Transportation Needs
Assessment
United Counties of Leeds & Grenville
Michael Ayalew & Thomas Fehr
2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
1
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
2
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Table of contents
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………….3
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………5
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................6
Executive summary.....................................................................................................................7
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................10
1.1 Community Background.........................................................................................11
1.2 Current Transportation Landscape........................................................................11
1.3 Transportation Challenges.....................................................................................12
1.4 EKIOC Transportation Pilot....................................................................................13
1.5 Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................13
2. Research of Best Practices..................................................................................................16
2.1 United Counties Official Plan Review…………………………………………………17
2.2 Case Study Review……………………………………………………………………….17
3. Methodology..........................................................................................................................24
3.1 Surveys……………………………………………………………………………………..25
3.2 Community Consultations………………………………………………………………27
3.3 Survey of Community Partners………………………………………………………..27
4. Quantitative and Qualitative results....................................................................................30
4.1 Transportation Needs Assessment Results Preamble…………………………….31
4.2 Profile of Respondents...........................................................................................32
4.3 Current Transportation Patterns and Transportation Needs..............................35
September 4, 2015
3
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
4.4 Future Transportation Preferences and Improvements.......................................50
4.5 Anticipated Impacts of Improved Transportation.................................................53
4.6 Community Partners Survey Results…………………………………………………54
5. Conclusions & Recommendations......................................................................................59
5.1 Summary of Key Findings………………………………………………………………60
5.2 Logistical and Operations Structure………………………………………………….61
5.3 Choosing a Coordinated Transportation Model…………………………………….63
5.4 Critical Issues to Address Going Forward…………………………………………..64
5.5 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………….65
Appendices................................................................................................................................70
Appendix 1: Three Versions of Transportation Needs Survey…………………...…..71
Appendix 2: Transportation Needs Survey Additional Results……………………....84
Appendix 3: Community Transportation Profile Snapshots……………………….....90
Appendix 4: Focus Group and Interview Questions………………………………….117
Appendix 5: Community Partners Survey………………………………………..……..119
Appendix 6: Community Partners Survey Results……………………………………129
Appendix 7: Promotional Materials…………………………………………………...….139
Reference List..........................................................................................................................144
4
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
List of figures
Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of survey respondents by township/municipality.
Figure 2 indicates the age distribution of survey respondents.
Figure 3 illustrates the gender distribution of survey respondents.
Figure 4 indicates the average household income of survey respondents.
Figure 5 displays the employment status results of survey respondents.
Figure 6 illustrates employment sites of survey respondents.
Figure 7 indicates survey respondent’s main method of transportation.
Figure 8 shows results of reasons survey respondents do not drive a car.
Figure 9 illustrates difficult destinations in Leeds & Grenville.
Figure 10 illustrates frequency of travel for employment in Leeds & Grenville.
Figure 11 illustrates frequency of travel for medical reasons in Leeds & Grenville.
Figure 12 illustrates frequency of travel for community services in Leeds & Grenville.
Figure 13 illustrates frequency of travel for food & supplies in Leeds & Grenville.
Figure 14 illustrates frequency of travel for recreation in Leeds & Grenville.
Figure 15 illustrates frequency of travel for visitation/family access in Leeds & Grenville.
Figure 16 illustrates frequency of travel for education in Leeds & Grenville.
Figure 17 shows results of locations considered difficult to access in Leeds & Grenville.
Figure 18 illustrates Leeds & Grenville daily transportation satisfaction.
Figure 19 illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across each Township
Figure 20 illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across age brackets
Figure 21 illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across income brackets
Figure 22 shows days of the week survey respondents prefer to use a transport service.
Figure 23 illustrates preferred times of day for a transport service.
Figure 24 illustrates the importance of transportation service characteristics.
Figure 25 illustrates the different Coordinated Transportation Models (Dillon Consulting, 2014)
List of tables
Tables 1-11 identify transportation related themes derived from open-ended responses.
Table 12 identifies the travel frequency of destinations and services
Table 13 lists completed and uncompleted steps in the development of a transportation service
September 4, 2015
5
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Acknowledgments
This project has been a true collaboration between Every Kid in Our Communities of Leeds &
Grenville (EKIOC) and the community partners this organization is composed of. Many thanks
go out to those community partners in Leeds & Grenville who assisted and supported this
project -- and who continue their important work in improving the lives of those living in the
community. Special thanks goes to Susan Watts and Jessica DesChamp-Baird, for without their
guidance and support this project would not have been possible.
6
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Executive Summary
The purpose of this needs assessment is to collect and offer quantitative and qualitative
information on transportation needs, barriers and habits from residents of Leeds & Grenville.
More specifically, the purpose is to collect data at the community level from each municipality
and township to understand the specific transportation needs of each community.
The information within this transportation needs assessment has been gathered using multiple
methods in order to increase the number of respondents. More specifically, this transportation
needs assessment gathered information through physical and online surveys, community
consultations including focus groups and interviews, and a survey of community partners.
Based on the findings there are many residents of Leeds & Grenville that do not have any
transportation needs. Not having any unmet transportation needs is almost wholly based on the
ability to drive and being able to afford the ownership and operation of a car. That being said,
based on the information gathered from this transportation needs assessment, there is a
significant portion of the population who are not having their transportation needs met by the
current transportation landscape.
The main finding from this transportation needs assessment is that there is a significant unmet
need for transportation in Leeds & Grenville. This needs assessment has uncovered this as well
and provided some insight into the details of what those transportation needs are. Perhaps the
most significant statistic generated from the survey responses was the 23% of respondents who
said their transportation needs were currently not being met. This number was determined to be
proportionally higher among those with lower income brackets and those of increased age.
From the information gathered it was determined that 53% of respondents’ main mode was
transportation was a mode other than driving a personal vehicle. This suggests that there is a
significant proportion of the total population of Leeds & Grenville that don’t drive a personal
vehicle. Additionally, it has been demonstrated by the transportation needs assessment, that
without being able to drive a personal vehicle, it is significantly more challenging for residents to
meet their daily transportation needs.
Of the destinations most difficult to get to, medical appointments and community services
combined for 37%, and is identified as the highest unmet need. Food and personal supplies was
next at 19%, followed by recreation at 12%, and employment and access to family and friends
both at 11%. Of the communities in and surrounding Leeds & Grenville determined as most
difficult to get to, Kingston, Brockville, and Ottawa are the top three communities in this regard.
By not being able to meet their transportation needs, respondents indicated that this negatively
impacted their quality of life by having to rely on others, feeling isolated, and not being able to
access the destinations and services they need. Conversely, respondents also indicated that
having better transportation available would positively impact their lives in a number of ways.
September 4, 2015
7
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Based on interviews with other transportation service providers in rural Ontario is was revealed
that all of their transportation services were developed in response to an identified need(s), and
that the logistical and operational form of the transportation service was determined by that
need. By applying this concept of having the transportation need determine the type of
transportation service to the information gathered from this transportation needs assessment it
is possible to gain insight into what kind of transportation service might be suitable to the Leeds
and Grenville context
Recommendation: Based on the information presented in this report and gathered from the
transportation needs assessment it is recommended that a rural transportation service be
developed to serve the residents of Leeds & Grenville as it has been clearly demonstrated that
there is a need for such a service. If the community, service providers, and municipalities
choose to proceed with the development of a rural transportation service, we recommend the
following:
1.) Consider Model 2 – Brokerage Central Coordination as the framework for a future
transportation service. The benefits of this model include:
a. Maximizing efficiency and coordination of available resources.
b. Ability to provide transportation service for a range of transportation needs.
c. A single coordinating agency allows for convenient ride booking and use of the
transportation service by the end user.
d. Allow agencies to retain ownership and operation of vehicles
e. Provide an opportunity for the central coordinating agency to operate new fixed
routes with dedicated vehicles.
2.) Operate a future transportation service using a hybrid model that combines:
a. On-demand flexible transportation across the United Counties to meet the range of
low to mid-frequency transportation needs such as medical and community service
appointments, groceries and personal supplies, and recreation.
b. A rotating fixed route inter-community transportation system along high demand
corridors such as Gananoque to Kingston to meet the need for inter-community
transportation.
3.) Ensure that the future transportation service will be affordable by subsidizing the cost of
transportation for the end user through a range of funding channels including:
a. Provincial gas tax funds
b. Financial support from the municipalities whose residents are served by the
transportation service
c. Additional funding generated through advertising revenue and fundraising
By taking steps to implement these recommendations together, the community, municipalities,
service providers and community agencies, will be working together together to improve the
transportation landscape in Leeds & Grenville and provide opportunities for those whose
transportation needs are currently not being met.
8
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
9
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Section 1:
Introduction
1.1 Community Background.......................................................................11
1.2 Current Transportation Landscape.......................................................11
1.3 Transportation Challenges....................................................................12
1.4 EKIOC Transportation Pilot..................................................................13
1.5 Purpose and Scope..............................................................................13
10
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Community Background
1.2
The United Counties of Leeds and Grenville has over 4,000 kilometres of picturesque roadways.
Despite an abundance of roadways, reliable transportation is not a given. For people in Leeds &
Grenville communities with limited or no accessible transportation, it is plain to see that the vast
geography creates significant challenges for participation in employment, recreation and other
facets of daily life. What is less clear, however, is how each community within the United
Counties differs in their specific transportation needs. In order to understand the transportation
challenges of each community, a needs assessment is required to systematically uncover the
transportation needs, barriers and habits of Leeds Grenville residents at the community level.
The United Counties of Leeds & Grenville is a two-tier municipality in eastern Ontario, situated
along the northern bank of the St. Lawrence river. The United Counties are comprised of 10
lower tier municipalities: Township of Athens; Township of Augusta; Township of
Edwardsburgh/Cardinal; Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley; Township of Front of Yonge;
Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands; Municipality of North Grenville; Township of
Rideau Lakes; Village of Merrickville-Wolford; and the Village of Westport.
In addition to these lower-tier municipalities, the City of Brockville and the towns of Gananoque
and Prescott are within the borders of the United Counties but are separate from the United
Counties’ administration. With a combined total population of over 99,000 Leeds & Grenville
boasts stunning natural and cultural heritage that make the area a popular destination for
visitors and tourists.
Major employment sectors in the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville include education,
health, commercial manufacturing, food manufacturing and government administration.
Combined, these major employers employ approximately 7,000 people in the United Counties.
The United Counties of Leeds & Grenville can be characterized by a relatively slower rate of
population growth as compared to the rest of the province, as it grew by 0.1% between the 2006
and 2011 census as compared to 5.7% in the rest of Ontario. The United Counties can also be
described as an aging region, as the median age in Leeds & Grenville is 46.7 years, notably
older than the median age of 40.4 in the rest of the province. The proportion of working aged
adults is lower in the United Counties (adults aged 18-65) with 61.5% of the population when
compared to the rest of the province (64%). Furthermore, the United Counties is unique as it is
home to more senior citizens (aged 65+) who live in a private household, with 19% -- higher
than the provincial average of 13.8% (Census 2011).
1.2 Current Transportation Landscape
Leeds & Grenville has several major transportation corridors running through it as it sits parallel
to Highway 401 which runs east-to-west and is the primary transportation corridor between
September 4, 2015
11
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
southwestern Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) through to Montreal. Highway 416
begins just east of Prescott and is the primary transportation corridor running north from the 401
to Ottawa and the National Capital Region. Highway 15 also runs through the northwestern part
of the United Counties connecting Kingston to Smiths Falls and then also proceeding on to
Ottawa. A large network of municipal roads and highways provides a transportation network that
interconnects the municipalities, towns, and villages of the United Counties to each other as well
as to these major transportation corridors.
There is no public transportation system serving the United Counties, however the City of
Brockville does; their Conventional Transit System serves the public within the city limits of
Brockville from Monday to Saturday.
The City of Ottawa’s OC Transpo operates a rural partner route (Kemptville Transportation
Service Route 542/543) which operates as a shuttle between North Grenville and downtown
Ottawa in the morning and afternoon. Although the intent of this service is to transport
commuters to and from work, the service is open to the public. Howard Bus Services (Route
509) operates between Merrickville, Burritts Rapids, Kemptville and Ottawa. Just as with
Kemptville Transportation Service the intent of Route 509 is to transport commuters to and from
work, but the service is available to the public.
Taxi services are available in various towns and townships within the region, including in
Kemptville, Prescott, Gananoque and in Brockville.
1.3 Transportation Challenges
The United Counties of Leeds & Grenville is a geographically large county at 3,384 square
kilometres. This massive size, coupled with a spaced out population distribution throughout the
United Counties creates challenges in terms of efficient and effective service provision.
A geographically large county with multiple centres of employment results in requiring many to
travel long distances for employment. With no public transportation throughout the United
Counties, those without access to a personal vehicle are limited in their employment outlook.
Given the aging population, stagnant population growth and high proportion of seniors who live
in private households - this creates significant challenges for service provision as an aging
population will demand alternate forms of transportation once unable to operate their own
vehicles. This demographic shift also places pressure on transportation solutions, as those
operating transportation services are aging as well, while the United Counties’ population
growth is nearly stagnant.
In addition to geographic and demographic challenges, the United Counties faces fragmented
and uneven triage and referral transportation services for those with specific needs and medical
conditions. Partially responsible for this fragmented service provision is a lack of understanding
of the specific needs of each individual community. High fees also create a barrier, as many
12
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
cannot regularly afford the sometimes prohibitively high fees. Recognizing these challenges,
Every Kid in Our Community implemented a transportation pilot project in 2010 to test the need
for public transportation.
1.4 EKIOC Transportation Pilot
Every Kid in Our Community launched and operated a transportation pilot from between
February 2010 and January 2011 to address the transportation service gaps of people in
Rideau Lakes, Westport, Merrickville-Wolford, Seeley’s Bay and Lyndhurst with the added goal
of fostering collaboration among organizations to create a coordinated service that builds on
existing resources to service all citizens of Leeds and Grenville. The pilot program’s service
area resulted from the idea that this geographical area was without any mode of transportation and Lanark Transportation Association (LTA) was the closest neighbour to assist in providing
the service.
The transportation pilot used a business and cost recovery model, which included having drivers
on staff who were paid $13 per hour (and paid for wait time) and vans that were used to
transport clients. When required, LTA would access volunteer drivers who were reimbursed
0.43 cents per kilometer for their mileage for the distance covered from when leaving their
driveway until they returned. A client was either invoiced directly for the trip (known as
independents) or the agency that had referred the client was invoiced to recover costs.
The transportation pilot shifted to a volunteer-driven service after a Memorandum of
Understanding ended with LTA on January 31st, 2011. The Employment & Education Centre
(EEC) and Family and Children Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (FCAS) partnered to
continue service delivery. Due to cost pressures and the use of volunteer drivers, the pilot
transformed into a triage and referral service in addition to being a service deliverer. The pilot
continued with Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) funding until August 29th, 2011.
1.5 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this needs assessment is to collect and offer quantitative and qualitative
information on transportation needs, barriers and habits from residents of Leeds & Grenville.
More specifically, the purpose is to collect data at the community level from each municipality
and township to understand the specific transportation needs of each community. Although the
scope of this transportation needs assessment is the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville; the
transportation needs, barriers and habits of Leeds & Grenville residents to nearby communities
outside the United Counties cannot be ignored and are included in this report.
September 4, 2015
13
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
14
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
15
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Section 2:
Research of Best Practices
2.1 United Counties Official Plan Review...................................................17
2.2 Case Study Review..............................................................................17
2.2.1 Lanark Transportation Association....................................................17
2.2.2 Community Care Northumberland.....................................................18
2.2.3 TROUT (The Rural Overland Utility Transit)......................................19
2.2.4 Ride Norfolk.......................................................................................20
16
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
2.0 Research of Best Practices
2.1 United Counties Official Plan Review
After a review of the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville Official Plan, Section 2.3.2
(Settlement Areas) and 6.2.4 (Rail) make reference to public transportation. Section 2.3.2 states
that “It is the policy of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville that [...] urban settlement
areas will provide for [...] opportunities for future public transit”. Section 6.2.4(b) states that “The
Counties will encourage economic development opportunities associated with the rail
transportation system and/or future public transit opportunities”.
2.2 Case Study Review
Rural transportation has been a concern voiced by those living in rural areas for years, and the
United Counties of Leeds & Grenville is certainly not the first nor the only region in Ontario to
experience service gaps in rural transportation. The Rural Ontario Institute (ROI) has identified a
number of rural transportation services operating in rural Ontario communities; this section will
review the approach various regions have taken in developing their transportation service.
Community engagement and fund sourcing best practices will also be identified in order to offer
examples which may be adopted in the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville.
2.2.1 Lanark Transportation Association
In the late 1990s, rural transportation was being addressed across the province through
community-based regional work groups. It was determined, through a grant from the Ontario
Trillium Foundation, that a lack of transportation was a quality-of-life issue. In 1996, the Valley
Heartland Community Development Corporation sponsored the Lanark County/Smiths Falls
Community Transportation Group to examine rural transportation issues in the area. In 1999,
the Lanark County Transportation Planning Committee was formed. A six-month pilot project,
called the Lanark County Transportation Project, was established and sponsored by the
Volunteer Bureau of Lanark County, under the supervision of the Transportation Advisory
Committee (TAC). This pilot project was mainly funded by the United Way of Lanark County and
the National Child Benefit Fund, with in-kind support from Lanark Community Programs
(vehicles), Emergency Health Services (computers), and Access Taxi (office space).
Since 2001, ongoing funding and support has been received from Lanark County. Until 2010,
annual contributions ranged from $40,000 to over $80,000, with a consistent contribution of
$76,000 for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. Lanark County Council made their financial support
for LTA a regular line item in 2005. This was the same time that the provincial gas tax fund
became available, and local government contributions to a transportation service were a
requirement for receiving the funds. The LTA has received gas tax funds ever since.
Lanark Transportation Association does not operate a fixed route. Rather, they pick clients up at
their homes, take them to where they need to go, wait for them to conduct their business and
then return them home again. Transportation is available primarily for medical appointments,
September 4, 2015
17
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
agency-sponsored day programs and other specialized services. LTA also provides nonemergency, non-ambulance, inter-facility medical transfers. Lanark Transportation Association
charges a fee for service operation, coupled with subsidies for people with low incomes and
others in need.
2.2.2 Community Care Northumberland
In response to the community studies indicating that public transportation was a major issue
throughout most of the county; in 2008 Community Care Northumberland (CCN) along with a
small group of community agency partners that formed the Northumberland Transportation
Initiative (NTI), with Community Care Northumberland taking on the lead agency role. The
Coordinator of CCN met with key informants from organizations and service providers
throughout Northumberland County as well as the Northumberland Poverty Reduction Action
Committee (NPRAC). They observed many of their clients living in the rural areas had few or no
affordable transportation options. To get a sense of where there was the greatest need for
transportation services, organizations were asked which municipality had the highest
requirements for this transportation. Cramahe and Trent Hills were identified, so these were
among the first communities to receive service from NTI, with the pilot starting in Cramahe
Township in November 2008 and operating two days per week. Public input was taken
seriously, as the route was determined in large part by the demand expressed by those living in
Northumberland County through a survey.
Recently, CCN staff recognized that, with the immense growth in demand for these services
throughout Northumberland County, they must change the way they operated their
transportation programs. Consequently, they consolidated operations into new categories to
better service Northumberland County as a whole. With a regional approach in mind, CCN now
has two programs within its portfolio of services:
Volunteer Driving Program - This program has remained unchanged in its operation. A volunteer
driver provides transportation using their personal vehicle. They transport clients to destinations
within Northumberland County as well as outside the County for medical, social, banking, and
recreational purposes and to meet the requirements of daily living. This service is available to
adults who are aging, have special needs or are recovering from illness or injury, with priority
given based on assessed need. To access the service, clients contact their local CCN office to
book a ride.
Specialized Transportation - This program has been consolidated into two components and
includes transportation for both accessible and rural needs:
Accessible Service: This program transports clients to destinations within Northumberland
County as well as outside the County for medical, social, banking, recreational purposes and
activities of daily living requirements. Clients are driven by trained staff in agency vehicles which
can accommodate wheelchairs, walkers and child car seats. This service is available to those
18
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
with significant physical and intellectual challenges as well as those with significant health
issues.
Rural Service: Working with the County of Northumberland and several local municipalities, the
goal of this service is to offer rural transportation within the County that is affordable, accessible,
and sustainable for all residents of Northumberland County. Services are pre-booked and
clients are driven by trained staff in agency vehicles. Wheelchairs, walkers, child car seats, etc.
can be accommodated. The rural service is currently operating in Cramahe &
Alnwick/Haldimand Townships as well as the Municipality of Trent Hills, with limited
transportation to and from the Municipality of Brighton. Riders must be registered to use this
service and those under 16 years of age must be accompanied by an adult. Bookings are
handled through a centralized scheduling office that serves all residents across the County. The
scheduling office has information on each registered client’s needs and appropriate resources
are booked to ensure each individual client’s needs are met (e.g. whether they require an
accessible vehicle.)
CCN is presently expanding their rural transportation service into other parts of the county. In
order to determine the route, CCN will be holding town hall meetings in each of the small
communities to determine interest and a potential route. According to Charlotte Clay-Ireland,
CCN’s Transportation Coordinator, the users may very possibly determine the route that the
service will take as a result of these consultations.
2.2.3 TROUT (The Rural Overland Utility Transit)
Access to transportation has been a long-standing issue in North Hastings and Highlands East.
Prior to the establishment of the TROUT, there was no fully ‘public’ transit system within the
area (i.e., open to everyone). The nearly 3,500 square kilometres of what is sometimes rugged
rural terrain in the area create a particular challenge to operating a public transit service.
Community Care North Hastings (CCNH) first started a “handi-bus” service for their clients in
1989. It provided transportation services for seniors and those with physical challenges within
North Hastings and Highlands East. It was organized as a ‘specialized’ transportation service
where individuals would call into CCNH in advance to book a ride. Each day of the week, the
bus visited a different area of the region to pick up riders so that they could attend medical
appointments, buy groceries and conduct errands in the Town of Bancroft.
For some time, CCNH used only its charitable dollars to subsidize the handi-bus. However,
providing this service was a substantial drain on the overall financial resources of the
organization. As a result of discussions with their local Member of Provincial Parliament, CCNH
decided to pursue the gas tax rebate for public transportation from the Province of Ontario.
Given provincial policies related to transportation and access to the Gas Tax Rebate, this
decision also provided an opportunity to more actively engage with local municipalities.
September 4, 2015
19
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
In terms of public engagement, community meetings were held during Fall 2009 in order to
gather and understand public opinion, views and input about how a transit service should be
organized. All public input was considered in the process of developing the routes, schedules
and fares for the service. Through initial surveys, 95% of those surveyed said they wanted and
needed public transit. Community Care North Hastings also initiated a community contest for
naming the service where ‘TROUT’ was the result. Routes, schedules and fare information were
distributed as part of an overall awareness and marketing strategy. In response to requests,
service to Hastings Highlands was also established to accommodate both an anticipated need
for extra coverage and for individuals wishing to use the service for employment purposes.
Community Care North Hastings presently owns and operates the TROUT. The TROUT public
service consists of four community buses, employs five part-time/casual drivers, and makes
9,000 trips annually. While the TROUT is open to everyone in the community, about 70% of
riders are older adults (i.e., 55 years of age and older).
In the summer of 2012, over 5,600 survey postcards were distributed via the postal service to
constituents of North Hastings and Highlands East to evaluate the service, provide evidence of
its need and help plan for the future. Across all of the municipalities served, 93-97% of
respondents rated the service as ‘valuable’ or ‘very valuable’. Also, of the total respondents,
94% indicated a need and continued need for public transit.
2.2.4 Ride Norfolk
Rural transportation issues within the Counties of Haldimand and Norfolk are long-standing. The
lack of public transportation affects everyone, but it is a particular challenge to high-risk
populations including the elderly, children, people with disabilities and low-income families.
While there are some specialized transportation services provided by various community
organizations, prior to the establishment of Ride Norfolk, there was no public transit system to
connect people internally or to communities outside the counties.
The Haldimand & Norfolk Rural Transportation Initiative (H&N RTI) was formed in 2006, with
representation from a broad cross-section of community organizations. The H&N RTI was very
active over the next few years; they conducted research, held community consultations,
surveyed community organizations and the general public, and conducted a peer review of
models of rural transportation in comparative communities. Of 29 community organizations
surveyed, 86% identified the need for transportation for their consumers, and 89% indicated that
the lack of transportation is a barrier to accessing their service. Furthermore, 63% of the
agencies were already providing or paying transportation costs for their clients, and 100% of
respondents indicated they would or might support a consumer transportation system if one was
created for Haldimand & Norfolk.
Following up on the recommendations from the 2006 survey, in 2008 a more detailed survey
was distributed to 345 organizations in Haldimand and Norfolk, of which 142 completed the
survey. The purpose of the survey was to compile a current transportation inventory for
20
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Haldimand and Norfolk and gather information to inform a transportation feasibility study. The
H&N RTI, realizing that the success of a public transportation system would rely heavily on use
by the general public, also surveyed the community at large. 92% of respondents indicated that
Haldimand and Norfolk counties need a public transportation system, for the following purposes:
• Respondents in general would use public transportation for recreational and social activities
(69%), followed by attending medical appointments (59%).
• Younger respondents are most likely to use it for recreational and social activities (81%),
followed by employment needs (73%).
• Older respondents are most likely to use it for medical appointments (75%), followed by
recreational and social activities (63%).
• Low-income respondents would use it for medical appointments (78%) and recreational and
social activities (77%).
Initially, from 2011 to 2012, the Children’s Aid Society was the lead agency for Ride Norfolk,
holding the contract with Sharpe Bus Lines. In 2012, the operation was moved to the County so
it could be eligible to receive gas tax funds. The service is now provided by Donnelly Transit
Inc., a company based in St. Thomas, ON.
September 4, 2015
21
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
22
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
23
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Section 3:
Methodology
3.1 Surveys.................................................................................................25
3.1.1 Physical survey copies......................................................................25
3.1.2 Online Surveys..................................................................................26
3.2 Community Consultations.....................................................................27
3.2.1 Focus Groups & Interviews................................................................27
3.2.2 Booths at Community Festivals & Fairs ............................................27
3.3
24
Survey of Community Partners .........................................................27
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
3.0 Methodology
The information within this transportation needs assessment has been gathered using multiple
methods in order to increase the number of respondents. More specifically, this transportation
needs assessment gathered information through:




Surveys
Online surveys, powered by Surveymonkey.com
Community consultations including focus groups and interviews
Survey of community partners, powered by Google Forms
3.1 Surveys
3.1.1 Physical survey copies
A physical transportation needs survey was employed to understand respondents’
demographics, current transportation situation, habits, and needs as well as identifying desired
characteristics of a potential transportation service. Hard copies of the survey were placed in the
following locations:
Alzheimer Society of Lanark Leeds Grenville
Athens and District Family Health Team
Athens Public Library
Augusta Public Library
Augusta Township Office
Bayfield Manor
Brockville Public library
Cardinal Library
Carveth Care Centre
Connect Youth - South Grenville District High School
Country Roads Community Health Centre
CPCH Athens Office
CPHC Gananoque
CPHC Westport Community Family Health Team
Crosby Public library
CSE Consulting – Brockville
CSE Consulting – Kemptville
CSE Consulting - Prescott
Delta Public library
Edwardsburgh/Cardinal Municipal Office
Elizabethtown-Kitley Public Library - Lyn Branch
Elizabethtown-Kitley Public Library - Toledo Branch
Family & Children's Services of Leeds & Grenville
(Brockville)
Family & Children's Services of Leeds & Grenville
(Kemptville
Family & Children's Services of Leeds & Grenville
(Prescott)
Foundations Brockville
Front of Yonge Public Library
Gananoque Food Bank
Gananoque Public Library
Interval House Brockville
September 4, 2015
25
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
KEYS Job Centre - Elgin
KEYS Job Centre - Gananoque
Lansdowne Public Library
Leeds & 1000 Islands Public library
Leeds, Grenville, Lanark District Health Unit Brockville
Leeds, Grenville, Lanark District Health Unit Kemptville
Gerontology Social Worker
Lombardy Public library
Lyndhurst Public library
Merrickville-Wolford Township Office
Merrickville Public Library
North Grenville Municipal Office
North Grenville Public Library
Ontario Early Years Centres
Ontario Works, Gananoque
Operation Harvest Sharing - Brockville
Portland Public Library
Prescott Public Library
Public Library - Spring Valley
Rideau Lakes Public library
RNJ Youth Services
Rose Garden Family Support Centre
Seeley's Bay Medical Centre
Spencerville Library
St. Lawrence Medical Clinic, Lansdowne
Stone's Mill Family Health Centre
Toledo Branch Township Office
Town of Gananoque
Township of Athens
Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley
Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands
Township of Rideau Lakes
TR Leger - Gananoque
TR Leger - Kemptville
TR Leger - Prescott
TR Leger Brockville
Village of Westport
Westport Medical Centre
Westport Public Library
UCLG Housing Offices, Ontario Works & Ontario
Disability Support Program offices throughout Leeds &
Grenville .
3.1.2 Online Surveys
An online survey, identical to the hard copy, was created to gather information on respondents’
current transportation situation, habits, and needs as well as identifying desired characteristics
of a potential transportation service. The online survey was implemented to increase the reach
of the survey to those who preferred to complete the survey using digital devices and for those
who may not frequent community services or other locations where the physical copy can be
found. Several partner agencies posted informational announcements and direct links to the
online survey. (e.g. Employment & Education Centre Facebook page & website, LeedsGrenville Member of Parliament Gord Brown’s Twitter page, etc.). The online survey was also
forwarded by numerous partner agencies to clients and contacts throughout Leeds & Grenville.
26
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
3.2 Community Consultations
3.2.1 Focus Groups & Interviews
In order for the transportation needs assessment to reach those who do not frequent community
services and those who do not have readily available access to the internet, focus group
sessions and interviews were used to gather information. Focus group sessions were between
30 and 90 minute sessions where discussion questions surrounding participants’ current
transportation habits and desired transportation solutions were discussed, in similar fashion to
questions found on the transportation needs survey -- and the results of the ensuing discussion
were recorded and transcribed. When focus group sessions yielded one participant, the result
was an interview with the same questions being asked would have been in a focus group
session. Focus group sessions and interviews were held at the following locations:
Brockville & Area Food Bank – July 2nd
Edwardsburgh/Cardinal Municipal Office Council Chambers (Spencerville) – July 7th
Gananoque Public Library – July 15th
Guthrie House - July 9th
Kemptville Youth Centre – June 25th
Merrickville Public Library (Community Interview) – July 30th
Prescott Library – July 13th
Spring Valley Public Library – July 22nd
Westport Town Hall - August 4th
3.2.2 Booths at Community Festivals & Fairs
In addition to having paper copies of the transportation needs survey available at various
locations within the United Counties, booths were set up at numerous festivals and fairs in order
to increase awareness and provide the public an opportunity to complete the transportation
needs assessment on the spot. Booths were set up at the following festivals & fairs:
Delta Senior’s Picnic - June 19th
Elgin Days - July 11th
Lansdowne Fair - July 17th - 19th
Touch-a-Truck Brockville - July 31st
3.3 Survey of Community Partners
Alongside the transportation needs assessment for Leeds & Grenville residents, a survey was
created through Google Forms to gather information on the perspectives and opinions of
community partners in Leeds & Grenville with respect to the existence and significance of their
client’s transportation needs & barriers. The community partners survey also explored how, if at
all, the community partner’s organization assisted their client with transportation.
September 4, 2015
27
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
28
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
29
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Section 4:
Quantitative & Qualitative
Results
4.1 Transportation Needs Assessment Results Preamble………………....31
4.2 Profile of Respondents.........................................................................32
4.3 Current Transportation Patterns and Transportation Needs…………..35
4.4 Future Transportation Preferences and Improvements………………..50
4.5 Anticipated Impacts of Improved Transportation..................................53
4.6 Community Partners Survey Results…………………………………….54
30
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
4.0 Quantitative and Qualitative Results
4.1 Transportation needs assessment results preamble
4.1.1 Quantitative results
The following section outlines the results of the transportation needs assessment. The figures in
this section display the quantitative results of the survey in graphs and charts. Not every
question on the survey was mandatory therefore for those questions that were not mandatory
they often had less responses than 1004, which was the number of survey respondents.
Additionally, for some survey questions, respondents were able to select more than one option
thereby bring the total responses for that question above 1004.
4.1.2 Qualitative results
In addition to the quantitative information provided from the survey, there were also a number of
open-ended questions whereby respondents could provide additional information on their
transportation needs and barriers. This section also expands on these questions and describes
the themes that emerged from these questions. The responses to these open-ended questions
were coded according to a framework of qualitative themes. A single response could be coded
with more than one theme depending on the information contained in the response and the
themes identified within the response.
The tables displayed below in this section present the frequency of occurrence of qualitative
themes. They should not be compared to the number of survey respondents or taken as more
than a simple quantitative value relative to the frequency of occurrence of other qualitative
themes. All responses across all open-ended questions were coded according to the same
qualitative framework. The frequency of a theme occurrence is indicative of the importance of
that theme, or the importance of the transportation need that them represents among survey
respondents.
4.1.3 Community consultations
In addition, community consultation sessions were conducted through focus groups and
interviews throughout Leeds & Grenville which also offered additional information for the
transportation needs assessment. Due to the nature of community consultations, the results can
only be anecdotal however, when considered alongside the survey results this information
becomes valuable and validates information which aids in providing further context to the survey
responses. The results of the community consultation sessions are incorporated throughout this
section to provide support to the survey data.
September 4, 2015
31
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
4.2 Profile of respondents
The survey was completed by 1004 individuals with 99.8% of respondents indicating which
township they lived in. The following graph visualizes the geographical breakdown of the survey
respondents.
Which Township Do You Live In?
250
220
Responses
200
150
98
100
98
92
91
88
81
77
39
50
28
24
23
22
21
2
Did not indicate
Township/Municipality
Merrickville-Wolford
Non LG
Front of Yonge
Athens
Westport
Augusta
Edwardsburgh-Cardinal
Gananoque
Elizabethtown-Kitley
Prescott
Leeds & the 1000 Islands
North Grenville
Rideau Lakes
Brockville
0
Township
Figure 1 (above) illustrates the distribution of survey respondents by township/municipality.
As shown in Figure 1, Brockville is most represented in the survey responses with 21.9% of the
completed surveys coming from individuals living in this area. The amount of respondents from
each township in Leeds & Grenville is proportional to the population of each township relative to
its population within Leeds & Grenville; i.e. those townships with a smaller total population are
therefore less represented in the survey responses while those townships with a larger
population are more represented in the survey responses. Given the population of Leeds &
Grenville is at approximately 100,000 - having 1,004 responses represents 1% of the
population. Furthermore, after an analysis of the number of surveys completed, the percentage
of surveys completed from each township relative to the number of total surveys completed is
proportional to within 5% of each townships population percentage relative to the total
population of Leeds & Grenville.
32
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Responses
Age Distribution
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
412
287
134
35
46
Did Not
Indicate
0-17
18-35
36-59
60-69
53
37
70-79
80 +
Years of age
Figure 2 (above) indicates the age distribution of survey respondents.
Individuals of all ages responded to the transportation needs survey as the survey was not
targeted towards a specific age range. The age distribution of respondents is shown in Figure 2,
above. 96.5% of respondents indicated their age. The age group 36 - 59 is most represented in
the survey responses at 41%. Those aged 18-35 represented 28% of respondents, and those
aged 60+ represented 22% of respondents.
Gender Distribution
800
744
700
Responses
600
500
400
300
217
200
100
43
0
Male
Female
Did not Indicate
Figure 3 (above) illustrates the gender distribution of survey respondents.
Of those that indicated their gender, 74.1% of survey respondents identified themselves as
female while 21.6% identified themselves as male.
September 4, 2015
33
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Responses
Average Household Annual Income
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
167
166
154
110
101
153
93
60
Figure 4 (above) indicates the average household income of survey respondents.
Individuals within a wide socio-economic range completed the survey. Regarding average
household income, the two income categories earning less than $30,000 are the two most
represented survey responses; together they comprise 33.1% of survey respondents.
Interestingly the next income category most represented in the survey responses was those
earning more than $90,000 per year at 15.4% of survey respondents.
Regarding employment, 44% of respondents indicated that they were employed. This category
did not distinguish between full-time and part-time employment. As can be seen in Figure 6, of
those who are employed the vast majority of them work in Brockville.
Responses
Employment Status Distribution
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
442
175
119
Employed
Retired
Not
employed,
looking for
work
73
56
Did not
Indicate
Not
employed,
NOT
currently
looking
56
53
Student ODSP & OW
30
Other
Figure 5 (above) displays the employment status results of survey respondents.
34
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
If you are employed, where do you work?
250
Responses
200
199
150
100
50
46
44
41
38
36
35
34
25
20
12
12
11
11
8
7
6
3
0
* 588 responses
Figure 6 (above) illustrates employment sites of survey respondents.
4.3 Current transportation patterns and transportation needs
Survey respondents were asked about the current modes of travel. With respect to
respondent's’ main method of transportation, 47% report driving a personal vehicle, while 19%
report requiring a ride from a spouse, friend, relative or neighbour as their main method (see
results appendix). This finding is significant because it indicates that 53% of respondents had a
main method of transportation other than driving a personal vehicle.
633
33
16
Other
Cycling
45
Van/bus
service/retirement
centre transport
service
59
Volunteer driver
83
Taxi service
218
Walking
252
Rides through
spouse, friend,
relative, or neighbor
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Drive a personal
vehicle
Responses
What is your main method of transportation?
Figure 7 (above) indicates survey respondent’s main method of transportation.
September 4, 2015
35
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
When asked “If you don’t drive a car, why not?”, three responses emerge as the most common:
27% report not having a valid driver’s license; 26% cite the high cost of a vehicle, and 24%
report the high cost of gas and insurance. Combined, 77% report costs associated with owning
and operating a vehicle as a barrier to driving (see Fig 8). When asked “Do you require any of
the following assistance when you travel locally?”, the vast majority (79%) reported not needing
any type of assistance. Notably, 7% of respondents did report requiring assistance loading and
unloading items when travelling locally (see Appendix 2).
137
135
123
65
17
No need, everything
I need I can get to
without a car
Other responses
Can’t drive due to a
medical/physical
condition
High cost of
gas/insurance
33
High cost of a
vehicle
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Don’t have a valid
driver’s license
Responses
If you don't drive a car, why not?
Figure 8 (above) shows results of reasons survey respondents do not drive a car.
These results are supported by respondent’s feedback on open-ended questions provided
throughout the survey, in addition to feedback gathered in community consultations. As can be
seen on Table 1 corresponding themes regarding driving a vehicle, owning and operating a
vehicle, and their associated costs along with the costs of other modes of transportation
emerged from the open-ended responses that support Figures 7 & 8. The high cost of operating
a vehicle, including things like gas, maintenance, and insurance were themes that came up
frequently in the analysis. Respondents often commented on the cost of gas, maintenance, and
repairs and how they often did not have enough income to meet these demands on vehicle
ownership, if they owned a personal vehicle. Related to this was another theme in a number of
instances in which people indicated that the cost of vehicle insurance and/or a driver's license
were expenses that they had trouble meeting or could not meet and as a result could not drive
their vehicle.
Interestingly another theme in this cluster indicated that even though a respondent household
had and used a vehicle, having only one vehicle sometimes was not enough as a number of
respondents cited challenges of trying to coordinate multiple users of the vehicle going to
multiple destinations at different times in a one vehicle household.
36
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
The cost and affordability of other transportation options available to people apart from personal
vehicles was another one of the themes that emerged from the open ended responses, the
most common one being the high cost of travelling by taxi. Taxi’s were often considered to be
unaffordable in the survey responses yet for many respondents, in the absence of car
ownership or other transportation options, taxi’s were often the only option available. As a result
of the high cost of taxis respondents reserved the use of a taxis as a last resort when no other
means of transportation was available to them. The high cost of taxi’s was also something that
came up frequently in the community consultations.
Frequency of themes related to driving and vehicle ownership
Do not have a vehicle
21
Do not have a driver’s license
16
Would like to give up vehicle and/or drive less
15
Do not drive at all or at certain periods
14
Experience difficulty meeting needs with single vehicle
10
Vehicle does not work reliably
7
Frequency of themes related to cost of driving and other modes of transportation
Cost of taxi's
54
Cost of gas and/or vehicle maintenance and repairs
46
Cost of insurance and/or driver's license
15
Cost of bus pass or bus fare
12
Table 1 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
Another major group of themes related to current transportation patterns gathered from the
responses was centered around improving existing transportation options. The frequency with
which these themes occurred can be found in Table 2. Many individual responses centred
around bus service times, the hours of operation of Brockville transit, and the timeliness of
Brockville’s transit system. Respondents indicated a desire to extend the bus service’s hours of
operation both in the morning and evening; providing service earlier in morning as well as later
in the evening and later at night. Respondents also indicated a desire for expanded bus service
on the weekend, particularly on Sundays when the transit system doesn’t run.
In the same theme of improving existing transportation options respondents comments also
centred around improving the current bus routes, how current coverage could be expanded by
adding more routes and how this would contribute to making the routes more direct thereby
September 4, 2015
37
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
making it easier to travel to chosen destinations. Responses indicated that the routes could also
be improved simply by ensuring that the buses run in both directions along the entirety of each
route as this would effectively serve to double the availability of the service to residents and
provide more direct trips to desired destinations.
Along the same lines of these previous two themes in improving existing transportation options
respondents also indicated a desire for increased frequency of bus service, meaning more
buses, resulting in bus service that is provided more frequently than once per hour. The
frequency of service indicated by respondents ranged from service every 15 minutes to every
30 minutes. Similarly to taxis, buses are most often used by those who don’t drive, don’t have a
car, or have other means of transportation available to them.
Frequency of themes related to improvements of existing transportation services
Improved bus routes: more routes, direct routes, buses running both directions,
increased bus coverage, inter-community bus service
50
More buses and increased frequency of bus service
36
Extended bus service times: increased evening and late night bus service; increased
early morning bus service
27
Improved bus times available and buses running on schedule
23
Improved bus stops and accessible infrastructure for boarding buses
23
Increased weekend service, especially on Sundays
17
Table 2 (above) further identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
Respondents were asked about the frequency of their travel patterns; respondents were asked
a series of questions on how often per week they travel for the following reasons: employment,
medical reasons, education, community services, recreation, visitation/access to family and
friends, and food & supplies. Respondents were simultaneously asked about the inaccessibility
of service providers and places; respondents were asked “What places or services providers
are hardest to get to?”, the top three responses were medical services (27%); food/personal
supplies (19%) and recreation (12%) (see Figure 9).
When asked “How often do you travel for employment?”, 42% responded every day, while 29%
cited this question as not applicable (see Figure 10). Employment was the most polarizing
destination as there was the starkest contrast between people who needed to get to
employment everyday or not at all.
38
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
What places or service providers are hardest to get to?
Employment
4%
Medical
11%
19%
Education
Community Services
27%
11%
Recreation
Family Access/Visitations
12%
10%
Food/Personal Supplies
6%
Other Responses
Figure 9 (above) illustrates difficult destinations in Leeds & Grenville.
How often do you travel for employment?
Every Day
3-4 times per week
29%
42%
1-2 times per week
1-2 times a month
Less than once a month
6%
1%
2%
Never
6%
14%
Not applicable
*315 did not indicate
Figure 10 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for employment in Leeds & Grenville.
Frequency of themes related to issues of employment and transportation
Experience difficulty getting reliable transportation to work or volunteer opportunities
30
Cannot get a job or job interview without transportation
15
Cannot secure better transportation without a job
5
Table 3 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
September 4, 2015
39
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Some additional themes related to travelling to/for employment were drawn from the openended responses (see Table 3). Respondents indicated that a lack of reliable transportation was
significantly affecting their ability to find and maintain employment or volunteer commitments.
Many cited that transportation was a barrier to attending job interviews, and even if they were
able to arrange transportation for the interview and secure employment, the lack of a daily
transportation options resulted in respondent’s terminating their employment or not getting the
job due to the fact that they couldn’t get to the job reliably. Respondents with children commonly
indicated that a lack of transportation options was negatively impacting their teenager’s ability to
find and maintain employment.
How often do you travel for medical reasons?
3%
2%
3%
3%
Every Day
9%
3-4 times per week
1-2 times per week
1-2 times a month
29%
51%
Less than once a month
Never
Not applicable
*237 did not indicate
Figure 11 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for medical reasons in Leeds & Grenville.
How often do you travel to Community Services?
4%
19%
Every Day
8%
3-4 times per week
19%
10%
1-2 times per week
1-2 times a month
Less than once a month
19%
21%
Never
Not applicable
*238 did not indicate
Figure 12 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for community services in Leeds & Grenville.
40
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
In response to the question “How often do you travel for medical reasons?” 51% reported that
they travel less than once a month (see Fig 11). When asked “How often do you travel to
community services?”, the response was nearly evenly split between four responses: 21%
report travelling once to twice a month; 19% report travelling once to twice a week; 19% report
travelling less than once a month and 19% report this question as not applicable (see Fig 12).
Another significant theme gathered from respondents was the difficulty in accessing and
reaching medical appointments and community services (see Table 4). Responses indicated a
lack of transportation services within their community, as well as inter-community transportation
was necessary to access medical services, as many respondents need to travel to larger
centres for specialized medical care; however, respondent’s find it very difficult to access these
services without access to a personal vehicle or a driver.
Frequency of themes related to accessing services and destinations
Experience difficulty getting to medical and/or community service appointments
55
Experience difficulty getting groceries and personal supplies
33
Experience difficulty getting to shopping destinations (not groceries)
12
Table 4 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
In response to the question “How often do you travel for food & personal supplies?”, 53% report
travelling between once and twice a week, while 22% report travelling 3 to 4 times a week for
this purpose (see Figure 13).
How often do you travel for food & supplies?
2%
1%
2%
5%
Every Day
15%
3-4 times per week
22%
1-2 times per week
1-2 times a month
Less than once a month
Never
53%
Not applicable
*206 Did not indicate
Figure 13 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for food & supplies in Leeds & Grenville.
September 4, 2015
41
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Grocery stores and other retail shopping destinations were some of the inaccessible places and
services drawn from open-ended responses, and respondents suggested solutions including
partnering with grocery stores to coordinate grocery home delivery services, as well as ensuring
grocery and retail shopping locations are included in any potential transportation service.
How often do you travel for recreation?
5%
6%
11%
Every Day
7%
3-4 times per week
1-2 times per week
26%
14%
1-2 times a month
Less than once a month
Never
Not applicable
31%
*294 did not indicate
Figure 14 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for recreation in Leeds & Grenville.
How often do you travel for visitation/access to friends
& family?
3%
Every Day
8%
3-4 times per week
36%
18%
1-2 times per week
1-2 times a month
10%
14%
11%
Less than once a month
Never
Not applicable
*372 Did not indicate
Figure 15 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for visitation/family access in Leeds & Grenville.
In response to the question “How often do you travel for recreation?”, 57% report travelling
between 1 and 4 times per week for this purpose (see Fig. 14). When asked “How often do you
travel for visitation reasons or access to family and friends?”, 36% reported this question as not
applicable, and 18% reported that they travel between once and twice a week for this purpose
(see Fig. 15). With respect to frequency of travel for education, 35% reported that this question
42
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
was not applicable, 20% reported that they never travel for education, while 15% stated that
they travelled every day for education (see Fig 16).
Respondent’s also commented on difficulties accessing entertainment and recreation, and in
some cases respondent’s point to this difficulty as the reason for other negative effects (e.g.
poor health outcomes, stress, etc.). Difficulties were also identified in reaching education at
various levels, as well as difficulties in visiting family and friends on their own schedule.
Respondents connected the inability to access their family and friends on their own schedule to
feelings of social isolation from their family, friends and the community at large (see Table 5).
How often do you travel for Education?
15%
6%
Every Day
3-4 times per week
5%
35%
6%
1-2 times per week
1-2 times a month
Less than once a month
13%
20%
Never
Not applicable
*339 did not Indicate
Figure 16 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for education in Leeds & Grenville.
Frequency of themes related to accessing services and destinations
Experience difficulty getting children to afterschool, extracurricular activities, and daycare
20
Experience difficulty getting to recreation and entertainment
5
Experience difficulty getting to school and education opportunities
5
Cannot always see family and/or friends when wanted
2
Table 5 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
Another significant theme that emerged from the open-ended that was not covered in the
regular survey questions was the difficulty some survey respondents faced in getting their
children to where they needed to be, whether it be an afterschool program, extracurricular
activities, or even daycare. This theme was often connected with only having one vehicle in the
house hold which was used by someone else to get to employment.
September 4, 2015
43
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
As a part of completing the survey, respondents were also asked what were the inaccessible
locations in Leeds & Grenville and surrounding communities. In response to “Where is it difficult
to travel to because of your current transportation situation?”, 10% of respondents identified
Kingston as difficult to travel to, while 9% identified both Brockville and Ottawa as difficult to
travel to (Figure 17).
Responses
Where is it difficult to travel because of your current
transportation situation?
250
200
150
100
50
0
228
210 205
132 131 117 115
109 108 107 103 108 97
95
95
93
90
71
Figure 17 (above) shows results of locations considered difficult to access in Leeds & Grenville.
While respondents indicated that getting around Leeds and Grenville in general was often
difficult, getting to larger regional centres was listed as being more difficult and that it was very
important for respondents to be able to access these larger regional centres.
Frequency of themes related to transportation to larger centres
Transportation to Brockville
59
Transportation to Kingston
57
Transportation to Ottawa and other centres
28
Transportation to Kemptville
17
Table 6 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
The responses to this survey questions are supported by many open-ended responses on this
same topic (see Table 6). Getting to Brockville was a high priority for many respondents.
Brockville is in many ways the service and employment centre for Leeds and Grenville and as
such it is vital for residents to be able to access this important centre. Respondents indicated
that they need better transportation to Brockville. This was a theme that was expressed by
respondents throughout Leeds and Grenville, however it was noted even more so in the
44
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
communities that were closer in proximity to Brockville; i.e. Front of Yonge, Athens,
Elizabethtown-Kitley, Augusta, and Prescott.
Getting to Kingston was also a high priority for respondents. Kingston is a significantly larger
urban centre than Brockville and serves as a regional hub with many services and employment
options. Respondents indicated that they need better transportation to Kingston, particularly
because many medical appointments and specialist appointments were located in Kingston, in
addition to having more shopping options, and family and friends located in Kingston. Needing
transportation to Kingston was also a theme that was expressed throughout Leeds and
Grenville, however it was noted even more frequently in Gananoque and Leeds and the 1000
Islands. These communities are closer in proximity to Kingston then they are to Brockville, even
though they are located within the boundaries of the United Counties, and in many ways
Kingston functions as the larger regional centre for these communities.
Getting to Ottawa was also a high priority for respondents, although to a lesser degree than
getting to Brockville or Kingston. Needing transportation to Ottawa was a theme that was
expressed throughout Leeds and Grenville as similarly to Kingston, many medical and specialist
appointments are located in Ottawa along with a more shopping and service options. However,
in those communities located in closer proximity to Ottawa it was this theme was noted with
greater frequency than the rest of Leeds and Grenville. Those communities along the Highway
416 corridor, especially Kemptville and North Grenville were those communities in which the
theme was noted more frequently. In addition to respondents indicating a desire for
transportation to these three larger centres, a smaller number of respondents also indicated a
desire for transportation to Smiths Falls and Perth for the same reasons. The respondents that
indicated a desire for transportation to Smiths Falls and Perth were located mainly in Rideau
Lakes and Westport, those communities in closer proximity to these centres.
A challenge that will be need to be taken into account in the future development of a
transportation service is the fact that in addition to providing transportation throughout Leeds
and Grenville and to Brockville, there are a number of larger centres just outside of Leeds and
Grenville that respondents are clearly needing transportation service to as well such as
Kingston, Ottawa, Smiths Falls, and Perth. Whether a future transportation service meets these
needs with or without a partnership with municipalities bordering Leeds and Grenville thereby
connecting a future transportation service in Leeds and Grenville to a larger transportation
network is a consideration and challenge that needs to be taken into account.
The key question in the survey asked respondents a yes or no question regarding whether or
not respondents thought their day to day transportation needs currently being met (see Fig 18)
63% reported their daily needs being met, while 23% reported that daily needs were not being
met. It is important to note, however, that of those 63% who reported their daily needs as being
met, they often did so as they were creative in finding multiple ways to meet their transportation
needs if they did not drive, which was often the case.
September 4, 2015
45
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Do you find that your day-to-day transportation needs are
currently being met?
23%
14%
Did not
Indicate
YES
NO
63%
Figure 18 (above) illustrates Leeds & Grenville daily transportation satisfaction.
Frequency of themes assessing transportation need
There simply is no transportation available and/or it is difficult to find transportation
66
Respondents saying the need transportation and/or would support transportation
56
Foresee unmet transportation needs in future/will likely need transportation then
47
Did not have any transportation needs
40
Table 7 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
The results from this question were supported by some significant themes that were gathered
from the open-ended responses (see Table 7). One theme that came through strongly was the
fact that in many areas of Leeds & Grenville there simply is no transportation available apart
from a personal vehicle. In the absence of a personal vehicle it can be very difficult to find
transportation. There was also an opposite theme with many respondents indicating that they
had no issues and that their transportation needs were currently being met, however in the
open-ended responses, those responses were in the minority.
Additionally, in spite of the fact that many respondents currently stated that their transportation
needs were being met, a portion of those respondents also indicated that they foresee a time
ahead in their lives when based on their current situation their transportation needs would not
be met. This is in large part due to the fact that Leeds & Grenville is an aging community and
will see an increase in the number of seniors in the years ahead. This suggests that in addition
to there being a transportation need in Leeds & Grenville there is also a transportation
46
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
vulnerability as people foresee that without a car and the ability to drive there is no
transportation safety net on which they could rely on.
Percentage of "No" responses relative to number of responses
per township
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
46%
35%
29%
28%
28%
22%
22%
21%
19%
19%
18%
10%
9%
8%
Township
Figure 19 (above) illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across each Township
The fact that 23% of respondents indicated that their day to day transportation needs are
currently not being met is significant. To further analyze this statistic, it is helpful to break it
down across several other metrics to establish whether there are any identifiable trends
regarding where these “No” responses are coming from and from what demographics.
Figure 19 above outlines the percentage of “No” responses relative to the total number of
responses per township. This is significant as this explicitly indicates that 46% of the
respondents from Gananoque indicated that their transportation needs are currently not being
met. With the red line representing the overall survey response of 23% it is clear that Prescott is
also significantly above the average at 35% while Westport, Leeds and the 1000 Islands, and
Augusta are also slightly above the average.
Percentage of "No" responses relative to number of responses
per age bracket
40%
32%
26%
30%
20%
23%
21%
17%
11%
10%
0%
0 - 17
18 - 35
36 - 59
60 - 69
70 - 79
More than 80
Years of Age
Figure 20 – (above) illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across age brackets
September 4, 2015
47
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Figure 20 above further examines the “No” responses by breaking them down across the
various age brackets of the survey based on the percentage of “No” responses relative to the
total number of responses per age bracket. While those older than 80 are certainly above the
average in not having their transportation needs met, there is not necessarily an identifiable
pattern regarding age brackets. However, this figure does support the notion that increased
levels of aging are a factor in respondents not having their transportation needs met.
Percentage of "No" responses relative to number of responses
per income bracket
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
46%
36%
15%
$0 - 14,999
$15,000 29,999
$30,000 44,999
18%
14%
$45,000 59,000
15%
11%
$60,000 74,999
$75,000 89,999
$90,000 and up
Figure 21 (above) illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across income brackets
Figure 21 above is the final demographic metric across which the “No” responses are examined.
There is a clear and predictable pattern that emerges when the percentage of “No” responses is
measured relative to the number of responses per income bracket. The lower income brackets,
those under $30,000 are well above average in the percentage of “No” responses and there is a
steep drop off in the percentage of “No” responses once household income exceeds $30,000.
This suggests that level of income is a significant factor in determining whether or not
respondents had their transportation needs met.
This is helpful to note where transportation needs may be higher and what demographics have
a higher transportation need, however it does not discount the fact that the results also
demonstrate that there are unmet transportation needs in every community in Leeds & Grenville
and across every demographic.
A significant group of themes that emerged from open-ended responses was how a lack of
transportation negatively impacted respondents’ quality of life, and conversely how having better
transportation available to them would positively impact their quality of life.
One of the most common subthemes in this category that emerged from the responses was
how people needed to depend on others to get around and that they weren’t independent in
48
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
meeting their transportation needs. Respondents indicated that by having to rely on others such
as a spouse, family members, friends, relatives, or neighbours they were dependent on the
availability of others to take them to their destination; for many respondents by having to rely on
others in this way as their main source of transportation they indicated that they often felt like a
burden on others, that it was an inconvenience and a hassle to always try and arrange a ride
with someone else, and that by not being independent in their transportation that they felt
disempowered.
Frequency of themes related to transportation and quality of life
Comments on general affordability: transportation is too expensive, respondents
struggle with not not enough income to meet transportation needs
96
Currently not independent in meeting transportation needs and need to rely on others
56
General negative effects: not having reliable transportation leads to negative effects in
other areas of respondent's lives.
28
Currently experiencing isolation
21
Table 8 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
Being isolated was another major subtheme in this category that respondents indicated was a
negative impact of not having transportation. Many respondents simply were not able to get to
where they needed or wanted to go and were stuck in their homes, not being able to get out. By
not being able to get out many respondents indicated they felt like they were missing out and
not able to participate fully in their community and not able to access their desired destinations
when they wanted.
In this cluster of themes the issue of affordability was raised again. Many responses centred
around the issue of general affordability, how transportation needed to be affordable, how it
often wasn’t and is in fact expensive, and how many respondents simply did not have enough
income for transportation; they didn’t have enough income for transportation in general, or not
enough income for the transportation options that were available.
While a lack of transportation is itself a negative thing, not having access to reliable
transportation can put limits on people and create other negative effects in peoples lives. This
was another theme that was prevalent in the open-ended responses. One example of this
principle in action was how people cited that a lack of transportation kept them from finding
employment and education, thereby making it difficult to work out of poverty.
Because of the negative effects created by a lack of transportation, based on the survey
responses, the current transportation landscape creates barriers for many people preventing
them from accessing the places, people, and services they need to access. Responses
gathered from the community consultation sessions expressed the same barriers and difficulties
that arise with not having access to transportation. Based on the information gathered through
September 4, 2015
49
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
the needs assessment the lack of transportation options results in many residents of Leeds &
Grenville not having their transportation needs met.
4.4 Future transportation preferences and improvements
In addition to their current transportation patterns and needs survey respondents were also
asked about their preferences for a future transportation service through questions on when
they would be likely to use a transportation service, how much they would pay to use it, and
what characteristics they would like to see in a future transportation service.
When asked what days of the week respondents would most likely travel locally using a
transportation service, the traditional work week (Monday to Friday) represented 80% of
responses (Fig 22).
What days of the week would you most likely travel
locally using a service?
Monday
8%
Tuesday
16%
12%
Wednesday
15%
17%
Thursday
Friday
16%
16%
Saturday
Sunday
Figure 22 (above) shows days of the week survey respondents prefer to use a transport service.
What time of day would you MOST want to use a
transportation service?
5%
6 am to 9 am
15%
11%
9 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 4 pm
20%
25%
4 pm to 7 pm
7 pm to 10 pm
24%
10 pm to 6 am
Figure 23 (above) illustrates preferred times of day for a transport service.
50
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
When asked about what time of day they would most want to use a transportation service,
normal business hours represented 49% of responses from individuals (see Figure 23). From 9
am to 12 noon represented 25% and from 12 noon - 4 pm represented 24%, meaning
essentially half of respondents said they would most use a transportation service during normal
business hours. With respect to respondent’s willingness to pay for a transportation service
each way, 33% are willing to pay between $3.01 and $5, and 27% are willing to pay no more
than $3 (see Appendix 2), however many respondents indicated the cost of transportation would
depend on the length of the trip.
Respondents were also asked what they would like to see offered in a transportation service
and how they would like to see it operate. Respondents were asked to rank a number of
characteristics of a potential future transportation service on a scale of ‘Very Important’,
‘Important’, ‘Somewhat Important’ and ‘Not Important’. Figure 24 provides the average score for
each characteristic based on survey responses. A breakdown of responses for individual
characteristics can be found in Appendix 2.
Transportation Service Characteristics
Importance of Transportation Service Characteristics
Easy to arrange
Guaranteed ride home
Clear fare structure
Flexibility of service
Same day scheduling
Weekend service
Evening service
Service from home to work
Very few stops
Late night service
Wheelchair accessibility
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
1
1.5
Not Important
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
VeryImportant
Figure 24 (above) illustrates the importance of transportation service characteristics.
Respondent’s rank the ease of arranging a ride, a guaranteed ride home and a clear fare
structure among the most important characteristics that any potential transportation service
should have. Although service from home to work was considered less important than most
other characteristics, it is important to recognize that this characteristic was highly dependant on
whether the respondent was employed or unemployed (see Appendix 2). Among the least
important were wheelchair accessibility and late night service, however it is worth noting that in
a future transportation service wheelchair accessibility will likely be a mandatory requirement.
These results suggest that respondents want a transportation that is easy to understand, easy
to use, and can be used when they need it.
September 4, 2015
51
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
A series of themes was also gathered from the open ended responses that centred around the
concept of future transportation services (see Table 9). These themes highlight the desire of
survey respondents for additional transportation options than what was currently available.
Frequency of themes related to future transportation services
General transportation/affordable transportation/better bus service generally
151
Taxi service/improved taxi service
33
Technology/referral/triage
15
Para transit
15
Carpool
10
Cycling
9
Table 9 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
Many respondents expressed the general sentiment that they wanted a transportation option
that wasn’t currently available to them. This was the most commonly expressed theme across
all the open-ended responses. The most common theme expressed was the desire for bus
service whether this be a community bus, a shuttle bus, a bus route or general bus service.
Many respondents simply indicated the desire to have general transportation but qualified their
statement with the requirement that any new transportation also be affordable.
Regarding additional means of transportation, for those locations that didn’t have a taxi service
respondents indicated the desire for an affordable taxi service. The extended service of
paratransit was also another theme distilled from respondents. Respondents indicated their
desire to have paratransit, or some form of accessible transportation, extended to their areas
that currently were not served by paratransit. Carpooling and ridesharing as another new
transportation option was a theme that was emphasized to a lesser extent than other more
common themes yet still present in the responses.
Interestingly new technology and communications improvements was another subtheme in this
grouping. Respondents indicated that they are looking for an easier way to arrange
transportation for themselves; i.e. a central number that they can call to book rides and obtain
referrals for transportation. Additionally, respondents indicated a desire to have an easier way to
find out information about current available transportation; i.e. and app displaying in real time
the location of buses and their arrival times on Brockville’s Conventional Transit System.
There are a variety of transportation options listed here, but the clear statement coming through
based on survey responses is that many respondents want additional transportation options to
what is currently available.
52
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
4.5 Anticipated impacts of improved transportation
In the section outlining current transportation patterns and transportation needs respondents
clearly indicated how not having transportation negatively affected their lives in a number of
ways. Interestingly, as much as respondents indicated that not having transportation negatively
affected them, each of the resulting negative themes can be juxtaposed with an opposite
positive theme that emerged from the open-ended responses as respondents indicated that
having better transportation would positively impact their quality of life.
Frequency of themes related to quality of life
Reliable transportation would have positive spin off effects/make things easier
80
Wouldn't be as isolated/miss out as much/get out more/more involved/better access to
destinations
70
Wouldn't have to depend on others/would be more independent
62
Less stress
41
Improved flexibility/more freedom
12
Table 10 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
One of the most common subthemes in this category was the independence respondents said
they would gain if they would have access to better transportation. Respondents indicated that
they would not have to rely on others as much and be more independent in getting to their
desired destinations, thereby gaining a degree of freedom and flexibility they would not have
had before. Respondents also indicated that having better transportation they could count on
would result in less stress in their personal lives. They indicated that it is currently stressful
trying to get transportation and they often worried about how they would get to a particular
destination without their own transportation; having better access to transportation would make
it easier to arrange transportation and get to desired destinations, and they indicated that would
result in less stress in their personal lives.
Respondents also indicated that they would not be as isolated by having better transportation.
For respondents, having better transportation meant having better access to desired
destinations and being able to participate more actively in their community by getting out more.
Respondents indicated that they wouldn’t miss out on things as much with better transportation
available to them and they would be less isolated as a result of this improved access.
September 4, 2015
53
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Frequency of themes related to accessing services and destinations
Transportation would make it easier to get more/better employment/search for a job
69
Better/easier access to medical/community services
60
Easier to see family/friends
40
Easier getting to recreation/entertainment
22
Easier to shop/better shopping available
20
Easier to get groceries
18
Easier getting to school/education
12
Easier for children
8
Table 11 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.
Respondents also commented that were they to have better transportation, for every destination
that was currently difficult to access, it would be made easier to access by having better
transportation (see Table 11). Grocery shopping would be made easier if transportation options
improved, and the opportunity to save money by shopping at a wider variety of stores would be
a general positive effect. Similarly, improved transportation was also noted by respondents as
allowing them to have an improved, stress-reduced access to medical appointments and access
to community services. Another similar theme is the belief held by respondents that improved
transportation service would make it easier to get increased number and quality of employment
opportunities, which can then allow them to afford a vehicle or to continue to support another
means of transport. In addition to improved employment opportunities, respondents indicated
that operating a transportation service would allow residents to participate in recreation,
entertainment, education and the opportunity to visit family and friends - and respondents
indicated that these opportunities had other positive spinoff effects (e.g. improved mental health,
improved physical health outcomes, feelings of social cohesion, etc). Participants in the
community consultation sessions also indicated similar quality of life improvements in light of a
future transportation service.
Based on the information gather from the survey results it is clear that an increase and
improvement in transportation options and services would result in an improved quality of life for
many people living in Leeds & Grenville.
4.6 Community Partner Survey Results
In addition to surveying residents of the United Counties, a transportation needs survey of
community partners was conducted to understand needs, barriers, habits and preferences from
54
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
the perspective of community service providers. There were 96 responses from community
partners.
The most significant finding from this survey was the similarity in responses to the general
survey. More specifically, when asked about their client’s main method of transportation the
leading responses were the same as those of the general survey (drives through a personal
vehicle and rides through a spouse, friend, relative or neighbour), albeit in different proportions
(see Appendix 6). In addition, when community partners were asked about the reasons behind
some clients reporting they didn’t drive, community partners responded with the same reasons
as the general survey -- namely that costs of a vehicle, gas, insurance were too high and clients
were not licensed. When partners were asked which communities were difficult for their clients
to travel to, results were very similar to the general survey, as the three hardest to reach
locations (Brockville, Kingston, Ottawa) were identical to those identified in the general survey.
The community partner survey also mimics the general survey in responses related to future
potential service provision. Partners indicated that clients would want a service which runs
primarily during the traditional work week, between 9am and 4pm, and a service that costs
under $5 each way.
Not all responses from the community partner survey reflect the general survey, however, as
76% of partners are of the opinion that their client’s day-to-day transportation needs are not
currently being met. This can be contrasted by 23% of reported their needs not currently being
met on the general survey. When asked which places or service providers are hardest to get to,
the top three (in order of severity) were community services, medical reasons, and employment
(see Appendix 6). This can be contrasted with the three leading responses from the general
survey which were medical reasons, food/personal supplies and recreation. The full results of
the community partners survey can be found in Appendix 6.
September 4, 2015
55
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
56
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
57
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Section 5:
Conclusion and
Recommendations
5.1 Summary of Key Findings………………………………………………....60
5.2 Logistical and Operational Structure……………………………………..61
5.3 Choosing a Coordinated Transportation Model………………………....63
5.4 Critical Issues to Address Going Forward……………………………….64
5.5 Recommendation…………………………………………………………..65
58
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
The general survey, community partners survey, and community consultations have provided a
great deal of information on the transportation needs and and barriers of those that live in Leeds
& Grenville, as well as potential solutions to address these needs and barriers. Based on the
analysis in the previous chapter there are a number of things that have come to light.
Clearly there are many residents of Leeds & Grenville that do not have any transportation
needs. Not having any unmet transportation needs is almost wholly based on the ability to drive
and be able to afford the ownership and operation of a car. That being said, based on the
information gathered from this transportation needs assessment, these is a significant portion of
the population who are not having their transportation needs met by the current transportation
landscape.
To provide some context on how the community, services providers, and municipalities should
proceed in the development of a transportation service, interviews were conducted with rural
transportation service providers across Southern Ontario. These service providers were asked
about the development of their transportation service, how and why it was developed, the
rational that went into the logistics that determined how the transportation service would be run,
and some of the challenges they faced in the development of their transportation service.
Nearly all of the rural transportation service providers developed their service in response to an
identified need(s); that need was discovered based either on experience and local knowledge or
through a needs assessment similar to this.
Consequently, in many communities the need that the transportation service is seeking to meet
has significant influence on the type of transportation service those areas implemented and the
logistical form that those transportation services took. For example, Lanark Transportation
Association, whose case study is discussed above in the best practices section, established that
there was a need for getting residents to medical appointments and therefore tailored their
service mainly to meet that need. Due to the variability of medical appointments, meaning that
people have them relatively infrequently, the transportation provided by Lanark Transportation
Association is done through a booking service that is flexible to take the resident to their
appointment. As a result of this, all services provided by Lanark Transportation Association are
done through a single booking service, the service provides a great deal of flexibility to meet
residents needs, and the service does not operate any fixed route transportation service. This is
an example of how the need that the transportation service is seeking to meet in large part
determines the form and logistical structure of the transportation service.
Another example of this is with Deseronto Transit. The need identified by Deseronto Transit was
that residents were having difficulty getting to employment opportunities, particularly low-income
employment opportunities. Therefore, based on this established transportation need the form
that Deseronto Transit took is very different from Lanark Transportation Association. This is
mainly owed to the fact that to provide transportation for employment requires a much greater
September 4, 2015
59
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
consistency and frequency of service than providing transportation for medical appointments; for
full-time employment residents need to get to work every working day. Deseronto Transit
therefore opted for a fixed route service with set times and routes operating daily that brings
residents to employment destinations. The service can be and is used for other purposes, but
their main objective is to provide transportation to employment areas and this was the main
determining factor in establishing the logistical structure and how the transportation service
would operate.
It is helpful to apply this concept of having the transportation need determine the type of
transportation service to the information gathered from this transportation needs assessment;
drawing from what respondents indicated were their transportation needs, what were the difficult
areas and destinations to access, as this provides some insight into what kind of transportation
service might be suitable to the Leeds and Grenville context
5.1 Summary of Key Findings
The main finding from this transportation needs assessment is that there is a significant unmet
need for transportation in Leeds & Grenville. This needs assessment has uncovered this as well
as provided some insight into the details of what those transportation needs are.
As stated above, from the information gathered it was determined that 53% of respondents’
main mode was transportation was not driving a personal vehicle. This suggests that there is a
significant proportion of the total population of Leeds & Grenville that also don’t drive a personal
vehicle. Additionally, as has been demonstrated by the transportation needs assessment,
without being able to drive a personal vehicle, it is significantly more challenging for residents to
meet their daily transportation needs.
Perhaps the most significant statistic generated from the survey responses was the 23% of
respondents who said their transportation needs were currently not being met. This was
determined to be proportionally higher among those with lower income brackets and as age
increased.
Of the destinations most difficult to get to, medical appointments and community services
combined for 37%, and is identified as the highest unmet need. Food and personal supplies was
next at 19%, followed by recreation at 12%, and employment and access to family and friends
both at 11%. Of the communities in and surrounding Leeds & Grenville determined as most
difficult to get to, Kingston, Brockville, and Ottawa are the top three communities in this regard.
Based on how often respondents indicated that they travelled to selected destinations and
services, these destinations and services can be identified as being either a high-frequency
transportation need, mid-frequency transportation need, or low-frequency transportation need.
Employment and education are identified as high-frequency transportation need based on the
fact that of respondents who accessed these services the highest frequency identified was
60
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
travelling every day for employment and education. This does not include those respondents for
whom they said they never travelled for these reasons or it was not applicable.
Recreation, food and personal supplies, and visiting family and friends are identified as midfrequency transportation needs based on the responses from individuals who accessed these
services as the highest frequency identified was travelling 1 – 2 times per week. This does not
include those respondents for whom they said they never travelled for these reasons or it was
not applicable.
Medical appointments and community services are identified as low-frequency transportation
needs. Based on the responses from individuals who accessed these services as the highest
frequency identified was travelling 1 – 2 times per month for community services and less than
once a month for medical appointments. This does not include those respondents for whom
they said they never travelled for these reasons or it was not applicable.
Percentage of respondents who
Highest access
listed the destination or service
frequency
as most difficult to access
Medical
27%
Low-frequency
Food and personal supplies
19%
Mid-frequency
Recreation
12%
Mid-frequency
Visiting family and friends
11%
Mid-frequency
Employment
11%
High- frequency
Community services
10%
Low-frequency
Education
6%
High-frequency
Table 12 (above) identifies the travel frequency of destinations and services
Destination or service
Based on the destinations and services respondents indicated as being most difficult to access,
combined with the frequency with which respondents indicated they access these services,
Table 12 above illustrates the level of frequency that is most common by ranking each
destination or service by how difficult it is to access these destinations and services. This shows
that most destinations or services respondents are looking to access range from low-frequency
to mid-frequency.
5.2 Logistical and Operational Structure
By understanding what unmet needs there are and how often respondents are wanting to
access these destinations and services, this can provide insight into what kind of transportation
service might be best suited to meet transportation needs in Leeds & Grenville. The results
indicate that low-frequency and mid-frequency transportation needs are most in demand.
Because the most in demand transportation needs are those that are accessed at low to midfrequency levels, this suggests that there may not be the daily ridership necessary to support a
fixed route transportation service across the United Counties and that an on-demand, flexible
transportation service, similar to the service offered by Lanark Transportation Association, may
be more appropriate.
September 4, 2015
61
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
By having a flexible demand-based transportation service this could meet the need of people
needing to access these low to mid-frequency transportation destinations. This model is also
similar to the transportation pilot conducted by Every Kid in Our Communities which was well
used towards the end of the pilot and could likely have successfully continued with the
commitment of additional funding and support. The main difference between this pilot and a
future transportation service being that the service area would need to be extended to serve the
whole of the United Counties, and not just confined to North Leeds.
However, while an on-demand flexible transportation service would likely meet many of the
transportation needs respondents indicated, one of the findings that also came from the results
was that inter-community transportation, particularly transportation to larger centres such as
Kingston, Brockville, and Ottawa was also a significant unmet transportation need. Therefore,
for routes for which there is a clear demand, such as a route from Gananoque to Kingston, it
may be possible for a future transportation service to include select fixed route service in
addition to on-demand flexible transportation.
One way to implement a fixed route system that has a wide coverage area yet delivered at a
lower cost is to alternate routes by having a different fixed route operating on a different day of
the week. A system like this has a precedent in RideNorfolk, a rural transportation service in
Norfolk County. RideNorfolk, whose case study is discussed above in the best practices section,
exists primarily to transport people from outlying communities into Simcoe, the largest
community in Norfolk County and the service hub of the area. RideNorfolk operates a different
fixed route to a different outlying community each day of the week. This is done as it would not
be feasible to operate a route to every community each day, nor do they have the buses to do
this. By alternating fixed routes on different days of the week, RideNorfolk is able to increase
their service area while doing so at a lower cost. A fixed route system like this could potentially
work in Leeds & Grenville where different routes between communities are operating on
different days of the week. A future transportation service could hypothetically operate a fixed
route from Gananoque or Brockville into Kingston one day a week, and operate another route
from Kemptville to Brockville another day of the week, and other appropriately determined
routes on other days of the week. These are only examples provided based on the results of the
survey as final route determination and operational frequency is beyond the scope of this report.
Fixed route inter-community transit along key corridors that provides service to different areas
on different days of the week would therefore serve to meet this unmet transportation need in
addition to providing a double benefit of meeting other unmet transportation needs such as
medical appointments, shopping, or visiting family and friends in larger centres and other
communities.
As discussed above, a flexible on-demand transportation service provides for efficiency as it
only runs for requested trips. This could be combined with a fixed route service between
destinations where steady ridership would be fairly certain, i.e. Gananoque to Kingston. A hybrid
model like this could provide the greatest area of service with best efficiency of service while
62
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
meeting many of the transportation needs identified by this needs assessment. These are some
of the logistical considerations that could work for a transportation service in Leeds &Grenville.
5.3 Choosing a Coordinated Transportation Model
The Rural Ontario Institute has identified a number of coordination transportation models used
by a number of municipalities and service providers in rural Ontario. The full details of the
models can be found in the report ‘Towards Coordinated Rural Transportation’ (Dillon
Consulting, 2014).
Figure 25 (above) illustrates the different Coordinated Transportation Models (Dillon Consulting,
2014)
The above image displays the different transportation models presented in the Rural Ontario
Institute’s report. The current situation in Leeds & Grenville can be described as being
somewhere between No Coordination and Model 4 - Voluntary Cooperation Model as there is
some coordination among a few service providers in Leeds & Grenville, however in general
there is no coordination present between those services that provide transportation support for
their clients. There is however a desire among community agencies and service providers to
improve the transportation that is available in Leeds & Grenville, and in order for this to become
a reality more coordination among service providers will be required.
Steps Required to Establish a Coordination Transportation Model
Completed
Identify two more more organizations that share a common goal
Completed
Inventory of existing transportation services and key stakeholders
Completed
Identify service demand and gaps, implementation issues and opportunities
Not completed Assess different coordination models
Not completed Identify the building blocks of the preferred coordination models
Not completed Select a preferred coordination model
Table 13 (above) lists completed and uncompleted steps in the development of a transportation
service
Table 13 lists the required steps necessary to establishing a coordinated transportation model,
and outlines what has already been completed and what still needs to be done. Step one is
complete as Every Kid in Our Communities is an already established community collaboration of
organizations working, among other things, towards the shared goal of improving transportation
September 4, 2015
63
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
in Leeds & Grenville. Step two has also been completed as Every Kid in Our Communities
conducted an inventory of available transportation services in Leeds & Grenville around the time
of when they conducted the one-year transportation pilot in North Leeds in 2010. Step 3 has
been completed by this transportation needs assessment as the transportation needs and
barriers of Leeds & Grenville residents has been brought into clearer focus. Steps four through
six still need to be completed. The following are some considerations for the completion of steps
four through six going forward.
Based on the information gathered from the transportation needs assessment, Model 2:
Brokerage – Central Coordination is recommended as the best model for the Leeds & Grenville
context. There are a number of reasons for this selection. The first reason is that there was no
single overwhelming unmet transportation need revealed by the results, but that there are a
number of destinations and service providers that residents of Leeds & Grenville are needing to
access. A Brokerage – Central Coordination model could provide coordination between already
existing transportation assets resulting in efficiency of service. Also, by being able to access
additional funding both municipally and provincially the central coordinating organization would
also be able to expand the available transportation service through establishing and operating
certain fixed routes as discussed above and by owning and operating new dedicated vehicles
for the on-demand flexible transportation service to make up the shortfall the existing
transportation assets would not able to meet through coordination.
Another reason for selecting the Brokerage – Central Coordination model is that it makes it
easier for users to arrange a ride as all bookings and referrals are handled through the central
coordinating agency. This would make the transportation service more responsive to users. One
of the main findings from the transportation needs assessment was the respondents wanted a
transportation service that was easy to understand, easy to arrange a ride, easy to use. A single
coordinating agency that handles all bookings and referrals would simplify the ride booking
process and by having only one point of contact for all transportation it would make it easier for
the end user.
A third reason for selecting this model is that operating under a central coordination framework,
resources are able to me pooled yet organizations are able to retain ownership and operation of
their vehicles, for those that have them. By operating a Brokerage – Central Coordination model
such as this a future transportation service would be best positioned to be able to meet the
diverse transportation needs of Leeds & Grenville residents and provide transportation to the
range of destinations and services that they require.
5.4 Critical Issues to Address Going Forward
Taking these items into consideration there are still a number of critical issues that will need to
be addressed in the development of a transportation service. The two most important issues
that need to be addressed in the development of a future transportation service are interrelated:
accessing funding and gaining municipal support. Funding for a transportation service often
comes from a host of sources including private fundraising, advertising on transportation service
64
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
vehicles, as well as user fees, however all of the rural transportation service providers we
interviewed had a significant amount of their yearly budget come from the provincial gas tax
fund that is dedicated for local transportation. The amount of gas tax funds a transportation
service can receive is based on a formula that takes into account population, ridership, and
financial support received from municipalities. Funding from municipalities is where these two
critical issues are interrelated as without the financial support from municipalities a future
transportation service will not be able to access gas tax funds either.
Acquiring political support from municipalities is also important for another reason. Based on the
interviews with other transportation service providers, one thing that every transportation service
experienced was a period at the start of their service with low ridership. All these transportation
services required a period of time to build up ridership before steady ridership was established.
Therefore, any future transportation endeavor should be allowed to run for 12 to 18 months in
order to build up ridership before being evaluated. All transportation services take time to build
up ridership and that is why it is necessary to have political support from municipalities to
ensure that the transportation service can survive through the start up period and build up
ridership. Therefore, it is crucial that the development of a future transportation service does so
with the political and financial support of the municipalities that it serves.
Another critical issue to address going forward in the development of a transportation service is
to ensure that there is public support. Based on the results of the transportation needs
assessment it is clear that those that have an unmet transportation need are in favour of the
development of a transportation service. Additionally, based on respondents feedback there
were a large number of respondents who indicated that even though they currently did not have
any unmet transportation needs, they would support the development of a transportation service
either because they would like to use it as an alternative to driving a personal vehicle, or
because they see a time in their future when they will need a transportation service, or because
they saw how a transportation service could benefit others in their community. While the
transportation needs assessment only heard from a small number of the total population of
Leeds & Grenville, less than one percent of respondents were openly opposed to the idea of a
rural transportation service.
A final critical issue to address going forward in the development of a future transportation
service is to ensure that organizational coordination and cooperation between community
agencies, service providers, and municipalities continues.
5.5 Recommendation: Based on the information presented here and gathered from the
transportation needs assessment it is recommended that a rural transportation service be
developed to serve the residents of Leeds & Grenville as it has been clearly demonstrated that
there is a need for such a service. If the community, service providers, and municipalities
choose to proceed with the development of a rural transportation service, we recommend the
following:
September 4, 2015
65
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
4.) Consider Model 2 – Brokerage Central Coordination as the framework for a future
transportation service. The benefits of this model include:
a. Maximizing efficiency and coordination of available resources.
b. Ability to provide transportation service for a range of transportation needs.
c. A single coordinating agency allows for convenient ride booking and use of the
transportation service by the end user.
d. Allow agencies to retain ownership and operation of vehicles
e. Provide an opportunity for the central coordinating agency to operate new fixed
routes with dedicated vehicles.
5.) Operate a future transportation service using a hybrid model that combines:
a. On-demand flexible transportation across the United Counties to meet the range of
low to mid-frequency transportation needs such as medical and community service
appointments, groceries and personal supplies, and recreation.
b. A rotating fixed route inter-community transportation system along high demand
corridors such as Gananoque to Kingston to meet the need for inter-community
transportation.
6.) Ensure that the future transportation service will be affordable by subsidizing the cost of
transportation for the end user through a range of funding channels including:
a. Provincial gas tax funds
b. Financial support from the municipalities whose residents are served by the
transportation service
c. Additional funding generated through advertising revenue and fundraising
By taking steps to implement these recommendations together, the community, municipalities,
service providers and community agencies, will be working together together to improve the
transportation landscape in Leeds & Grenville and provide opportunities for those whose
transportation needs are currently not being met.
66
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
67
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
68
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
69
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Section 6:
Appendix
Appendix 1: Three Versions of Transportation Needs Survey……………..71
Appendix 2: Transportation Needs Survey Additional Results…………….84
Appendix 3: Community Transportation Profile Snapshots………………...90
Appendix 4: Focus Group and Interview Questions……………………….117
Appendix 5: Community Partners Survey…………………………………..119
Appendix 6: Community Partners Survey Results…………………………129
Appendix 7: Promotional Materials………………………………………….139
70
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 1 – General Survey
(page 1)
September 4, 2015
71
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 1 – General Survey
(page 2)
72
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 1 – General Survey
(page 3)
September 4, 2015
73
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 1 – General Survey
(page 4)
74
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 2 – Leeds and the 1000 Islands, Rideau Lakes
(page 1)
September 4, 2015
75
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 2 – Leeds and the 1000 Islands, Rideau Lakes
(page 2)
76
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 2 – Leeds and the 1000 Islands, Rideau Lakes
(page 3)
September 4, 2015
77
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 2 – Leeds and the 1000 Islands, Rideau Lakes
(page 4)
78
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 3 – North Grenville, Merrickville-Wolford, Augusta
(page 1)
September 4, 2015
79
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 3 – North Grenville, Merrickville-Wolford, Augusta
(page 2)
80
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 3 – North Grenville, Merrickville-Wolford, Augusta
(page 3)
September 4, 2015
81
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 1
Version 3 – North Grenville, Merrickville-Wolford, Augusta
(page 4)
82
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
83
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 2
Transportation Needs Survey – Additional Results
Responses
If transportation is a barrier to employment, what is the main
reason?
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
418
342
102
56
41
16
15
7
4
3
Do you require any of the following assistance when you travel locally?
2% 2% 2% 2%
7%
3%
3%
79%
84
I don’t need any assistance
Assistance getting into and out of a vehicle
Escort to accompany you
Assistance loading and unloading items
Door-to-door service
Wheelchair, lift or ramp
Space for a fold-up wheelchair
Other
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
How much would you be willing to pay for a
transportation service each way?
20%
Less than $3.00
27%
$3.01 - $5.00
$5.01 - $7.00
20%
More than $7.01
33%
Importance of: Service from home to work
250
227
205
Responses
200
150
100
79
53
50
0
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Importance of: Flexibility of Service
350
300
296
Responses
250
199
200
150
100
70
55
50
0
Very Important
September 4, 2015
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
85
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Importance of: Evening Service
250
Responses
200
194
168
150
113
108
Somewhat Important
Not Important
100
50
0
Very Important
Important
Importance of: Late-night Service
250
197
Responses
200
150
135
118
114
Very Important
Important
100
50
0
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Importance of: Weekend Service
250
229
Responses
200
173
150
100
91
93
Somewhat Important
Not Important
50
0
Very Important
86
Important
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Responses
Importance of: Guaranteed Ride Home
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
400
125
Very Important
Important
40
47
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Responses
Importance of: Very few stops
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
148
154
160
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
123
Very Imporant
Importance of: Clear Fare Structure
350
325
300
Responses
250
200
165
150
100
64
54
Somewhat Important
Not Important
50
0
Very Important
September 4, 2015
Important
87
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Importance of: Easy to Arrange
400
350
Responses
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Importance of: Same Day Scheduling
300
267
Responses
250
185
200
150
85
100
62
50
0
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Importance of: Wheelchair Accessibility
284
300
Responses
250
200
150
129
100
72
67
Important
Somewhat Important
50
0
Very Important
88
Not Important
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
89
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 3
Community Transportation Profile Snapshots
90
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Athens – Community Snapshot
Similar to the general survey, the majority of respondents work in Brockville and consider
Brockville, Kingston and Ottawa the most difficult to reach locations. Athens’ results differ
slightly from the aggregate responses in that needs other than the options listed were reported
as the most difficult to reach.
Responses
Athens: If you are employed, where do you work?
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
8
3
0
September 4, 2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Athens: Where is it difficult to travel because of your current
transportation situation?
7
6
6
Responses
6
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Athens: What places or service providers are hardest to get to?
5
4
Responses
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
92
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Augusta – Community Snapshot
Similar to the overall data, residents of Augusta Township largely work in Brockville, however
the data differs in that Edwardsburgh-Cardinal also presented as a common employment area.
Similarly, Brockville, Ottawa and Gananoque were reported to be the most difficult locations to
reach, similar to the average data with the exception of Gananoque. Recreation and medical
needs top the list of most difficult to access places, while food and personal supplies are ranked
lower than the counties-wide average.
Responses
Augusta: If you are employed, where do you work?
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
5
2
September 4, 2015
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Augusta: Where is it difficult to travel because of your current
transportation situation?
12
10
10
Responses
10
7
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
2
0
Augusta: What places or service providers are hardest to get
to?
12
Responses
10
8
10
8
8
7
7
6
6
4
2
3
1
0
94
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Brockville – Community Snapshot
The vast majority of City of Brockville respondents work within their city, closely matching the
proportion of all Leeds & Grenville residents whom work in Brockville. Similar to the countieswide average, Brockville residents consider Kingston and Ottawa difficult to reach. Medical,
food/personal supplies and employment locations are considered the most difficult to reach,
similar to counties-wide responses.
Brockville: If you are employed, where do you work?
120
100
Responses
100
80
60
40
20
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
September 4, 2015
95
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Brockville: Where is it difficult to travel because of your current
transportation situation?
70
Responses
60
59
54
50
40
40
39
37
37
36
36
35
34
34
33
33
31
31
31
30
26
17
20
10
0
Brockville: What places or service providers are hardest to get
to?
60
Responses
50
40
30
20
53
39
23
22
20
17
14
12
10
0
96
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Edwardsburgh-Cardinal – Community Snapshot
Edwardsburgh-Cardinal closely matches with the counties-wide average both on difficult to
reach communities and service providers. Edwardsburgh-Cardinal differs from the average in
that the largest number of respondents that work in communities outside Leeds & Grenville.
Edwardsburgh/Cardinal: If you are employed, where do you
work?
14
Responses
12
13
10
10
8
6
6
5
5
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
September 4, 2015
97
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Edwardsburgh/Cardinal: Where is it difficult to travel because
of your current transportation situation?
30
Responses
25
24
21
20
16
13
15
13
13
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
8
6
5
0
Edwardsburgh/Cardinal: What places or service providers are
hardest to get to?
25
23
Responses
20
15
15
10
11
10
8
8
5
5
4
0
98
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Elizabethtown-Kitley – Community Snapshot
Elizabethtown-Kitley can be characterized by a similar employment pattern as the average, as
Brockville is the most common place of employment. The difference, however, lies in the
second most common place of employment, which is within their own township as opposed to
North Grenville as is found in the counties-wide average. Again, identical to the counties-wide
average, the most difficult to access locations are Ottawa, Brockville and Kingston. Although the
most difficult to reach service provider is identical to the counties-wide average -Elizabethtown-Kitley differs in that community services are difficult to reach as compared to
food/personal supplies counties-wide.
Elizabethtown-Kitley: If you are employed, where do you
work?
35
33
Responses
30
25
20
15
10
5
12
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
September 4, 2015
99
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Elizabethtown-Kitley: Where is it difficult to travel because of
your current transportation situation?
14
Responses
12
12
11
9
10
7
8
5
6
5
4
4
3
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
Responses
Elizabethtown-Kitley: What places or service providers are
hardest to get to?
100
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
13
9
8
6
6
4
3
3
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Front of Yonge – Community Snapshot
As with other communities, respondents from Front of Yonge can be characterized as
dependent on Brockville as their main employment area. It is significant to note, however, that
communities outside Leeds & Grenville were reported as the next most common. Just as with
the counties-wide data, Brockville and Kingston were reported as the most difficult to reach
locations. In contrast with the counties-wide average, however, recreation needs were reported
as the most difficult, closely followed by medical and family access/visitations and food/supplies.
Front of Yonge: If you are employed, where do you work?
8
7
7
Responses
6
5
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
September 4, 2015
101
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Front of Yonge: Where is it difficult to travel because of your
current transportation situation?
7
6
6
Responses
6
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
Front of Yonge: What places or service providers are hardest to
get to?
6
Responses
5
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
0
0
102
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Gananoque – Community Snapshot
Unlike most other communities, the majority of respondents worked within Gananoque as
opposed to Brockville. Gananoque differs slightly on the question of difficult to reach locations
for its residents, with Kingston being the majority response, differing from counties-wide average
where Brockville, Ottawa and Kingston share the majority of responses.
Responses
Gananoque: If you are employed, where do you work?
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
18
6
3
September 4, 2015
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Responses
Gananoque: Where is it difficult to travel because of your
current transportation situation?
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
42
31
20
12
11
10
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
Responses
Gananoque: What places or service providers are hardest to
get to?
104
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
34
22
14
12
12
9
4
2
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Merrickville-Wolford – Community Snapshot
Respondents living in Merrickville-Wolford differ with respect to location of employment from the
counties-wide average in terms of location of employment. Merrickville-Wolford residents report
Brockville and North Grenville as the main employment destinations, whereas Brockville is the
single largest employment destination in the United Counties. Merrickville-Wolford also differs
in that Smiths Falls is identified as a difficult location to reach alongside Brockville. Similar to the
counties-wide average, medical and food/personal supplies are viewed as the most difficult
services to travel to.
Merrickville-Wolford: If you are employed, where do you
work?
4
Responses
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
September 4, 2015
105
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Merrickville-Wolford: Where is it difficult to travel because of
your current transportation situation?
5
4
Responses
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
Merrickville-Wolford: What places or service providers are
hardest to get to?
5
4
4
Responses
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
106
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
North Grenville – Community Snapshot
Responses from North Grenville differed from the counties-wide average when asked where
they worked and which locations were most difficult to get to. For North Grenville respondents,
the vast majority work within their municipality and in Ottawa. Furthermore, Ottawa and North
Grenville were reported as the least accessible communities. This differs, with the exception of
Ottawa, from the counties-wide response of Brockville, Kingston and Ottawa being the least
accessible communities. When asked which places or service providers were hardest to access,
responses were similar, albeit in different proportions, to that of the counties-wide average.
North Grenville: If you are employed, where do you work?
35
Responses
30
29
26
25
20
15
10
6
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
September 4, 2015
107
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
North Grenville: Where is it difficult to travel because of your
current transportation situation?
25
23
Responses
20
15
13
12
10
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
5
0
Responses
North Grenville: What places or service providers are hardest
to get to?
108
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
14
13
12
7
7
7
6
4
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Leeds & 1000 Islands – Community Snapshot
Responses from Leeds & the 1000 Islands vary from the average when asked their location of
employment, with the largest number reporting employment within their own community. When
asked which communities were the most difficult to access, Kingston was the most common
response, just as with the counties-wide responses. Also in line with the counties-wide
responses were those from the question of which places or service providers were the most
difficult to access.
Responses
Leeds & 1000 Islands: If you are employed, where do you
work?
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
17
14
September 4, 2015
11
9
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Leeds & 1000 Islands: Where is it difficult to travel because of
your current transportation situation?
35
Responses
30
25
29
21
20
16
16
15
14
11
10
10
8
10
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
5
5
0
Leeds & 1000 Islands: What places or service providers are
hardest to get to?
30
25
Responses
25
20
15
10
17
13
9
8
8
7
5
5
0
110
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Prescott – Community Snapshot
Respondents from Prescott indicated that the most frequent employment location was within
their own community, which differs from the counties-wide response of Brockville being the most
common employment area. When asked which communities were the most difficult to access,
Prescott respondents were identical with the counties-wide response of Kingston, Brockville and
Ottawa. When about difficult to access services, the top responses (i.e. medical and
food/personal supplies) mirror those found in the counties-wide average.
Prescott: If you are employed, where do you work?
16
14
14
Responses
12
10
9
8
6
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
September 4, 2015
111
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Prescott: Where is it difficult to travel because of your current
transportation situation?
35
Responses
30
33
27
22
25
18
20
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
10
5
0
Responses
Prescott: What places or service providers are hardest to get
to?
112
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
33
21
16
13
12
12
6
5
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Rideau Lakes – Community Snapshot
Respondents from Rideau Lakes by and large work in their own community, which differs from
the counties-wide average of Brockville as the major employment destination. Similar to the
average, respondents identified Kingston and Ottawa as the least accessible locations. The
difference, however is that Smiths Falls is identified as the third least accessible community,
whereas Brockville is identified as the fifth least accessible in Rideau Lakes but in the top three
least accessible communities’ counties-wide. Mirroring the counties-wide responses, the least
accessible services are medical, food/personal supplies and recreation.
Rideau Lakes: If you are employed, where do you work?
35
Responses
30
29
25
20
15
10
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
September 4, 2015
113
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Responses
Rideau Lakes: Where is it difficult to travel because of your
current transportation situation?
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
14
13
11
9
8
8
5
5
5
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Responses
Rideau Lakes: What places or service providers are hardest to
get to?
114
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
14
12
4
4
3
3
2
2
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Westport – Community Snapshot
Respondents from the Westport community are employed largely within their own community,
not in Brockville as is the counties-wide consensus. In terms of difficult locations to access,
Kingston, Ottawa and Smiths Falls were identified as the least accessible. With the exception of
Smiths Falls, these responses match those of respondents’ counties-wide. Similar, albeit in
different proportions to the counties-wide average, is the response pattern of which services are
hardest to access (i.e. medical, recreation and food/personal supplies).
Westport: If you are employed, where do you work?
5
4
Responses
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
September 4, 2015
115
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Responses
Westport: Where is it difficult to travel because of your current
transportation situation?
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
7
7
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Westport: What places or service providers are hardest to get
to?
12
11
Responses
10
8
6
4
2
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
116
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 4
Focus Group and Interview Questions
(page 1)
September 4, 2015
117
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 4
Community Transportation Profile Snapshots
(page 2)
118
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 5
Community Partners Survey
September 4, 2015
119
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
120
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
121
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
122
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
123
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
124
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
125
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
126
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
127
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
128
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 6
Community Partner Survey Results
Responses
What is your service area?
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
44
26
21
19
17
16
16
14
14
12
11
9
8
7
5
Client's main method of transportation
Drive a personal vehicle
3%
7%
23%
7%
8%
Taxi service
10%
23%
19%
September 4, 2015
Rides through a spouse, friend,
relative, or neighbour
Walking
Volunteer driver
Van/bus service/retirement centre
transport service
Cycling
129
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
If your clients do not drive, why not?
5%
3%
1%
High cost of a vehicle
High cost of gas/insurance
26%
Don't have a valid driver's license
18%
Can't drive due to medical/physical condition
Other
24%
23%
Unsure of reasons
No need, everything can be accessed without a
car
Do your clients require any of the following types of assistance while
travelling?
3%
9%
Don't need any assistance
Assistance getting into and out of a vehicle
17%
Need an escort to accompany them
12%
Wheelchair, lift or ramp
16%
Assistance loading and unloading items
14%
14%
Door-to-door service
15%
Space for a fold-up wheelchair
Other
Are your clients day-to-day transportation needs being met?
24%
Yes
No
76%
130
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
What places/services are most difficult for your clients to get to?
3%
Community services
8%
Medical
19%
Employment
12%
Recreation
16%
13%
Food/personal supplies
Education
14%
Family access/visitation
15%
Other
Where is it difficult for your clients to travel?
70
60
50
62
56
53
41
40
30
20
37
36
35
35
32
30
29
27
26
26
25
24
24
9
10
0
September 4, 2015
131
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
What population groups are most vulnerable to lack a of tranpsortation?
2%
Seniors
Persons with disabilities
21%
18%
Young Adults
19%
Families
21%
Children/Youth
19%
Other
How does your organization assist those with inadequate transportation?
Home visits to avoid client having to
travel
16%
Subsidizes a portion of client's
transportation
29%
Provides transportation for clients
16%
Pays for client's transportation
20%
19%
Other
What day(s) of the week would your client be most likely to use a
transportation service?
Monday
6%
6%
Tuesday
16%
Wednesday
9%
16%
15%
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
16%
16%
Sunday
Unsure/Not Applicable
132
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
What time of day would your client be most likely to use a trasnportation
service?
6 am to 9 am
1%
9 am to 12 noon
9% 10%
8%
12 noon to 4 pm
25%
4 pm to 7 pm
21%
7 pm to 10 pm
10 pm to 6 am
26%
Unsure/Not Applicable
How much would you estimate your clients be willing to pay for a
transportation service each way?
3%
Less than $3.00
13%
$3.01 - $5.00
5%
$5.01 - $7.00
51%
More than $7.01
28%
Other
Importance of: Service from home to work
40
36
35
30
25
25
20
15
10
11
10
6
5
0
1 - Not important
September 4, 2015
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
133
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Importance of: Flexibility of service
60
53
50
40
26
30
20
10
9
2
1
0
1 - Not important
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
Importance of: Evening service
33
35
30
25
22
19
20
15
10
5
7
4
0
1 - Not important
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
Importance of: Late night service
30
25
26
21
20
16
15
12
10
10
5
0
1 - Not important
134
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Importance of: Weekend service
30
27
25
27
20
20
15
11
10
5
2
0
1 - Not important
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
Importance of: Guaranteed ride home
80
67
70
60
50
40
30
16
20
10
3
1
1 - Not important
2 - Somewhat
important
1
0
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
Importance of: Very few stops
40
36
35
30
23
25
20
15
13
10
10
3
5
0
1 - Not important
September 4, 2015
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
135
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Importance of: Clear fare structure
60
52
50
40
30
24
20
10
8
3
0
0
1 - Not important
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
Importance of: Easy to arrange
70
60
60
50
40
30
22
20
10
2
5
1
0
1 - Not important
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
Importance of: Same day scheduling
40
35
35
31
30
25
20
14
15
10
5
2
5
0
1 - Not important
136
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Importance of: Wheelchair accessibility
30
27
24
25
20
20
15
10
10
6
5
0
1 - Not important
September 4, 2015
2 - Somewhat
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
N/A
137
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
138
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Appendix 7
Promotional Materials for Transportation Needs Assessment
September 4, 2015
139
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
140
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
141
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
142
September 4, 2015
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
September 4, 2015
143
Transportation Needs Assessment
Leeds & Grenville
Reference List
Dillon Consulting. 2014. Towards Coordinated Rural Transportation: A Resource Document.
Prepared for the Rural Ontario Institute.
Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition Rural Transportation. 2014. Accelerating Rural
Transportation Solutions: Ten Community Case Studies from Ontario.
Statistics Canada. 2012. Leeds and Grenville, Ontario (Code 3507) and Ontario (Code 35)
(table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa.
Released October 24, 2012. <http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dppd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E>
United Counties of Leeds & Grenville. 2015. Discover Leeds Grenville.
<http://www.leedsgrenville.com/en/visit/discoverleedsgrenville/DiscoverLeedsGrenville.asp>
United Counties of Leeds & Grenville. 2015. Major Employers.
<http://www.leedsgrenville.com/en/invest/profile/majoremployers.asp>
144
September 4, 2015