LEEDS & GRENVILLE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

LEEDS & GRENVILLE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

-Leeds & Grenville by the numbers:-Population: 99,306 (2011 Census) -Land area: 3,383.92 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

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

WHAT WE FOUND

RESULTS - What we found

RESULTS - What we found

RESULTS - What we found

RESULTS - What we found

RESULTS - What we found

RESULTS - What we found

RESULTS - What we found

RESULTS - What we found

RESULTS - What we foundMajor 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 nextWhich 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 nextCritical 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?