LEEDS & GRENVILLE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION -Leeds & Grenville by the numbers: -Population: 99,306 (2011 Census) -Land area: 3, km² -Density: 29.3 persons/km² (Provincial average is 14.1) -Median age: 46.7 (Provincial average is 40.4) Purpose: to identify transportation needs, barriers, habits and preferences of Leeds & Grenville residents.
METHODOLOGY What we did Conducted a needs assessment of transportation, needs, barriers, habits and preferences of those living in the United Counties. How? Gathered data through surveys (hard copy & online). Gathered data through survey of community partners. Conducted focus groups & interviews of residents, community partners and transportation service providers both in the United Counties and elsewhere in Ontario. Where? Libraries, township halls, community health centres, employment services, provincial service centres throughout the United Counties.
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
WHAT WE FOUND
RESULTS - What we found
Major recurring themes Cost and affordability People wanting other transportation Improving existing transportation services There is no transportation available Issues related to driving
RESULTS - What we found Respondents indicated a lack of transportation negatively affected their lives. A lack of independence. Having to rely on others. Isolation: both physical and social isolation General negative effects
RESULTS - What we found Respondents indicated a lack of transportation negatively affected their lives. Difficulty accessing: Medical appointments and community services Groceries and other shopping Employment and education Children’s services: after school, extracurricular, day care Recreation and entertainment Family and friends
RESULTS - What we found Respondents anticipated that having transportation would positively affect their lives. More independence. Not having to rely on others. Less isolation: able to get out more/be more involved General positive effects
RESULTS - What we found Respondents anticipated that having transportation would positively affect their lives. Better able to access: Employment and education Medical appointments and community services Family and friends Groceries and other shopping Recreation and entertainment Children’s services: after school, extracurricular, day care
RESULTS - What we found Other significant recurring themes Desire of a route to Kingston People need to get to and around Brockville Significant percentage had no transportation problems Small percentage would like to use car transportation less People foresee a need for transportation, for themselves and others, even if they don’t need it now.
RESULTS - What we found
WHAT IT MEANS
-Results suggest there is a need for transportation -Brockville a hotspot for respondent’s transportation needs -Respondents looking for low cost services -Transportation needs are not limited to one destination/service -Transportation is also desired to communities outside Leeds & Grenville (Kingston & Ottawa) DISCUSSION - What it means
WHAT’S NEXT
RECOMMENDATIONS - What’s next What have you done so far? Identify two or more organizations that share a common goal Inventory existing transportation services and key stakeholders Identify service demand and gaps/implementation issues and opportunities Assess different coordination models Identify the building blocks of the preferred coordination models Select a preferred coordination model
RECOMMENDATIONS - What’s next Which transportation service model to pick?
RECOMMENDATIONS - What’s next -Consider the brokerage-central coordination model, but also consider operating fixed routes/shuttles to highly interconnected communities (e.g. Gananoque to Kingston).
RECOMMENDATIONS - What’s next Critical issues to address going forward: Funding: provincial (gas tax), municipal, private Political support: municipal (upper tier, lower tier) Public buy-in Organizational cooperation and coordination Transportation plan and business plan
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?