Laserfiche WebLink
Coborrus County Transportation Services (CCTS) Final Report - September 2015 <br />• Increase cost efficiency of existing services <br />These goals were incorporated into the evaluation of each proposed new or enhanced <br />service, and the following initiatives were ranked by the steering team as high priorities for <br />the five -year plan: <br />• Accept and utilize the full allotment of RGP funding - much marketing will be <br />needed to entice the rural population to ride the bus. <br />• Coordinate out -of- county medical transportation with surrounding counties (Stanly, <br />Rowan and Mecklenburg all want to be included). <br />• Maintain current fleet and driver levels by: establishing new markets and <br />customers, strengthening regular routing patterns to attract non - agency rider <br />points, tightening eligibility requirements, and training staff to book trips more <br />efficiently. <br />• Increase cost efficiency by adding more fare - paying passengers on each trip. <br />• Examine a zonal approach to delivering service that allows a majority of the fleet to <br />serve any particular zone more intensely during certain days of the week. <br />ES -2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDATION PROCESS <br />A Steering Committee, composed of 14 members, met three times to guide the preparation <br />of the CTSP. The Steering Committee represents a wide range of organizations with an <br />interest in public transportation, including representatives from: Cabarrus County <br />government (various offices), Rowan Transit, CK Rider, Stanly County, Davita Dialysis, <br />American Alternative, and TJ Taxi (see Steering Committee member names and <br />representation in Appendix A). The steering committee was motivated to see the service <br />delivery improved and actively engaged themselves in discussions that could move the <br />system forward. <br />First meeting (April 2015) - identified potential needs and service gaps based on the <br />baseline analysis of current services and costs, which relied heavily on: <br />o 2008 Locally Coordinated Plan findings and recommendations <br />0 2012ITRE Optimization of Vehicle Type and Size <br />0 2014 ITRE Performance Plan and Analysis, surveys of riders, agencies <br />0 2014 ETI Community Survey, opinions on transit usage and acceptance <br />o The CCTS CPTS rider survey <br />• Second meeting (May 2015) - reviewed and prioritized the possible opportunities to <br />grow the role of CCTS in providing public transportation. <br />Attachment number 1 \n <br />F -3 Page 67 <br />