicles are stored and the other in RJ Miller Airpark in Berkeley where three vehicles are stored. The remaining 60 vehicles are stored at their Toms River complex. At the Toms River complex, all vehicles are stored outside in designated storage locations. The complex includes a two-story building for all administrative activities as well as a driver’s room. There is a four bay maintenance building within the complex as well as maintenance office space and a parts storage room.
85
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
There are four mechanics and one service worker assigned to this complex and fully dedicated to the vehicle maintenance of the Ocean County transportation fleet. Most of the mechanics work second shift hours when all the vehicles are available to be worked on. This enables more vehicles to be placed into service when they are needed. Data for 2001 indicated that the Ocean County system operated about 1.3 million miles of service. This represented a ratio of about 260,000 vehicle miles operated for each of the five maintenance workers. This is within an acceptable range and considerably better than the ratio maintained by AWTS. Noteworthy Features The key features of the Ocean County transportation system which can be considered during the formation of organizational strategies for Middlesex County include the following: ● ● ● ● • • • 9.2 Having the transportation system and vehicle maintenance function under one Director and one Freeholder. Experienced staff that is always striving to improve public transportation to the residents of the County. Innovative systems and procedures such as the advance reservation policy. Terrific public information materials including a system map which clearly shows by municipality all available public transportation services available to the resident. A central complex where most of the vehicles are stored and even more importantly, the same location where vehicles are maintained. Sufficiently sized vehicle maintenance staff that is dedicated to only the maintenance of the public transportation fleet. Lack of competing services from local municipalities. Monmouth County, New Jersey
Monmouth County Division of Transportation is a New Jersey system that provides a variety of transportation services throughout its county. One of its key features is its policy to charge significant fares for its transportation services. It is also similar in size to AWTS in that it operates 53 vehicles in both semi-fixed route shuttle and demand response services. Organizational Structure The Monmouth County Division of Transportation is under a Director who reports to Office of Human Services.
86
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
The Office of Human Services has one Freeholder liaison that is also responsible for a number of other County organizations including Social Services, Drug and Alcohol, Water Resources, Youth and Family Services and several others. Support is given to the Monmouth County Division of Transportation by several other Monmouth County departments including finance, payroll, legal and human resources. Like Middlesex County, expenses associates with these support services are not accounted for in the total cost of operating the County transportation system. However, unlike Middlesex County, the entire cost of fringes is included in the transportation system budget. The Monmouth County Division of Transportation employees are part of the County employees union. Service Types The system operates both semi-fixed route and demand response services. Most of the service is operated Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Limited weekend service is provided. Unlike Middlesex County, Monmouth County operates local semi-fixed route services in a number of areas. It also provides Medicaid medical transportation in three areas of the County. Monmouth County contracts with a number of private providers, such as taxicab operators, for certain services. Fares A voluntary donation policy is applicable on all Title III demand response trips. The suggested donation is $1.00 for each one-way trip. On the semi-fixed routes, a $2.00 fare is assessed. On the non-Title III demand response services, a fare is also charged. The fare varies depending on the type of trip being provided, with the lowest one-way fare $2.00 and the highest $6.00. A method exists whereby low income or indigent residents can access services with no fare or reduced payments. Revenues from the donation and fare system are significant and total about $825,000 per year. Other Services Unlike Middlesex County, Monmouth County municipalities do not operate a significant amount of services. Only Freehold provides local intra-community transportation services for their residents. Because of the limited amount of local municipal services, there is no coordination of the municipal and County services. NJ Transit operates a number of fixed routes in Monmouth County; however, many of them are New York City commuter routes. As a result, there is only a limited amount of NJ Transit Access Link services shadowing the few local routes that exist. The County Department of Planning is the primary interface with NJ Transit regarding its services. The Monmouth County Board of Social Services operates most of the Medicaid transportation throughout the County.
87
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Operations Characteristics For the demand response portion of the service, Monmouth County has a 48 hour advanced reservation system. The system requires that clients call for a reservation 48 hours before the trip is needed. Under this method, about 90% of the requested trips can be accommodated. Monmouth County has a brochure that explains this reservation process. Monmouth County has a favorable no-show rate of about ½% and a favorable cancellation rate of between 2 and 3%. Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Most of the Monmouth County vehicles are stored at the operations, maintenance and storage complex located in Freehold. There are two other storage locations – one in the eastern part of the County in Tinton Falls where six vehicles are stored and the other in Union Beach in the northern part of the County where also six vehicles are stored. The remaining 41 vehicles are stored at their Freehold complex. At the Freehold complex, all vehicles are stored outside in designated storage locations. The complex includes a portion of a County office building for all administrative activities. There is a four bay maintenance building within the complex as well as maintenance office space and a parts storage room. There are three mechanics and two supervisors assigned to this complex and fully dedicated to the vehicle maintenance of the Monmouth County transportation fleet. Data for 2001 indicated that the Monmouth County system operated about 1.4 million miles of service with its own vehicles. This represented a ratio of about 280,000 vehicle miles operated for each of the five maintenance workers. This is within an acceptable range and considerably better than the ratio maintained by AWTS. It should also be noted that the Monmouth County Division of Transportation contracts service to local providers that operate an additional 700,000 miles of service. Noteworthy Features The key features of the Monmouth County Division of Transportation which can be considered during the formation of organizational strategies for Middlesex County include the following: • • Having the transportation system and vehicle maintenance function at one location and under the control of the Transportation Director. Experienced staff that is always striving to improve public transportation to the residents of the County.
88
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
•
Innovative systems and procedures such as the planned capital replacement program where each year $100,000 from the Casino program and $250,000 from the County are set aside for new replacement vehicles. The replacement program is age-based and is set at seven years for the larger buses and five years for the smaller ones. Reliance on a relatively high fare program, which produces a significant amount of revenue for the system. A central complex where most of the vehicles are stored and even more importantly, the same location where vehicles are maintained. Sufficiently sized vehicle maintenance staff that is dedicated to only the maintenance of the public transportation fleet. Lack of competing services from local municipalities. Somerset County, New Jersey
• • • • 9.3
Somerset County Transportation is a New Jersey system that provides a variety of transportation services throughout its service area. One of its key features is its large size. It is nearly twice the size of AWTS, operating 115 vehicles in both modified fixed route and demand response services. Organizational Structure Somerset County Transportation is a County division under the Public Works Department. Public Works has seven divisions including Transportation, Traffic, Vehicle Maintenance, Parks & Recreational, Highways, Engineering and Fire & Safety. The Public Works Department has one Freeholder liaison that is also responsible for a number of other County organizations. Support is given to the Somerset County Transportation by several other Somerset County departments including finance, payroll, legal and human resources. Like Middlesex County, expenses associated with these support services are not accounted for in the total cost of operating the County transportation system. However, unlike Middlesex County, the entire cost of fringes is included in the transportation system budget. The County has established a Somerset County Casino Tax Advisory Committee that is responsible for planning and monitoring the Casino-funded services. The committee consists of 12 members. Most of the Somerset County Transportation employees are part of the County employees union, although it is not a requirement to be a union member.
89
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Service Types The system operates both semi-fixed route and demand response services. Most of the service is operated Monday through Friday from 6:00 AM to 5:30 PM. Limited weekend service is provided. Unlike Middlesex County, Somerset County operates local fixed route services in a few areas that replace services that were formerly operated by NJ Transit. Fares A voluntary donation policy is applicable on all trip purposes that are not covered by required fares. Trip purposes that require a fare include trips for employment, education, recreation, and shopping. The one-way fare ranges from $0.50 for non-competitive employment to $2.00 for group recreational trips during evening or weekend hours. Revenues from the donation and fare system are modest. Other Services Unlike Middlesex County, most Somerset County municipalities do not operate local transportation services. Because of the limited amount of local municipal services, there is no coordination of the municipal and County services. NJ Transit operates a number of fixed routes in Somerset County. Some are local and some are focused on New York City commuters. However, even with the local NJ Transit local bus network, there is no coordination with NJ Transit Access Link services. The Somerset Board of Social Services operates most of the Medicaid transportation throughout the County. Operations Characteristics For the demand response portion of the service, Somerset County has a 48-hour advanced reservation system. The system requires that clients call for a reservation 48 hours before the trip is needed. Somerset County has a brochure that explains this reservation process. The brochure is very attractive and comprehensive method to explain all the services that are operated by Somerset County Transportation. Vehicle Storage and Maintenance All but few of the Somerset County vehicles are stored at the operations, maintenance and storage complex located in Bridgewater. The few not stored at the complex are taken home by drivers. The Bridgewater complex is the central garage for all county vehicles. The 113 transportation vehicles are stored outside at the complex in designated storage locations. The complex includes office space for the transportation function as well as for other public works functions. There is large multi-bay maintenance building attached to the office building where all vehicle
90
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
maintenance is performed. There are 18 mechanics at the complex. While no mechanics are assigned directly to maintenance of the transportation vehicles, transportation staff indicated that there is no problem getting the required maintenance performed in a timely manner. Noteworthy Features The key features of Somerset County Transportation which can be considered during the formation of organizational strategies for Middlesex County include the following: • • • • • • • 9.4 Having the transportation system and vehicle maintenance function at one location and under the control of a single Director (Public Works) and Freeholder. Experienced staff that is always striving to improve public transportation to the residents of the County. Willingness to expand the services to provide a full array of transportation services. A central complex where most of the vehicles are stored and even more importantly, the same location where vehicles are maintained. Sufficiently sized vehicle maintenance staff that gives a priority to the maintenance of the public transportation fleet. A comprehensive and attractive brochure which explains all the available transportation resources and how a resident could access them. Lack of competing services from local municipalities. San Diego County, California
The San Diego area has been considered by many transit experts to be an excellent model of institutional arrangement for planning, funding and operation of multi modal transit services. In the past 30 years, San Diego area has managed to construct an extensive light rail system and significantly expand the regional and local bus services. The region is served by bus services that are operated by public agencies and private operators. This description of the San Diego model focuses on the institutional, funding, and operating arrangements. Institutional Arrangement Until recently, public transportation was provided by three organizations in the San Diego County area: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and North County Transit Development Board (NCTD). Each of these agencies shared the responsibilities as follows: • SANDAG - was responsible for countywide planning, transit project development and ensuring that funding was available from local, state and federal sources. 91
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
•
MTDB - was responsible for design and construction of the San Diego Trolley system; and planning and operation of trolley and bus services in the southern part of the County, or the San Diego area. NCTD – was responsible for design and construction of an east-west light rail line; northsouth commuter rail line and bus services in the northern part of the County, or the Oceanside area.
•
Senate Bill 1703, approved by the Governor of the State of California in September 2002, consolidated the institutional arrangement in the San Diego County area. As a result, the responsibilities of each agency were changed as follows: • • SANDAG - retained all of its current responsibilities and assumed responsibilities for design and construction of transit projects from MTDB and NCTD. MTDB - soon to be known as the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS); will primarily be an operating agency. The current subsidiary agencies, San Diego Trolley, Inc. and San Diego Transit, Inc. will become operating divisions of MTS. The current privately contracted countywide services will remain a separate division under MTS. The current municipally operated services will not be impacted by this reorganization in the near future. NCTD - will become primarily an operating agency, with responsibility for light rail, commuter rail and bus services.
•
This consolidation and reorganization is expected to further streamline and strengthen development and delivery of transportation related projects in the San Diego County area. Though both MTDB and NCTD will undergo significant change in their responsibilities and staffing, both agencies are expected to retain their current operating responsibilities. It is expected that consolidation of operating subsidiaries, functions, and staffing will yield some cost savings. Funding Arrangement All public transit systems in the State of California have been funded in large part by a dedicated source of local funds through the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971. This Act returns a portion of the sales tax revenue to each jurisdiction in the State for planning, construction and operation of mass transportation services. Many jurisdictions in the State, including the San Diego area, have increased the sales tax rate and dedicated the additional revenue to supplement TDA funds. This was accomplished by having the jurisdictions pass a proposition through the electoral process. In the San Diego area, TDA funds were made available to each jurisdiction after the passage of the TDA legislation. The jurisdictions then decided how to expend funds for transit services. Some jurisdictions decided to establish and operate their own transit system. Others decided to
92
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
contract with private contractors and/or larger public operators in the area. For the past few years, all TDA funds in the MTDB area have been consolidated and distributed to the operators on an as needed basis. Operating Arrangement As mentioned above, the current trolley and bus operating subsidiaries of MTDB are expected to be consolidated as divisions of MTS. The new organization structure and staffing levels are currently under development. Table 9-1 shows the projected operating budgets, passengers and revenue miles for operators in the MTDB and NCTD areas for FY 2003 before the reorganization. As illustrated in the table on the next page, the MTDB area is currently served by a combination of public and private operators. The trolley service carries 33.5 percent of the riders. The remaining 66.5 percent of the riders are users of bus service operated by public and private operators. Noteworthy Features The key noteworthy features of the San Diego County area which can be considered during the formation of organizational strategies for Middlesex County include the following: • • • • Having a dedicated source of local funds is important to ensure that local transit needs receive fair consideration. A combination of public and private operators is needed to serve local and regional transit needs. Ability to change operating contractor through open competition has allowed the San Diego area to remain an efficient provider of transit service. Service operators in smaller cities, such as Chula Vista and National City, coexist with large operators, such as San Diego Transit. Even though this arrangement duplicates some of the transit functions, both Chula Vista and National City feel strongly that their services are more responsive to the needs of their residents respectively. Each of the public and private operators in the MTDB and NCTD subregions have all administrative, operational and maintenance functions directly under their control.
•
93
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 9-1: San Diego Operators: Financial & Operating Statistics (FY 2003) Area/Operator MTDB Area San Diego Transit San Diego Trolley Contract Services (includes DAR) County Services (includes DAR) Chula Vista Transit National City Transit County Services: Rural Subtotal NCTD Area Total Operating Budget Passengers $166,477,300 28,703,100 26,000,000 13,212,600 4,574,400 3,326,800 1,831,300 $856,500 $167,333,800 $53,057,800 $220,391,600 40,000 77,688,200 11,539,500 89,227,700 12,363,700 6,978,000 7,711,400 4,635,000 1,406,500 1,758,100 187,900 35,040,600 8,448,900 43,489,500 Revenue Miles
Source: San Diego Association of Governments
9.5
Rhode Island
The transportation arrangement in Rhode Island is a good example of a transportation system that controls all transportation services. The Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority (RIPTA) provides fixed route bus service, passenger ferry service, and local elderly and disabled paratransit services either directly or through contract with local providers. It has a separate unit which functions as the broker agency for scheduling and controlling the paratransit service. Institutional Arrangement RIPTA is a body corporate and politic of the State of Rhode Island that is responsible for the operation of all statewide transportation services including fixed route bus, passenger ferry and paratransit. It is controlled by a nine member Board of Directors that includes two elected state representatives, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation, and six other members appointed by the Governor. Up until 1995, RIPTA was only responsible for the fixed route bus services. The paratransit services were operated by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. Through actions by a specially formed Governor’s Task Force on Paratransit Services, RIPTA took over the entire statewide paratransit services in 1994. The takeover involved the establishment of a brokerage
94
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
system. RIPTA initially did not operate any of the paratransit services. Local municipal operators that were providing local services for their residents formed the foundation for the new system. These operators bid on providing services in their area on a per hour cost basis. The State was divided-up into service areas that were assigned to the successful bidder. Initially, the successful bidder for each service area was the local municipal operator that previously operated in that area. The call-taking and scheduling of the services were performed by the RIPTA broker. The RIPTA broker was an outside contract agency with expertise in this kind of work. The broker would determine which provider would handle each the service. In most cases, the service would be assigned to the operator that served that area. However, the broker had more discretion for those trips which spanned two or more service areas. Today, the broker system is still in place with RIPTA now acting as the paratransit operator for some of the service areas including Providence and the South County area. RIPTA operates about 32 of the 104 vehicles that are used for these services. However, there are still eight other carriers that provide services in designated areas throughout the state. Operating Arrangement RIPTA provides the vehicles for the other eight operators as well as those that it operates directly. The operators are responsible for vehicle maintenance and servicing of their assigned fleet. However, RIPTA is considering providing full maintenance services on all the paratransit vehicles, including those operated by the other eight carriers. It now provides the full maintenance services for the vehicles that it operates. It has the main facility in Providence, which supports the vehicles that service the Providence paratransit service area. Its Newport garage supports the services that it operates in the South County area. The eight operators are responsible for hiring drivers, fueling the vehicles, cleaning the vehicles and all other activities associated with providing the service. They obtain the driver manifest each day for the next day’s service from the broker. Rewards and penalties are included in the contract for performance related to certain aspects of service. The service is operated as a next day advanced reservation system. It is a seamless type system so that the rider only knows that they are using the statewide RIDE paratransit system. Services are provided for workshops, meal sites, shopping, recreation, adult day care, and medical visits. The services also function as the ADA paratransit services that RIPTA must provide as the complementary service to its fixed route service. As such it plays the same role as the NJ Transit Access Link service. Financial Arrangement The RIPTA system is provided for using local funding from four major sources – 5 3/4 cents of the state gasoline tax, funding from the Department of Elderly Affairs for the paratransit services, funding from Social Services for the paratransit services, and funding from Rite Care for local medical transportation.
95
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Noteworthy Features The key noteworthy features of the Rhode Island model which can be considered during the formation of organizational strategies for Middlesex County include the following: • • • • • • Having a dedicated source of local funds is important to ensure that local transit needs receive fair consideration. A combination of public and private operators is used to serve local and regional transit needs. Having a broker determine the best operator for each particular trip improves the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the service. Duplication of service is eliminated by having the broker schedule all trips. Ability to change operating contractor through open competition has allowed the State to remain an efficient provider of transit service. Each service operator is responsible for the full range of transportation functions including hiring and training of operators, fueling and vehicle maintenance.
96
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
PART III - REORGANIZATION ALERNATIVES EVALUATION
97
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 10 10.1
Future Transportation Objectives and Elements
Reorganization Objectives
Prior to developing and evaluating alternatives, it was necessary to document the objectives that any new organizational model should address. The preliminary work that the consultant team undertook in this study made this possible. These objectives represent what we heard from stakeholders and what our analyses told us about the key issues related to transportation in Middlesex County. Table 10-1 below documents these objectives, which are categorized into several areas, as follows: • • • • • • • • • • Current Services Planning Brokerage Contracting Opportunities Improved Coordination Marketing & Communications New Services Agency Services Jitney Van Regulation Other Issues
These objectives help define an appropriate focus and scale for County transportation services in the future.
98
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 10-1: Reorganization Objectives
Note: Category Short term = 1-3 year horizon Long term = 3-10 year horizon Objective Timeframe Description A. Current Services A1. AWTS Provide dedicated vehicle maintenance program with sufficient staff Improve service quality (call taking/scheduling inefficiencies, driver attitudes, passenger assistance/escorting) Short term o Five to six staff mechanics dedicated to current AWTS fleet, with ability to grow as fleet grows. Implement paratransit software that improves scheduling efficiency and effectiveness. Make reservationist and driver courteousness a priority and incorporate into training programs. Coordinate with municipalities for consumers who require door-to-door services. Reduce reservation requirement to one week in advance or sooner. Utilize strategies that increase the capacity of AWTS to meet needs, thereby minimizing trip denials. Address high cancellation rate and no-show issues with a strict policy that provides notification to the problem rider and provide trip refusal if problem continues. Implement paratransit software with the capacity to maintain statistics and create reports. Ensure that trip denials are accurately tracked. Begin tracking the following: ! Vehicle miles ! Vehicle hours Monitor performance through performance indicators such as passengers per hour, cost per passenger, etc. Aim for utilization of all active vehicles every day through adequate vehicle replacement programs and improved maintenance.
Short term
o
o
o Reduce reservation period and trip denials Short term
o o
o
Improve recordkeeping
Short term
o
o o
o
Improve vehicle and driver utilization
Short term
o
99
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Category A1. AWTS (cont.)
A2. NJ Transit fixedroute
A3. Private commuter bus services and trains to New York
Timeframe Description A. Current Services (cont.) Maintain sufficient Short term o Replace vehicles at the end of their drivers and operable useful life. vehicles to meet full o Achieve 100% utilization of active service requirements vehicles. o Hire enough drivers to allow for full utilization of vehicles o Implement programs that hold drivers accountable and reward drivers for excellent performance in order to improve driver morale and turnover rates. Consolidate vehicle Short term o Reduce the number of storage storage locations to three and identify a single location for the storage of most vehicles. Consolidate vehicle Long term o Undertake facility study that storage and documents needs, locates potential maintenance in a single sites, provides preliminary costs, and facility identifies funding sources. o Apply for state or federal funding for this facility. Better meet local needs Short term o Analyze how well existing NJ Transit (more frequency, local and regional route structure is longer service span, meeting needs on a regular basis, with more coverage) input from municipalities, and make through planning and requests to NJ Transit to study service coordination with NJ modifications. Transit o For newly identified routes (see Section 2 below), explore possibilities for funding through NJ Transit Programs. Ensure adequate Short term o Include transit access to express bus access, including stops and train stations as part of transit shuttles County planning process. (planning, publicizing o Provide assistance to municipalities and coordination) considering transit shuttles. Increase utilization by persons with disabilities Marketing Coordination Marketing Short term o Initiate program to inform county transportation users about NJ Transit Access Link and help them set up appointments for eligibility assessment. Include Rutgers Shuttle as a part of all marketing efforts (see section F). See Section E2.
Objective
A4. NJ Transit Access Link
A5. Rutgers Shuttle system A6. Municipal operators A7. Sea Streak Ferry service
Short term Short term Short term
o o
Include as a part of all marketing efforts (see section F).
100
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Category Planning
Objective Identify Needs
Timeframe B. Planning Short term
Description o This study has identified scale and character of several types of transit need: ! Employment-related transportation needs. ! Elderly transportation needs. ! Disabled transportation needs. County should monitor needs on an on-going basis. New service recommendations should be developed and prioritized based on need. This study has suggested some preliminary service enhancements (see Section G). County should examine all services on a regular basis. Once new service recommendations are developed and prioritized, then the appropriate implementing agency should be identified. It may be appropriate for the County to operate some services, other potential operators of new services are municipalities, NJ Transit, or private operators. County may offer capital or start-up funds for services operated by municipalities or private operators. KMM and the Improvement Authority currently provide planning assistance to communities planning transit. Either could both continue in that role and also play a role in the more comprehensive county-level planning described in this section. Planning process described above should also include needs that extend beyond the county. For proposed needs that extend beyond the county, coordinate with other counties on service planning and implementation.
o Develop Service Recommendations Short term o
o
o Work with Operating Agencies to Implement Short term and Long term o
o
o Keep Middlesex Moving (TMA) should play role Short term
o
o
Consider Transportation needs that extend outside the County
Short term
o
o
101
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Category Brokerage
Objective Create Centralized Transit Broker (call taking & trip scheduling) incorporating some municipal and nonprofit providers
Timeframe C. Brokerage Short term
Description o Create a transit broker position that is initially responsible for handling all AWTS trips requests and also understand all other transit options in the County and provide people calling in with information about these options. Meet with all municipalities and nonprofits in county to explain brokerage concept and encourage interested transit providers to participate. Users of participating providers would call county broker to schedule trip, which could be made with any provider based on the broker’s discretion. As system gets up and running, the broker would continue to encourage additional providers to participate, using the initial success of the brokerage system as a motivating factor.
o
o
Long term o Create Centralized Transit Broker (call taking & trip scheduling) incorporating most municipal and nonprofit providers D. Contracting Opportunities Contracting Opportunities Contract out a portion of County’s service (e.g., South County) Short term o
o
o
o
o
AWTS has already provided a vehicle to Monroe Township’s transportation program in order to meet medical transportation needs in Monroe, Cranbury, Plainsboro, Jamesburg, and Helmetta, and has asked South Brunswick to help out as well. A next step would be to contract the service out to these townships, providing operating funds and requiring that minimum service requirements consistent with county policy be followed. The contract could require participation of the communities in the County brokerage system. Requests for travel between the north and south County could be handled by either AWTS or its southern county contractor, depending on what the broker decides on a case-by-case basis. If intelligence suggests that private operators are interested in running the service, the County may want to put the southern county service out to bid, allowing both public and private to bid on the service.
102
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Category Contracting Opportunities (cont)
Improved Coordination Category
Timeframe Description D. Contracting Opportunities (cont.) Contract out most or Long term o If contracting a portion of its service all of County’s service proves to be a success, AWTS may explore expanding this practice. E. Improved Coordination Improve Coordination Short term o NJ Transit Access Link should be with NJ Transit Access made aware that the County is Link attempting to qualify many of current AWTS users for the program. Because this may impose a burden on the capacity of that program, NJ Transit should be made aware of the County’s intentions. Improve Coordination Short term o There is a need to clearly defining with Municipal roles of the county versus Operators municipalities – The County should consider asking municipalities that provide demand response service to take over all of their intramunicipal trips in exchange for AWTS providing additional longer distance trips for those cities and towns. o Initiating the brokerage system and encouraging municipalities to participate is an example of coordination. o Broker should be very familiar with the municipal systems and be able to provide specific information to callins that AWTS cannot accommodate. Improve Coordination Short term o There is little opportunity for with School Bus coordination in the area of school Transportation transportation. ! The County does not have the resources to provide school transportation. ! Institutional issues associated with school buses make it difficult to accommodate other than school children. Improve Coordination with Other Providers (e.g. Academy, Suburban) Improve Coordination with various private services, hospitals, and non-profit agencies Short term o o Short term Make people aware of the services (marketing). Include these operators as potential operators of new services identified through the planning process. Invite participation of these providers in brokerage system. Invite participation of these providers in planning process.
Objective
o o
103
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Category Marketing and Communications Marketing and Communications
Objective
Timeframe Description F. Marketing & Communications Expand advertising Short term o Any new general public service, e.g., fixed routes, would need to be advertised. o Radio ads and billboards should be considered to reach commuters. o Spanish language advertisements, using Spanish media outlets, especially for new employment services. o Demand response service is geared towards special populations and is already over capacity, so advertisement of the service is not necessarily appropriate. Utilize Countywide Short term o Wider dissemination of existing Transportation County transportation map map/information o Create a smaller user-friendly brochure appealing County paratransit services brochure that includes information on AWTS, municipal, and non-profit providers. Could be disseminated to government offices, libraries, senior centers, senior housing, etc. Create Brand Identity Short term o Create appealing name, logo, and colors for County services, regardless of organizational structure Use same logo and colors on all county transit services, including existing demand response services. Work with Info line to make transportation (agency-based and general public) a key component and something that is mentioned on its website and in its literature Ensure that information about all transit services is available Implement a user friendly, interactive Internet trip planning program, similar to what is offered by New Jersey Transit. This would be effective primarily for fixed route services only, but could also indicate demand response options to the user based on eligibility. Investigate the possibility of automated trip planning over the phone as well.
o Improve County Telephone Information Service (expand Info Line to include all types of services) Short term
o
o Implement Countywide trip-planning Short term
o
o
o
104
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Category New Services
Objective
Timeframe G. New Services Address unmet needs Long term among senior and disabled population with additional service
Description o Expand demand responsive services only after the improvement of existing services. First priority is to make recommended changes to existing demand response service and then monitor how well these changes and increased coordination with municipalities increases the ability for the needs of targeted groups (senior and disabled). To the extent that unmet needs still exist after improvements to existing services, additional capital and operating funds for expanded service should be sought. Many municipalities are already addressing intra-municipal needs on their own. County should continue to provide technical assistance to these efforts (currently through KMM or Improvement Authority). County planning process may identify intra-municipal needs not being addressed by municipalities. In this case, County may approach municipalities and work with them to initiate new service. Work with NJ Transit to increase service frequencies from 60 to 30 minutes on local buses that serve major employment centers, such as New Brunswick and the Raritan Center. Work with employers to gain support for new services. ! Direct service from New Brunswick to the Raritan center. ! Work cooperatively with Mercer County to expand their service along Route 130. ! New route from New Brunswick to the Exit 8A employment area (Route 130). ! New Route from New Brunswick to So Brunswick/Plainsboro employment area.
o
o
Address unmet needs for intra-municipal service
Short term
o
o
o
Address unmet needs for access to employment
Short term
o
o
105
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Category
Agency Services
Timeframe H. Agency Services Explore Opportunities Long term for consolidating BSS (mostly Medicare trips) with other county services Continue to contract Short term out WFNJ service (mostly employmentrelated trips) I. Jitney Van Regulation Address unsafe Jitney Short term Vans that provide employment transportation
Objective
Description o Explore concept of having County broker handle Medicaid trips (determine eligibility and place on most cost-effective means of transportation) once the brokerage is well established. Seek lowest cost provider for these trips to, which may be the County’s own service (AWTS) Legitimize Jitney Vans by requiring them to be licensed. Ensure that Jitney Vans, which meet an important transportation need, are operating safely with safe vehicles before granting a license. Jitney Vans should be required to provide County with basic operating information, which will allow the County to understand where jitney van supply and demand exists. Enforcement of illegal vehicles and illegal operation. County could offer this as a service to municipal transit providers to encourage coordination. Would be implemented only after new transit storage maintenance facility is in place. County could provide specialized maintenance for municipal operators on a contract basis. Additional County staff might need to be hired. County could coordinate pooled vehicle purchase by multiple municipalities through the Improvement Authority. Standardization of equipment would make centralized maintenance more feasible.
o
Jitney Van Regulation
o o
o
o Provide Centralized State Inspection Facilities for Municipal Operators Provide Centralized overhaul/repairs for Municipal Operators Provide Countywide support for capital purchases (vehicles etc.) J. Other Issues Short term or Long term
Other Issues
o
o Short term or Long term
o
o Short term o
o
106
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
10.2
Operating Cost Impacts
Table 10-2, displayed on the next page, outlines the annual operating costs for which the County would need to identify funding if it wishes to meet the objectives described above. It includes maintaining existing service, adding services, a marketing and promotion program, and additional staff. It should be noted that this does not represent an implementation plan for a particular organizational and service alternative, but rather an order of magnitude estimate of the cost impacts of achieving the identified objectives. Existing service, excluding that which is contracted out, costs the county approximately $4.4 million. We would propose adding additional demand response service to meet demand not now served, as well as fixed route and shuttle services to address unserved markets. The total cost of new services could range from $1.4 to 2.7 million. Driver salaries are included in the above estimate, but the costs of extra administrative and maintenance personnel required to both improve existing services and take on new ones must be accounted for and are shown as separate items in Table 10-2. This could be as much as $1.9 million. Additionally, a marketing program of $200,000-$300,000 per year is proposed. The final estimated annual operating cost is $7.7 to $10.9 million, which is an increase over existing costs of $2.7 to $6.0 million. 10.3 Capital Cost Impacts
Capital costs would also be significant, as may be seen in Table 10-3. It is estimated that the County will need to identify $4.2 - $7.7 million in funding for the investments necessary to fully implement the proposed elements. This includes $2-$3 million for a new operating and maintenance facility and $1.6 - $3.4 million for transit vehicles needed for service expansion. Other capital items needed to support new service are support vehicles and bus stops. Finally, an investment in computer hardware and software needed for internal management, website development, and effective scheduling and dispatching could cost from $200,000 to $500,000.
107
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 10-2: Range of Annual Operating Cost Impacts Category Base Service Added Services Demand-Response Expansion Shuttle Fixed-Route Marketing Program Added Non-Operating Staffing Executive Management Estimated $90 Estimated $90 Estimated $90 Estimated $90 Marketing Vehicle Maintenance Total Incremental Cost Total Annual Operating Cost (a) All costs in current (2003) dollars 0-3 employees 0-7 employees 3 employees 2 employees 5 employees 4 employees 3 employees Range Current Level 9,000-36,000 hours 6,000-12,000 hours 12,000-24,000 hours Cost Impacts (a) Remarks $4.95 million (b) Estimated 94,000 total hours ($47/hour) (c)
$423,000-$1.7 million 10-40% increase in service to meet latent demand 4-8 peak bus requirement, with off-peak service as $282,000-$564,000 well (d) 8-16 peak bus requirement, with off-peak service as $730,000-$1.5 million well (e) $200,000-$300,000 Website Management, marketing materials, etc. $0-$351,000 $0-$455,000 $195,000 $130,000 $325,000 $260,000 $195,000 $2.7 - $6.0 million $7.7 - 10.9 million Estimated $90,000 per person, plus 30% fringe rate Estimated $50,000 per person, plus 30% fringe rate Estimated $50,000 per person, plus 30% fringe rate Estimated $50,000 per person, plus 30% fringe rate Estimated $50,000 per person, plus 30% fringe rate Estimated $50,000 per person, plus 30% fringe rate Estimated $50,000 per person, plus 30% fringe rate
(b) Includes $4.4 million direct AWTS and $560,000 in contract services (excludes Board of Social Services) (c) Calculated based on estimated 1.4 million total miles and average operating speed of 15 miles/hour (d) Calculated based on estimated 1,500 hours per peak bus (at $47 per hour) (e) Calculated based on estimated 1,500 hours per peak bus (at $60 per hour, assumes contractor supplied service and vehicles)
108
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 10-3: Range of Capital Cost Impacts Category Operating and Maintenance Facility Buses and bus equipment (b) Demand-Response Expansion Shuttle Fixed-Route Support vehicles (b) Shelters and bus stops Management Systems & Website Communication and Computer Equipment and Hardware Total Capital Cost Impact
(a) All costs in current (2003) dollars (b) Calculated based on added service requirements (c) Vehicles to be provided by operating contractor
Cost Impacts (a)
Remarks
$2 - $3 million Expansion of existing County Central Maintenance Facility $540,000 - $1.2 million 9-20 new vehicles, including 20% spare ratio ($60,000 each) 5-10 25-foot buses, including 20% spare ratio ($200,000 $1 - $2 million each) $0 10-19 35-foot buses, including 20% spare ratio (c) $50,000 - $75,000 2-3 vehicles ($25,000 each) $100,000 - $300,000 Common design/identity across the County Financial, maintenance, inventory control, website $300,000 - $600,000 development Connect County/municipal service, scheduling/dispatch $200,000 - $500,000 functions $4.2 - $7.7 million
109
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 11 11.1 Introduction
Reorganization Alternatives
Eight Organizational Alternatives were developed as a result of evaluating the range of possibilities that might be capable of meeting the objectives identified in this study. The alternatives are meant to represent a wide spectrum of possible County approaches. They are as follows: • • • • • • • • I - Maintain Current Departmental Structure IIA - Locate Transportation Function in Another Existing County Department – Engineering & Planning IIB - Locate Transportation Function in Another Existing County Department – Parks & Recreation IIC - Locate Transportation Function in Another Existing County Department – Public Health & Education III - Consolidate with Public Works IV - New County Department of Transportation V - Consolidate with Improvement Authority VI - Create Transportation Authority Description of Alternatives
11.2
This section briefly describes each alternative. Maintain Current Departmental Structure This is the simplest alternative, which does not alter the basic organizational structure of the County relative to transportation. That is to say, it maintains AWTS in the Department of Human Services. Some of the objectives outlined in Chapter Two could be accomplished under the existing framework, and we would certainly recommend implementing service improvements if this structure were maintained. Locate Transportation Function in Another Existing County Department – Engineering & Planning This alternative shifts AWTS and all future county transportation functions into another county department. Therefore, transportation would remain a sub-department function, but be shifted to a department that may by its nature provide some advantages. This department already has transportation planning responsibility. Locate Transportation Function in Another Existing County Department – Parks & Recreation
This alternative shifts AWTS and all future county transportation functions into another county department. Therefore, transportation would remain a sub-department function, but be shifted to a department that may by its nature provide some advantages.
110
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Locate Transportation Function in Another Existing County Department – Health and Education This alternative shifts AWTS and all future county transportation functions into another county department. Therefore, transportation would remain a sub-department function, but be shifted to a department that may by its nature provide some advantages. Consolidate with Public Works Consolidating Transportation with Public Works would consist of placing transportation maintenance and operations functions in the same department. Therefore, transportation would remain a sub-department function, but be shifted to a department that may by its nature provide some advantages. A major advantage would be to bring together the operations and maintenance functions of transportation under a single county department New County Department of Transportation (DOT) This option would create a separate County department that handles transportation exclusively, combining operations, planning, and maintenance functions, which are now in three separate departments. Consolidate with Improvement Authority This is an option that would remove the County transportation function from the departmental structure of the County and place it within the Improvement Authority, which is a semi-independent governmental entity that has among other powers, bonding authority and other abilities to provide financial resources. Create Transportation Authority The final alternative is the establishment of an entirely new entity which, like the Improvement Authority, is outside the direct County Government hierarchy. This entity’s sole mission would be transportation, and it would be responsible for county services as well as fulfilling other necessary functions, such as planning and coordination. 11.3 Conceptual Organizational Charts
Figures 11-1 through 11-8 show organizational charts for all eight alternatives. These provide a glimpse into the organizational structure that would make the most sense for each of these alternatives.
111
Figure 11-1: Alternative I
112
Figure 11-2: Alternative IIA
113
Figure 11-3: Alternative IIB
114
Figure 11-4: Alternative IIC
115
Figure 11-5: Alternative III
116
Figure 11-6: Alternative IV
117
Figure 11-7: Alternative V
118
Figure 11-8: Alternative VI
119
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 12
Evaluation of Reorganization Alternatives
This chapter compares the eight reorganization alternatives, assigning numerical values to each alternative based on how well each one performs on the specific evaluation criteria established. 12.1 Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation criteria are specified below: • Efficiency/Effectiveness - The system should attempt to maximize the utilization of finite transit resources. This would include increasing passengers per hour and reducing cost per hour and per passenger. Responsiveness to Market - Because of the nature of the persons being transported, the system should respond to their unique needs. This mandates an understanding of their mobility requirements. Program Coordination - Many persons being transported are part of an ongoing social service program in which public transportation is an integral, but supporting, activity. Options that maintain and strengthen that linkage may be preferred. Quality of Service - The service should be delivered in a reliable fashion with relatively direct service in a clean and comfortable vehicle. This would also include driving and sensitivity training for operating personnel. Flexibility - It is recognized that the current travel patterns and transportation setting will vary over time. Not all changes can be anticipated and the system should be able to respond to these situations. Adequate Funding - There should be sufficient funds to assure meeting both current and future needs. This would include the ability to respond to reporting requirements of local, state and federal funding agencies. Implementability - This criterion measures the ability to achieve a consensus and gain support for funding in a timely manner. Institutional barriers should be avoided or proposals to overcome impediments must be formulated. Compatibility - The preferred organization option should be compatible with current plans and programs.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The criteria listed above provide a basis to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of each of the alternatives.
120
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
12.2
Evaluation of Alternatives
The following evaluates the different alternatives for each category. Efficiency/Effectiveness There are many measures of efficiency and effectiveness in the field of transit, but the overarching goal is to increase ridership and reduce costs. It is the consultant team’s belief that the first three alternatives would not sufficiently address these issues. Creating a new County department of transportation and consolidation with the Improvement Authority are much more likely to yield improvements in these areas insofar as they have a singular focus on transportation. The same could be said for an independent transportation authority. Alternatives outside the regular county government could more easily employ performance incentives to encourage greater labor productivity. Responsiveness to Markets This criterion addresses the potential for alternatives to be responsive to a variety of transportation needs. The organizational structure of the first two alternatives limits their ability to meet a wide range of needs. Consolidation with Public Works does not really address this criterion either. By contrast, a new County department of transportation, a consolidation with the Improvement Authority, and a transportation authority would all go far towards this issue. Program Coordination This criteria focuses on maintaining and strengthening linkages with other agencies. Because many of the agencies that serve the same people that use AWTS and have great transportation needs are in the human services arena, maintaining transportation under the County Department of Human Services would allow the linkages to be maintained. Placing transportation under another county department or with public works would create the potential for weaker linkages with relevant agencies. The three final alternatives would need to reestablish these relationships. Quality of Service Patrons of transit services want clean, comfortable vehicles with well-trained drivers. The current structure is limited in its ability to provide this because it does not place control of vehicle maintenance with the operator. Placing transportation operations under another department would not likely change this situation. Consolidating with Public Works would be a significant improvement, insofar as it would place maintenance and operations in the same department. The last three options have the potential to improve service even more, because they would provide even more control over vehicles.
121
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Flexibility The flexibility to respond to change is very important for a transportation provider. Keeping transportation under a department with responsibilities in many other areas or transferring it to another department similar in this respect may not result in a high level of flexibility, insofar as these departments may have other objectives that stifle flexibility. Consolidating with Public Works may improve flexibility in terms of vehicles because it would provide access to a larger pool of vehicles. A new County department of transportation and consolidation with the Improvement Authority may still have limitations on flexibility, whereas a transportation authority has the highest degree of political and institutional independence and therefore the greatest potential for flexibility. Adequate Funding The current organizational structure, placing transportation under another County department, consolidating with Public Works and a creating a County transportation department must all rely on current County funding resources. Consolidation with the Improvement Authority would open up additional funding options. However, a transportation authority has the most funding options, including dedicated funding. Implementability In order to be implementable, reorganization alternatives must achieve consensus and support as well as avoid institutional barriers. The current structure has the advantage of already being in place, but it has a limited ability to implement new services and change to meet objectives. Integrating transportation into another County department would be a challenge, given the likely need to overcome existing institutional arrangements that are not necessarily set up to accommodate it. It would appear that a new County transportation department could readily be established and it would not cause a major upheaval to existing departments. Consolidating with the Improvement Authority would require a major effort, including a requirement that the Improvement Authority would need to balance its already full agenda with an entirely new program. An even greater effort would be involved in the formation of a transportation authority. This would require new State legislation. Compatibility This criterion measures how compatible transportation is with all other goals of the agency that would take it on under each alternative. For all the alternatives that subsume transportation under an agency with broader goals, compatibility is weak, because transportation represents just one of many disparate responsibilities. By contrast, a new County transportation department or a transportation authority would go far toward addressing this issue, insofar as transportation becomes the single focus.
122
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Accountability To have an accountable organization structure, there needs to be a clear chain of command to enable the assessment of performance. The current structure or placing transportation under another County department would maintain the lack of accountability of the operating entity for the provision of transit as a whole. Without this complete control of system there is limited accountability. Consolidating transportation with Public Works partially addresses this criterion because it places vehicle maintenance and operations under the same command. A new County transportation department and consolidating with the Improvement Authority go far towards addressing this issue because they move closer to placing all responsibility with one agency. A transportation authority would be completely independent and has the potential to be the most accountable. However, this requires that the legislation set up to establish the authority provides for adequate oversight, and that the authority board has broad representation.
123
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
PART IV - RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
124
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 13 13.1
Recommended Alternative
Consultant Recommendation
Based on the analysis performed in Chapter Four, we believe that establishing a department of transportation as a new department within the county structure is the best option. Based on our criteria, three alternatives stood out as being excellent in each category – the new transportation department, a consolidation with the Improvement Authority, and a new independent transportation authority. However, we believe from an implementation standpoint that creating a new County department is the most straightforward means of accomplishing the County’s objectives. 13.2 Task Force Recommendation
On October 29, 2003, the Study Task Force met to discuss the consultant’s evaluation of alternatives and the recommendation to pursue a department of transportation within the existing county government. The Task Force was unanimous in agreeing with the consultant’s recommendation.
125
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Chapter 14 14.1
Implementation Plan
Implementation Timeline
The following schedule is a proposed timeline for the implementation of the recommendation for a new County Department of Transportation (DOT). Year 1 – 2004 (July 1-December 31) • Establish a new County Department of Transportation (under a Freeholder Chairperson) • Transition AWTS services from the County Department of Human Services to the new Department of Transportation (It is anticipated that employees involved with AWTS will work in the new Department) • Hire Department Director • Develop procedures to improve existing services • Develop operating and capital plans to increase demand-response services • Develop operating and capital plans to introduce fixed-route and shuttle services • Expand the current Operations staff by hiring and training three new Vehicle Mechanics and one Safety/Training Specialist • Establish a Marketing/Information Services function and hire a Manager and an Information Specialist • Establish a Coordination function and hire a Coordination Manager • Begin developing dedicated management/maintenance systems • Begin improvements to customer service/scheduling/trip planning/complaint tracking systems Year 2 – 2005 (January 1-December 31) • Establish a Planning/Programming function and hire a Manager and Service Planning Specialist • Expand the Marketing function by hiring a second Information Specialist • Expand the Coordination function by hiring a Coordination Assistant/Countywide Broker and a Coordinator for Municipal/Regional services • Phase in increased demand response service as feasible • Contract with third party operator for fixed-route services and vehicles • Introduce the first fixed-route and shuttle services (subcontract out fixed -route services, at least initially) • Continue developing dedicated management/maintenance systems • Continue improvements to customer service/scheduling/trip planning/complaint tracking systems
126
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Year 3 – 2006 (January 1-December 31) • Hire and train a second Safety/Training Specialist • Hire a Capital Planning Specialist • Expand the Marketing function by hiring a Marketing Specialist • Expand the Coordination function by hiring two more staff members • Phase in further increases in the demand response service • Phase in additional fixed-route and shuttle service • Complete developing dedicated management/maintenance systems • Complete improvements to customer service/scheduling/trip planning/complaint tracking systems • Begin installation of bus stops and shelters Years 4-10 – 2007-2013 • Design and complete expansion of existing County Central Maintenance Facility • Expand the Coordination function to achieve full Countywide brokering • Consolidate most municipal transportation services into the Countywide system • Consolidate the BSS transportation services into the Countywide system • Phase in further increases in the demand response service • Phase in additional fixed-route and shuttle service • Continue installation of bus stops and shelters as warranted 14.2 Functional Responsibilities
The County will need to create job descriptions for each of the newly created positions as part of the implementation phase. This section provides some guidance in terms of the functional responsibilities envisioned for each position. Operations Area • Safety/Training Specialist o Develop Safety & Security Plans for the County’s transit services o Develop and conduct training programs for transit personnel o Monitor accident and workers compensation trends o Oversee security efforts o Respond to incidents as needed Planning & Programming Area • Planning & Programming Manager o Recruit and train planning staff o Oversee shorter-range transit service planning activities o Oversee longer-range strategic transit planning activities • Service Planning Specialist o Respond to service requests 127
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
•
o Identify transportation needs o Develop service recommendations o Monitor ridership and demand patterns Capital Planning Specialist o Develop specifications for capital needs o Administer grants and capital project funding
Coordination Area • Coordination Manager o Recruit and train brokerage and other coordination staff o Direct the improvement of coordination between AWTS and the municipal operators o Work towards establishing a single comprehensive brokerage network • Countywide Broker o Perform centralized call taking and trip scheduling o Coordinate with other service providers • Service Contracts Coordinator o Identify opportunities for service contracting o Implement contracts for services to be provided by municipal/private operators o Oversee the performance of the contract operators • Municipal/Regional Coordinator o Identify opportunities to improve coordination between the County and the various municipal operators o Identify opportunities to improve coordination between the County and the various regional operators (e.g., NJ Transit) Marketing/Information Services Area • Marketing/Information Services Manager o Recruit and train marketing staff o Oversee development and implementation of Countywide transit marketing services o Direct marketing plan development o Direct market research activities o Direct the development of information materials and uniform identity for the County’s services • Marketing Specialist o Assist with marketing plan development o Produce and disseminate customer relations materials o Perform a variety of marketing, advertising and customer relations activities o Coordinate projects, special events and campaigns o Coordinate the customer feedback program • Information Specialist o Provide transit information and trip-planning to the public by phone, internet, and in person o Sell tickets and other fare media 128
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
14.2
Recommended Capital Improvements
This section describes in greater detail the capital investments that are envisioned under this reorganization plan. Most of these expenses will be incurred in the first three years of program implementation. Table 14-3 projects the costs and timings of these investments for those three years. Fixed-route service vehicles need not be purchased in the first three years, as it is recommended that the County initially contract out operations for that type of service.. Given its experience operating demand response and small-scale shuttle services, the suggestion is that the county purchase vehicle for those services and operate them in-house. An improved operating and maintenance facility, although it will likely be the most significant capital cost associated with this alternative, is also not necessary in the first three years for the transition to a new County Department to take place. AWTS administrative and operations personnel can continue to work out of their current facilities while the steps are taken to secure design and construction funds for expanding the current maintenance facility to accommodate all transportation functions. Operating and Maintenance Facility • Expansion of current Middlesex County Central Maintenance Facility o Create dedicated space for storing and maintaining transit vehicles o Current space to be dedicated to other County vehicles (non-transit fleet) • Include office space to accommodate administrative and operations personnel currently assigned to various different locations Passenger Vehicles and Equipment • Additional demand-response vehicles for service expansion o 9-20 accessible vans o Seating capacity of 9-10 passengers including 2-4 wheelchair tiedowns • Vehicles for new shuttle services o 5-10 accessible 25-foot buses o Seating capacity of 15-20 passengers including 2 wheelchair tie-downs • Vehicles for new fixed-route services o County will contract out operations of fixed routes for first several years with vehicles provided by the contract operators o If and when County takes over services, 10-19 accessible 35-foot buses would be needed o Seating capacity of 25-30 passengers, including 2 wheelchair tiedowns
Support Vehicles and Equipment • 2-3 minivans to augment existing County fleet o Will be needed for on-road supervision and responding to emergencies o Must conform with general County specifications
129
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Shelters and Bus Stops • Passenger shelters at transfer centers and other high-volume boarding locations o Common design/identity across the County should be employed o Some locations may warrant additional amenities • Bus stops at other locations o Will facilitate transfers between the various County services, KMM, NJ Transit and other operators in the County o Should be combined with NJ Transit stops where applicable o Provide service information, such as timetables, maps, etc. Dedicated Management Systems and Website • Expansion and integration of systems o Financial, maintenance, and inventory control systems o Must accommodate formation of new County DOT o Must accommodate expansion of services • Develop comprehensive website o Countywide transit information o Should include links to municipal transit services, NJ Transit, and other relevant sites (e.g., NJ DOT for Commuter Choice) • May entail modifications to current Countywide systems/development of customized software packages for new DOT. Communications Network Improvements • Work towards establishing a single comprehensive brokerage network for County-operated and municipal services including: o Trip scheduling o Travel management • Dispatching and on-line scheduling • Customer feedback and complaint management
14.3
Operating and Capital Costs
The capital and operating costs discussed in Chapter Ten can be applied to the implementation of the proposed alternative. This is shown in Tables 14-1, 14-2, and 14-3. In terms of operating costs, the first year will focus on hiring needed administrative and maintenance staff, and includes no new services. This results in a projected additional total of $286,000. Year 2 includes additions of all types of services as well as additional staff, and therefore adds just over $1.2 million to the operating budget. Finally, year three adds over $1.2 million once again through a combination of new staff and new services. Cumulatively, the incremental cost through 2006 is projected to be $3 million. This is just less than the very low end of the range projected in Chapter Ten for the reason that it does not include potential additional enhancements in the years beyond 2006. Capital costs under this proposed alternative are $150,000 in outlays projected for the first year, exclusively in the area of computer software and hardware. Capital costs 130
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
increase in Years 2 and 3 as new services come on line and there is a need for vehicle purchases and other supporting infrastructure, although it should be noted that many of the fixed route vehicles will be provided by the contracted operator and therefore do not require any capital outlay . Capital costs total just over $1.34 million in Year 2 and $1.25 million in Year 3. This is shown in greater detail in Table 14-3. Replacement vehicles and other “nonincremental” costs are not shown here.
131
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 14-1: Operating Cost Impacts for New County DOT
Annual Incremental Cost Impacts (a) $0 $0 $286,000 $0 $286,000 $5,234,000 $5,520,000 $310,000 $423,000 $141,000 $360,000 $1,234,000 $6,754,000 $6,754,000 $300,000 $470,000 $141,000 $360,000 $1,271,000 10% increase: 10,000 annual hours (b) Added service 3,000 annual hours (b) Added service 6,000 annual hours - contracted (c) Year 2 cumulative total 10% increase: 9,000 annual hours (b) Initial service 3,000 annual hours (b) Initial service 6,000 annual hours - contracted (c) Year 1 cumulative total + 6 months salaries/fringe No new services in Year 1
Time Frame
Implementation Steps Existing Costs Create Transp.Dept.
Cumulative Cost Impacts (a) $4,948,000
Remarks AWTS 2003 Operating Budget
Year 1 7/1/0412/31/04
Move AWTS from DHS Hire New Personnel Add New Services Incremental Cost Year 1 Total Cost Year 1 Existing Costs Hire New Personnel Increase Demand-Response Service Add Shuttle Service Add Fixed-Route Service Incremental Cost Year 2 Total Cost Year2 Existing Costs Hire New Personnel Increase Demand-Response Service Increase Shuttle Service Increase Fixed-Route Service Incremental Cost Year 3 Total Cost Year 3
Year 2 1/1/0512/31/05
Year 3 1/10612/31/06
$8,025,000 (a) All costs in current (2003) dollars; (b) Calculated based on rate of $47 per hour; (c) Calculated based on rate of $60 per hour (assumes contractor supplied service and vehicles)
132
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 14-2: Incremental Operating Cost Impacts for New County DOT
Time Frame Implementation Steps Create Transp. Department Year 1 7/1/0412/31/04 Move AWATS from DHS Hire New Personnel Add New Services Incremental Cost Year 1 Hire New Personnel Increase Demand-Response Service Year 2 1/1/0512/31/05 Add Shuttle Service Add Fixed-Route Service Incremental Cost Year 2 Incremental Cost Year 1 & 2 Hire New Personnel Year 3 1/10612/31/06 Increase Demand-Response Service Increase Shuttle Service Increase Fixed-Route Service Incremental Cost Year 3 Incremental Cost Years 1,2, & 3 $300,000 $470,000 $141,000 $360,000 $1,271,000 $3,077.000 10% increase: 10,000 ann. hours (b) Added service 3,000 ann. hours (b) Added service 6,000 ann. hours - contracted (c) Annual Incremental Cost Impacts (a) $0 $0 $286,000 $0 $286,000 $310,000 $423,000 $141,000 $360,000 $1,234,000 $1,806,000 6 months salaries/fringe added to Year 1 total 10% increase: 9,000 ann. hours (b) Initial service 3,000 ann. hours (b) Initial service 6,000 ann. hours - contracted (c) $286,000 6 months only No new services in Year 1 Cumulative Cost Impacts (a) Remarks
(a) All costs in current (2003) dollars; (b) Calculated based on rate of $47 per hour; (c) Calculated based on rate of
$60 per hour (assumes contractor supplied service and vehicles)
133
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Table 14-3: Incremental Capital Cost Impacts for New County DOT
Annual Incremental Cost Impacts (a) $100,000 $50,000 $150,000 $540,000 $600,000 $150,000 9 new vehicles for 10% service increase 3 new vehicles for initial service 5 new buses for initial service (b) 1 new vehicle for added services Cumulative Cost Impacts (a)
Time Frame Year 1 - 7/1/0412/31/04
Capital Project Categories Management Systems/Website Communications Network Improvements Incremental Cost Year 1 Demand-Response Vehicles Shuttle Buses Fixed-Route Buses
Remarks Initial costs - starting July Initial costs - starting July
$25,000 $100,000 $75,000 $1,340,000 $1,490,000 $600,000
Year 2 - 1/1/0512/31/05
Support Vehicles Management Systems/Website Communications Network Improvements Incremental Cost Year 1 Incremental Cost Years 1 & 2 Demand-Response Vehicles Fixed-Route Buses Shuttle Buses
$400,000 $25,000 $100,000 $75,000 $50,000 $1,250,000
Year 3 - 1/10/612/31/06
Support Vehicles Management Systems Communications Network Improvements Shelters/Bus Stops Incremental Cost Year 3
10 new vehicles for 10% service increase 5 new buses for expanded service (b) 2 new buses for expanded service 1 new vehicle for added service
Initial Installations
Incremental Cost Yrs 1,2,& 3 $2,740,000 (a) All costs in current (2003) dollars; (b) To be provided b operating contractor
134
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
14.4
Funding Sources
It is anticipated that the majority of costs associated with the new County Department of Transportation and the expanded services will be funded through the current channels, especially by Middlesex County. The key funding programs that the County already uses or may be able to tap to reduce its share are summarized below. Following this, major potential funding sources are identified for each category of incremental expenses, both operating and capital. Sources Used Principally for AWTS Services • Casino Revenue Fund The Senior Citizen and Disabled Resident Transportation Assistance Program is funded from the State’s Casino Revenue Fund. Atlantic City casinos pay eight percent of their gross revenues into this fund to support programs that benefit New Jersey senior citizens and persons with disabilities. About 85 percent of the annual transportation appropriation is distributed among New Jersey’s 21 counties. The remaining 15 percent is allocated to NJ Transit to provide technical assistance to the counties, to coordinate programs within and among the counties, and for bus and rail accessibility projects. Funding is provided to cover operating, capital, and administration expenses. The distribution formula is based strictly on senior populations in the various Counties. • Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC)
This program provides Federal funds for counties to make public transportation available to participants in the State’s Work First program. Local matches for this grant come from several sources: New Jersey Department of Human Services, New Jersey Department of labor’s Welfare to Work program, and local providers. • New Jersey Addictions Service Grant
This program, administered by the State, provides funding to transport addicted residents to treatment and detoxification centers. • Ryan White CARE Act
Funding from the U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services to establish a comprehensive community based continuum of care for people with HIV and AIDS. Funds can be used for medical transportation and transportation to other necessary services such as food shopping, support groups or legal assistance. • Senior Citizen Block Grant (SSBG)
The New Jersey Department of Aging supports certain transportation services for frail/elderly seniors, with targets established for the portion of passengers who belong to minority groups. 135
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
•
Veteran’s Administration
Funding is available through the New Jersey Department of Military/Veteran Affairs to transport veterans to medical treatment facilities (VA hospitals). The number of trips to maintain the grant is determined by formula. Sources Used Principally for BSS Services • Social Security Title XIX
Medicaid funding from the Federal Social Security Administration enables the State to furnish medical transportation assistance on behalf of families with dependent children, and of aged, blind or disabled individuals whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services. This program is supervised by the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, and is administered by Middlesex County. Funding covers transportation provided by various carriers as well as reimbursement of individual Medicaid-eligible trips via public transit. • Social Security Title XX
Non-Medicaid funding from the Federal Social Security Administration for transportation to eligible low income elderly and disabled persons. This program is supervised by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services, and is administered by Middlesex County. • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Funding from the Federal Social Security Administration for transportation of incomeeligible parents and children for a variety of trip purposes: medical, employment/training (Work First), Fair Hearing, Housing assistance, emergency assistance, and SSI/Legal Services. Work First public transit trips are included, as are trips reimbursed through the Training-Related Expenses (TRE) program. This program is supervised by the New Jersey Division of Family Development, and is administered by Middlesex County. • General Assistance
This program consists of State funding for transportation of income-eligible single adults and couples. Similar to the Federal TANF program described above, trip purposes may include medical, employment/training (Work First), Fair Hearing, Housing assistance, emergency assistance, and SSI/Legal Services. Work First public transit trips are included, as well.
136
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Possible Sources Not Currently Used • Federal Urbanized Area Formula Transit Grants (Section 5307)
Section 5307 is a formula grant program from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA). It is for urbanized areas, providing capital, operating and planning assistance for mass transportation. Funds are apportioned to urbanized areas utilizing a formula based on population, population density, and other factors associated with transit service and ridership. It is funded from both General Revenues and Trust Funds. These funds are available for transit improvements in urbanized areas of all sizes. For areas over 200,000 in population, funds flow directly to the designated recipient. For areas under 200,000, the funds are apportioned to the Governor of each state for distribution. Since FFY1998, one percent of the appropriated funds are set aside for transit enhancement projects that physically or functionally enhance transit service or use. At the same time, preventive maintenance, defined as all maintenance costs, became eligible for FTA capital assistance at an 80 percent Federal share. Operating assistance is available only to urbanized areas with populations under 200,000. An exception is made for urbanized areas over 200,000 if the total number of bus revenue miles operated is under 900,000 and the number of buses operated does not exceed 15. Up to ten percent of an area’s apportionment may be used for complementary ADA paratransit service costs. Nationwide in FFY2000, 95 percent of the total obligations were used for capital, four percent for operating, and one percent for planning. In the State of New Jersey, NJ Transit is the recipient for Section 5307 formula funds on behalf of the counties in its service area, including Middlesex County. • Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality
This federal program provides funds for transportation projects that provide congestion relief and air quality benefits. This includes up to capital and up to three years of operating costs for new transit services. This funding source could conceivably used for fixed route or shuttle services, though it should be kept in mind that the money is unlikely to become available for several years after an application is made, and the service must demonstrate air quality improvements, which may require the use of alternatively fueled vehicles. • Federal Flexible Transportation Funds
Flexible funds are certain legislatively specified funds that may be used either for transit or highway purposes. The idea of flexible funds is that a local area can choose to use
137
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
certain Federal surface transportation funds based on local planning priorities, not on a restrictive definition of program eligibility. FHWA funds transferred to the FTA have provided a substantial new source of funds for transit projects. Any decision on flexing highway funds to transit projects such as that being proposed in Middlesex County, would need to be made through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) process. • New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Demonstration Project
The New Jersey legislature is currently in the process of reauthorizing the transportation trust fund, which provides state transportation funding for roads and transit through the state gas tax and other sources. A Blue Ribbon Commission was formed to address a current financial crisis with the Trust Fund, which with no new revenues will be unable to fund new capital projects by FY2006. The commission has recommended a 12.5 cents increase on the gas tax to correct this situation. If the legislature decides to follow this recommendation, it could mean an influx of funds, the majority of which will address existing priorities. However, Middlesex County may look to support from its state legislators for some demonstration monies that would show how a county system can address gaps in services, particularly employment related ones, recognizing that NJ Transit is a statewide agency that cannot fill all local needs. 14.5 Potential Funding Plan
This section lays out an approach for funding the three-year implementation plan for the proposed Department of Transportation, taking into account existing and potential sources discussed above. Though the transition would not take place until July 2004, there will be costs associated with transition prior to then. Currently, the combined cost to operate the County’s transportation programs is about $7.4 million per year. This includes $4.9 million for AWTS services, provided by inhouse personnel as well as third party contractors. A portion of the current AWTS program is funded through the Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) program. In addition, the County Board of Social Services (BSS) is spending $2.5 million a year for transportation services it provides, mostly through several taxi operators. The bulk of trips are for Medicaid purposes. Medicaid Non-Emergency Transportation and WFNJ are major funding sources. During the initial three-year Department of Transportation implementation period, it is expected that the BSS will retain its service provision responsibilities. However, additional funding will be required to support the expanded activities and services proposed for this period through the new County Department of Transportation. The following sections identify the most likely means of funding the incremental operating and capital costs.
138
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Operating Costs Eighteen staff members are proposed to be added during the first three years. They include a Department Director and personnel to establish and/or expand activities in the in the Maintenance, Safety, Planning, Marketing and Coordination areas. These positions are expected to be funded primarily by Middlesex County. The current AWTS demand-response service would be expanded by ten percent (9,000 – 10,000 annual vehicle hours) in both the second and third years. The NJ Transit Casino Revenue Grant allocates funds based on a formula directly linked to the size of the each County’s senior population. Since this will not change any time in the near future, the County will need to support this increase with its own funds. About 6,000 annual hours of new shuttle service would be introduced between Year 2 and Year 3 of the implementation plan. This service would be operated by County Department of Transportation employees. It would be supported through employer contributions and County funds. A State demonstration grant could provide much needed financial support in the near term for this service as well. About 12,000 annual hours of new fixed-route service would be introduced between Year 2 and Year 3 of the implementation plan. This service would be operated by outside contractors. It would likely be funded primarily by Middlesex County. A State demonstration grant could provide much needed financial support in the near term for this service as well. Capital Costs Nineteen demand-response vehicles and other equipment would need to be purchased to meet the expanded service requirements proposed. Funding could come from the NJ Transit Casino Revenue Grant, with bonding through the Middlesex County Improvement Authority as needed. It is presumed that the fixed-route service vendor will provide its own vehicles and storage facilities. However, the County will need to purchase eight shuttle vehicles and several support vehicles during the initial three years. It is suggested that Federal Funding be explored in this regard -- specifically, FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funding through NJ Transit, with Middlesex County as Subgrantee. Beyond the first three years, Section 5307 funding may also be sought for expansion of the current maintenance facility. Several other capital items have been identified to enhance the DOT’s activities and performance. These include development of dedicated management and maintenance systems, as well as improvements to the customer service, scheduling, trip planning and complaint tracking systems. Appropriate funding for these systems could be generated via bonding through the Middlesex County Improvement Authority.
139
Middlesex County Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report
Once the new County DOT is established and showing improved performance as its own services are refined and expanded, a transfer of the BSS services to the DOT will be possible. This would likely occur beyond the initial three-year DOT implementation period. It is anticipated that the eventual transfer of some or all of the existing BSS transportation programs to the DOT will allow Middlesex County to realize economies of scale. However, this alone will not eliminate the need for additional funding for the expansion of the demand-responsive, shuttle and fixed-route services beyond the threeyear implementation time frame.
140
Submitted by
Urbitran Associates, Inc Marlene Connor Christopher Hrones Abrams-Cherwony & Associates Edward Abrams Mundle & Associates, Inc. Subhash Mundle
U R B I T R A N R E P O R T
New York
71 West 23rd Street New York, NY 10010 212.366.6200 12 West 27th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10001 212.366.6200 6 Meadowlark Drive Cohoes, NY 12047 P.O.Box 524 518.235.8429
New Jersey
2 Ethel Road - Suite 205B Edison, NJ 08817 732.248.5422 150 River Road, Building E Montville, NJ 07045 973.299.2910
Connecticut
50 Union Avenue Union Station, Third Floor East New Haven, CT 06519 203.789.9977
California
1440 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 510.839.0810 450 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 600 Glendale, CA 91203 818.291.6361
Massachusetts
275 Southampton Road Holyoke, MA 01040 413.539.9005
Pennsylvania
538 Spruce Street, Suite 612 Scranton, PA 18503 570.961.1413
w w w. u r b i t r a n . c o m