HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 02.09.2016 Workshop
Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 9, 2016
The Georgetown City Council will meet on February 9, 2016 at 3:00 PM at Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th
St., Georgetown, Texas
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Policy Development/Review Workshop -
A Presentation and introduction of the Georgetown Commission on Aging -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief
B Presentation and discussion of Georgetown's Cultural District -- Eric P. Lashley, Library Services
Director
C Presentation and discussion of transit service options developed through the Georgetown Transit
Development Plan -- Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst and Jim Briggs, General Manager of
Utilities
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular
session.
D Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- Negotiations with the County and other cities regarding health district services
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City attorney recruitment
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Shelley Nowling, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that
this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to
the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2016, at
__________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled
time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 1 of 200
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
February 9, 2016
SUBJECT:
Presentation and introduction of the Georgetown Commission on Aging -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief
ITEM SUMMARY:
The purpose of this agenda item is to introduce the Commission on Aging (COA) board members to the City
Council.
In early 2015, the COA was formed and meet monthly to discuss issues pertaining to the aging members of
our community.
Dr. Tim O'Neil serves as Chairperson for the COA and will provide a brief presentation to the Council and
request feedback/direction.
The bylaws for the COA provide the following guidance and purpose:
a. Advising the City Council on the needs and status of seniors in the entire City and recommend ways in
which those needs may be met; and
b. Determine and assess existing resources in the City which may be utilized by seniors to meet their needs;
and
c. Evaluate and assess proposed programs, grants and other governmental activities which may impact
seniors; and
d. Encourage, promote, assist, and safeguard the rights and abilities of older adults throughout the
community to maintain maximum health, well-being, and independence; and
e. Serve as a liaison between the City Council and the community of senior citizens in matters of public
interest; and
f. Use available resources to inform senior citizens of community services in health, nutrition, recreation,
housing, transportation and safety; and
g. Receive input from the senior citizen community including input from other individuals and organizations
on issues relevant to the senior community; and
h. Act as liaison
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
John Sullivan, Fire Chief
ATTACHMENTS:
Bylaws
Presentation
CRC Grant
Page 2 of 200
Georgetown Commission on Aging
Established March 2015
Page 1 of 7
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
GEORGETOWN COMMISSION ON AGING
BYLAWS
ARTICLE I. NAME AND PURPOSE
Section 1.1. Name. Georgetown Commission on Aging (“Commission”).
Section 1.2. Purpose. The Board is established for the purpose of:
a. Advising the City Council on the needs and status of seniors in the entire
City and recommend ways in which those needs may be met; and
b. Determine and assess existing resources in the City which may be utilized
by seniors to meet their needs; and
c. Evaluate and assess proposed programs, grants and other governmental
activities which may impact seniors; and
d. Encourage, promote, assist, and safeguard the rights and abilities of older
adults throughout the community to maintain maximum health, well-
being, and independence; and
e. Serve as a liaison between the City Council and the community of senior
citizens in matters of public interest; and
f. Use available resources to inform senior citizens of community services in
health, nutrition, recreation, housing, transportation and safety; and
g. Receive input from the senior citizen community including input from
other individuals and organizations on issues relevant to the senior
community; and
h. Act as liaison for senior citizen issues to governmental and private
organizations.
See Ordinance Chapter 2.114.
ARTICLE II. MEMBERSHIP
Page 3 of 200
Georgetown Commission on Aging
Established March 2015
Page 2 of 7
Section 2.1. Number of Members. The Board will be comprised of nine (9) Members.
Section 2.2. Eligibility. Each Member shall reside in the City of Georgetown corporate
limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction. Members shall be selected, with attention paid to
socio-economic diversification, from the following categories:
1. Two members who are service providers to seniors;
2. One member who is a caregiver to seniors;
3. Three senior members including:
a. a senior living in assisted living; and
b. a senior living in an active-adult age-restricted community; and
c. a citizen-at-large senior citizen;
4. One member from the business community;
5. One member from the medical profession; and
6. One professor, preferably from Southwestern University, who shall be
encouraged to include student participation and interaction with the Board. If a
professor is not available, preference shall be given to a student.
If no qualified applicants are available, preference will be given to seniors to fill vacancies
on the Commission as citizen-at-large members in accordance with the Code of
Ordinances Chapter 2.36.
Section 2.3. Appointment of Board Members. Members of the Board shall be appointed
pursuant to and in accordance with the City Charter.
Section 2.4. Terms of Office. Generally, terms of office for each Member shall be two (2)
years. Generally, a Member may serve two (2) consecutive terms. Refer to Ordinance
Section 2.36.030A for additional provisions regarding terms of office.
Section 2.5. Vacancies. Vacancies that occur during a term shall be filled as soon as
reasonably possible and in the same manner as an appointment in accordance with the
City Charter. If possible, the Member shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled.
An appointment to fill a vacated term is not included as a term for purposes of counting
consecutive terms.
Section 2.6. Compensation and Expenditure of Funds. Members serve without
compensation. The Board and its Members have no authority to expend funds or to incur
or make an obligation on behalf of the City unless authorized and approved by the City
Council. Members may be reimbursed for expenses authorized and approved by the City
Council and the Board.
Page 4 of 200
Georgetown Commission on Aging
Established March 2015
Page 3 of 7
Section 2.7. Compliance with City Policy. Members will comply with City Ordinances,
Rules and Policies applicable to the Board and the Members, including but not limited to
Ethics Ordinance Chapter 2.20 and City Commissions, Committees and Boards Ordinance
Chapter 2.36.
Section 2.8. Removal. Any Member may be removed from their position on the Board
for any reason, or for no reason, by a majority vote of the City Council.
ARTICLE III. BOARD OFFICERS
Section 3.1. Officers. The Board Officers are Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman is recommended by the Mayor and the City Council shall approve the
recommendation by a vote of the majority of the Council during the annual appointment
process. Should the Mayor fail to recommend a Chairman for each board, committee, or
commission, and/or the Council fails to approve any Chairman recommended by the
Mayor, a majority of the Council plus one may approve appointment of a Chairman to
serve as Chairman without a recommendation of the Mayor. The other Board Officers are
elected by a majority vote of the Members at the first meeting after the annual
appointment process.
Section 3.2. Terms of Office for Board Officers. Board Officers serve for a term of one
year. In the event of vacancy in the office of Chairman, the Vice-Chairman shall serve as
Chairman until the City Council appoints a replacement Chairman. A vacancy in the
other offices shall be elected by majority vote of the Members at the next regularly
scheduled meeting, or as soon as reasonably practical for the unexpired term. If possible,
a Board Officer shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled.
Section 3.3. Duties.
a. The Chairman presides at Board meetings. The Chairman shall generally manage the
business of the Board. The Chairman shall perform the duties delegated to the
Chairman by the Board.
b. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties delegated to the Vice-Chairman by the
Board. The Vice-Chairman presides at Board meetings in the Chairman’s absence. The
Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties of the Chairman in the Chairman’s absence or
disability.
Page 5 of 200
Georgetown Commission on Aging
Established March 2015
Page 4 of 7
c. The Secretary shall perform the duties delegated to the Secretary by the Board.
ARTICLE IV. MEETINGS
Section 4.1. Time and Date of Regular Meeting. The Board shall meet once a month on
the same week of the month, the same day of the week, at the same time, and at the same
place. The regular date, time and place of the Board meeting will be decided by the
Members at the first meeting of the Board after the annual appointment process.
Section 4.2. Agenda. Items may be placed on the agenda by the Chairman, the City
Manager or designee, or at the request of a Member. The party (or individual) requesting
the agenda item will be responsible for preparing an agenda item cover sheet and for the
initial presentation at the meeting. Items included on the agenda must be submitted to the
Staff Liaison no later than one week before the Board meeting at which the agenda item
will be considered. Agenda packets for regular meetings will be provided to the Members
in advance of the scheduled Board meeting. Agenda packets will contain the posted
agenda, agenda item cover sheets, and written minutes of the last meeting.
Section 4.3. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman or by
three (3) Members.
Section 4.4. Quorum. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Members. A quorum
is required for the Board to convene a meeting and to conduct business at a meeting.
Section 4.5. Call to Order. Board meetings will be called to order by the Chairman or, if
absent, by the Vice-Chairman. In the absence of both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman,
the meeting shall be called to order by the Secretary, and a temporary Chairman shall be
elected to preside over the meeting.
Section 4.6. Conduct of Meeting. Board meetings will be conducted in accordance with
these Bylaws and City Council Meeting Rules and Procedures, as applicable to the Board.
See Ordinance Chapter 2.24.
Section 4.7. Voting. Each Member shall vote on all agenda items, except on matters
involving a conflict of interest, substantial financial interest or substantial economic
interest under state law, the City’s Ethics Ordinance, or other applicable Laws, Rules and
Policies. In such instances the Member shall make the required disclosures and shall
refrain from participating in both the discussion and vote on the matter. The Member may
remain at the dais or leave the dais, at the Member’s option, while the matter is being
Page 6 of 200
Georgetown Commission on Aging
Established March 2015
Page 5 of 7
considered and voted on by the other Board Members. Unless otherwise provided by law,
if a quorum is present, an agenda item must be approved by a majority of the Board
Members present at the meeting.
Section 4.8. Minutes. A recording or written minutes shall be made of all open sessions
of Board meetings. The Staff Liaison is the custodian of all Board records and documents.
Section 4.9. Attendance. Members are required to attend Board meetings prepared to
discuss the issues on the agenda. A Member shall notify the Chairman and the Staff
Liaison if the Member is unable to attend a meeting. Excessive absenteeism will be subject
to action under Council policy and may result in the Member being replaced on the Board.
See Ordinance Section 2.36.010D. Excessive absenteeism means failure to attend at least
75% of regularly scheduled meetings, including Board meetings and Subcommittee
meetings. If a Member is removed from the Board that position shall be considered vacant
and a new Member shall be appointed to the Board in accordance with Section 2.5 above.
Section 4.10. Public Participation. In accordance with City policy, the public is welcome
and invited to attend Board meetings and to speak on any item on the agenda. A person
wishing to address the Board must sign up to speak in accordance with the policy of the
Council concerning participation and general public comment at public meetings. Sign-up
sheets will be available and should be submitted to the Chairman prior to the start of the
meeting. If any written materials are to be provided to the Board, a copy shall also be
provided to the Staff Liaison for inclusion in the minutes of the meeting. Speakers shall be
allowed a maximum of three minutes to speak, but may take up to six minutes if another
individual who signs up to speak yields the time to the speaker. If a person wishes to
speak on an issue that is not posted on the agenda, they must file a written request with
the Staff Liaison no later than one week before the scheduled meeting. The written
request must state the specific topic to be addressed and include sufficient information to
inform the Board and the public. A person who disrupts the meeting may be asked to
leave and be removed.
Section 4.11. Open Meetings. Public notice of Board meetings shall be provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. All Board meetings and
deliberations shall be open to the public, except for properly noticed closed session
matters, and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open
Meetings Act.
Section 4.12. Closed Sessions. The Board may conduct closed sessions as allowed by law,
on properly noticed closed session matters, such as consultation with attorney on legal
Page 7 of 200
Georgetown Commission on Aging
Established March 2015
Page 6 of 7
matters, deliberation regarding the value of real property, competitive utility matters, and
economic development negotiations. A recording or certified agenda shall be made of all
closed sessions of Board meetings.
ARTICLE V. REPORTS TO CITY COUNCIL
The Board shall meet with City Council, as requested, to determine how the Board may
best serve and assist City Council. City Council shall hear reports from the Board at
regularly scheduled Council meetings.
ARTICLE VI. SUBCOMMITTEES
Section 6.1. Formation. When deemed necessary by a majority of the Board,
Subcommittees may be formed for specific projects related to Board matters.
Subcommittees comprised of non-Members may only be formed with the prior consent
and confirmation of the City Council.
Section 6.2. Expenditure of Funds. No Subcommittee, or member of a Subcommittee,
has the authority to expend funds or incur an obligation on behalf of the City or the Board.
Subcommittee expenses may be reimbursed if authorized and approved by the Board or
by City Council.
Section 6.3. Open Meetings. Subcommittee meetings and deliberations shall be open to
the public, except for properly noticed closed session matters, and shall be conducted in
accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
ARTICLE VII. BYLAW AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be amended by majority vote of the Board Members at any regular
meeting of the Board. The Board’s proposed amendments to the Bylaws must be
approved by City Council at the next Council meeting after the Board’s approval. Bylaw
amendments are not effective until approved by City Council.
Approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of
____________________, 2015.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Page 8 of 200
Georgetown Commission on Aging
Established March 2015
Page 7 of 7
_____ _____
City Secretary Mayor
Approved and adopted at a meeting of the Board on the ______ day of _________________,
2015.
ATTEST: BOARD
_____ _____
Board Secretary Board Chairman
Page 9 of 200
Commission on Aging
Update for City Council
February 9, 2016
Page 10 of 200
Who we are
Tim O’Neill (Chair) – Professor, Southwestern
Dan Bonner (Vice Chair) – VP Emeritus, Wesleyan
Virginia Hahn – HR Director, retired
Gene Jantzen – Realtor
Virginia Lazenby – Cert. Sr. Housing Professional
Donna Livingston – Former Social Worker
Patricia Strickland – Pharmacist / physician
Josephine Zamora – RN – Clinical Nurse Specialist
Vacant Position
Page 11 of 200
Commission Purpose
Advise City Council on senior needs
Assess existing resources
Recommend ways to meet needs
Evaluate proposed programs impacting seniors
Safeguard rights / abilities of seniors to maintain health and
independence
Serve as liaison between City Council and seniors
Use available resources to inform seniors of services
Act as liaison for senior issues to government and private
organizations
----From original Commission Bylaws
Page 12 of 200
Urgency of Senior Issues
2014 G’twn population est. ---- 59,102
G’twn % population growth 2010 – 2014 ---- 24.5%
G’twn % population growth 2015 – 2030 ---- 60.0%
65 and older ---- 15,188 (25.7%)
Est. 65+ seniors by 2030 ---- 28,970 (30.0%)
2014 est. % of seniors > 80 ---- 2,186 ( 3.7%)
2030 est. % of seniors > 80 ---- 5,215 ( 5.4%)
*From various US Census Bureau and City reports
Page 13 of 200
Commission Update
(since April 2015 launch)
Meet monthly
Reviewed results of 2011 AdvantAge Initiative
Community Survey in Georgetown
10% of all seniors completed the survey
Top 2 issues: transportation, dental care
Researched 2011 issues raised: transportation options,
dental care issues, current senior housing options,
adult day care, organizations delivering senior services,
churches as a resource
Invited representatives from senior focused
organizations to meet with us
11 organizations so far
Page 14 of 200
Key Findings
Transportation – is critical for aging seniors
Dental care – important for health, very costly
Senior housing – many have stopped adding to waiting lists
Hispanic population - underrepresented in 2011 survey
Recent (2015) G’twn Health Foundation Survey of southeast
Georgetown found same three priorities of transportation, dental care,
and affordable housing among this group
Many seniors are not aware of various ongoing senior initiatives:
Family Eldercare
Capital Area Council – Aging and Disability Resource Center
Meals on Wheels
Faith in Action
Page 15 of 200
Preliminary Recommendations
Launch Senior Survey in southeast Georgetown
Find ways to expand and support transportation services
of Faith in Action
Explore ways to encourage and promote the expansion of
Lone Star Circle of Care dental services for seniors
Partner with Housing Advisory Board:
To explore affordable housing for seniors
To assure that seniors aren’t overlooked in affordable housing
initiatives
Encourage / facilitate volunteer initiatives (like the Virtual
Village concept) for seniors helping seniors
Page 16 of 200
Texas State Library and Archives
Commission – Special Projects Grant
$75,000 per year – can re-apply two additional years – no matching funds
required
Position – Community Resources Coordinator
Coordinator would partner with area nonprofits, governmental agencies,
City departments, and faith based organizations to assist residents in
finding needed social services
Target population – seniors, individuals with limited mobility, and low
income children
2011 Advantage Initiative Community Survey and the 2015 Georgetown
Health Foundation’s Southeast Georgetown Needs Assessment
documented the need for a Community Resources Coordinator
Page 17 of 200
Texas State Library and Archives
Commission – Special Projects Grant
Grant Deadline – March 11, 2016
Award Notification – June 2016
Funding available – September 1, 2016
Georgetown Health Foundation has indicated an
interest in this project and may be able to help with
funding after the grant period
Agenda Item – February 23, 2016
Questions
Page 18 of 200
Additional Note
We strongly support the Georgetown
Library grant request for a Community
Resources Coordinator
Page 19 of 200
Next Steps
Launch southeast Aging Survey by early FY 2017
Partner NOW with new Faith in Action Director to see
how we can support their work
Continue to explore options for expanded dental care
for indigent seniors
Explore the emerging issue of senior homelessness
Continue our data collection by meeting with relevant
local organizations
Page 20 of 200
What we need from you
Your help with outreach to Hispanic community
Your directive to enable us to work with Georgetown
Health Foundation and Georgetown Advisory Board
Recommendations for sources of funding to support
the modest cost of targeted senior survey
Confirmation that we are on-target with your
expectations
Page 21 of 200
Questions?
Page 22 of 200
Texas State Library and Archives Commission
Special Projects Grant
Application Due Date: Friday, March 11, 2016
The Texas State Library and Archives Commission uses federal funding from the Institute of Museum and
Library Services to fund libraries that have special projects that target populations with special needs.
In the past, the Georgetown Public Library has been award 3 years of funding for our bookmobile service
through the Texas State Library and Archives Commission’s Special Projects grant.
The goal of the Georgetown Public Library is to secure a grant of $75,000 to hire and equip a Community
Resources Coordinator to partner with area nonprofit organizations to serve seniors, residents with
limited mobility, and low income families. A mission of the Georgetown Public Library is to provide open
and equal access to information. Both the 2011 Advantage Initiative Community Survey in Georgetown
report and the 2015 Georgetown Health Foundation’s Southeast Georgetown Needs Assessment call for
a position such as the Community Resources Coordinator to coordinate information between nonprofit
organizations and the community.
The proposed Community Resources Coordinator would partner with key nonprofit organizations
(Caring Place, Georgetown Project, Georgetown Health Foundation, Family Eldercare, Loan Star Circle of
Care, and Williamson County Health Department) to guide residents to needed services. The library’s
facilities could be used to host community outreach events.
Georgetown’s senior population is projected to continue to grow in the next 10 years. Georgetown has
one of the highest percentage of seniors in the State of Texas. With a large senior population, the City
will see an increase in the number of disabled residents. As residents age, there will be greater needs in
the community for social services and the library is in a unique position to help provided specialized
information to these residents.
Timeline:
March 11, 2016 – Applications due to Texas State Library and Archives Commission
April/May – Application packets evaluated by Grant Review Panel
June 2016 - Applicants notified of Grant Review Panel recommendations
August 2016 - Commission meets and approves projects; Contracts issued
September 1, 2016 - Projects begin
August 31, 2017 - Projects end
If we are fortunate enough to receive this grant in September 2016, there is a very good chance we will
receive the grant two additional years.
Page 23 of 200
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
February 9, 2016
SUBJECT:
Presentation and discussion of Georgetown's Cultural District -- Eric P. Lashley, Library Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Presentation and discussion on the state of the City's cultural district and plans for the expansion of artistic
activities on the second floor of the Georgetown Art Center.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Lawren Weiss
Page 24 of 200
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
February 9, 2016
SUBJECT:
Presentation and discussion of transit service options developed through the Georgetown Transit
Development Plan -- Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
Capital Metro is an authorized recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding under the
Urbanized Area Funding program. In November 2014, the City of Georgetown and Capital Metro entered
into an agreement to complete a Transit Development Plan (TDP), as required by Capital Metro’s Service
Expansion Policy.
The Transit Development Plan (TDP) provides a framework for the development of a fixed route bus system
that serves transit needs within the city limits and connects to existing and future regional transit options.
The technical findings and report from the Georgetown TDP were completed in May 2015, within the
timeframe stipulated by Capital Metro’s Service Expansion Policy.
Staff will provide a review of service implementation options and seek Council direction on the appropriate
level of transit service offered by the City of Georgetown.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Service and system finance planning considerations have implications for FY17.
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, PMP®
ATTACHMENTS:
Georgetown TDP Final Report
Service Option Presentation
Page 25 of 200
City of Georgetown
Transit Development Plan
Final Report
June 2015
Page 26 of 200
Page 27 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report i
Table of Contents
ES Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ES‐1
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 City of Georgetown Overview .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Goals, Objectives, and Service Standards ....................................................................................... 5
2.1 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Service Design and Performance Indicators and Standards ............................................................ 6
3.0 Public Involvement and Outreach .................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Public Meetings ................................................................................................................................ 9
Public Meeting #1 ............................................................................................................. 9 3.1.1
Public Meeting #2 ........................................................................................................... 10 3.1.2
3.2 Public Intercept Surveys ................................................................................................................ 11
Georgetown Christmas Stroll Intercept Survey .............................................................. 11 3.2.1
Georgetown Public Library Intercept Survey .................................................................. 13 3.2.2
3.3 Online Survey ................................................................................................................................. 14
3.4 Stakeholder Interviews .................................................................................................................. 14
4.0 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 City Overview ................................................................................................................................. 17
4.2 Demographics ................................................................................................................................ 17
Population Density .......................................................................................................... 17 4.2.1
Employment Density ....................................................................................................... 17 4.2.2
Population Over 65 Years of Age .................................................................................... 20 4.2.3
Population Under 18 Years of Age .................................................................................. 20 4.2.4
Zero‐Car Households ....................................................................................................... 20 4.2.5
Median Income ............................................................................................................... 20 4.2.6
4.3 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................ 25 4.3.1
Future Land Use .............................................................................................................. 27 4.3.2
4.4 Existing Transit Services in Georgetown ........................................................................................ 29
CARTS SERVICE ................................................................................................................ 29 4.4.1
Commuter Rail Service .................................................................................................... 29 4.4.2
Greyhound Bus Service ................................................................................................... 30 4.4.3
Amtrak Rail Service ......................................................................................................... 30 4.4.4
Non‐Profit Services ......................................................................................................... 30 4.4.5
Taxi and Other Demand‐Response Car Services ............................................................. 31 4.4.6
Agency/Facility‐Specific Shuttle Services ........................................................................ 31 4.4.7
4.5 Review of Relevant Plans ............................................................................................................... 31
Regional Plans ................................................................................................................. 31 4.5.1
Local Plans ....................................................................................................................... 37 4.5.2
5.0 Transit Service Performance ........................................................................................................ 45
5.1 CARTS Demand‐Response Service Statistics .................................................................................. 45
Page 28 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report ii
Overview ......................................................................................................................... 45 5.1.1
Performance Indicators ................................................................................................... 47 5.1.2
6.0 Service and Operations Plan ........................................................................................................ 49
6.1 Fixed Route Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 49
Service and Operations Plan ........................................................................................... 49 6.1.1
Service Characteristics .................................................................................................... 49 6.1.2
Route by Route Overview ............................................................................................... 51 6.1.3
6.2 Service Plan Operations ................................................................................................................. 63
Route Interlining and Timed Transfers ........................................................................... 63 6.2.1
Capital Plan ..................................................................................................................... 66 6.2.2
Marketing Plan ................................................................................................................ 67 6.2.3
Service Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 68 6.2.4
6.3 Management Options .................................................................................................................... 70
Direct (City Management and Operation) ...................................................................... 70 6.3.1
Contract Management .................................................................................................... 70 6.3.2
6.4 Financial Plan ................................................................................................................................. 70
FTA Section 5307 Funding ............................................................................................... 70 6.4.1
Operating Costs ............................................................................................................... 71 6.4.2
Page 29 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report iii
List of Figures
Figure ES‐1: Georgetown City Limits (2014) ............................................................................................ ES‐2
Figure ES‐2: Project Connect: North Corridor Study LPA ......................................................................... ES‐7
Figure ES‐3: Proposed Georgetown System Map .................................................................................. ES‐10
Figure 1: Georgetown City Limits (2014) ...................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Central Georgetown ....................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Number of Christmas Stroll Respondents That Would Use Transit ............................................. 12
Figure 4: Existing Transportation Habits of Public Library Respondents .................................................... 13
Figure 5: Number of Public Library Respondents That Would Use Transit ................................................ 14
Figure 6: Population Density (2013) ........................................................................................................... 18
Figure 7: Employment Density (2013) ........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 8: Percent of Population Age 65 and Older (2013) .......................................................................... 21
Figure 9: Percent of Population Under Age 18 (2013) ................................................................................ 22
Figure 10: Percent of Driving ‐Age Population with Zero Car Availability (2013) ....................................... 23
Figure 11: Median Income (2013) ............................................................................................................... 24
Figure 12: Existing Land Uses in the City of Georgetown ........................................................................... 26
Figure 13: Future Land Use Plan for the City of Georgetown ..................................................................... 28
Figure 14: Georgetown’s Relative Location to Capital Metro Leander MetroRail Station ......................... 30
Figure 15: Extent of Project Connect North Corridor ................................................................................. 33
Figure 16: Project Connect: North Corridor Study LPA ............................................................................... 34
Figure 17: Lone Star Rail Project ................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 18: CARTS Passengers for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014) ........................... 46
Figure 19: Annual Revenue Miles for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014) .................... 46
Figure 20: Annual Revenue Hours for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014) ................... 47
Figure 21: Passengers per Revenue Mile for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014) ......... 48
Figure 22: Passengers per Revenue Hour for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014) ........ 48
Figure 23: Proposed Georgetown System Map .......................................................................................... 50
Figure 24: Proposed Route 1 – Eastside/Southwestern University ............................................................ 52
Figure 25: Proposed Route 2 – Wolf Ranch Parkway .................................................................................. 54
Figure 26: Proposed Route 3 – Hospital/Leander Road .............................................................................. 56
Figure 27: Proposed Route 4 – Austin Avenue/Williams Drive .................................................................. 58
Figure 28: Proposed Route 5 – Sun City/Williams Drive ............................................................................. 60
Figure 29: Proposed Special Event Circulator (Future) ............................................................................... 62
Figure 30: MV‐1 Vehicle .............................................................................................................................. 67
Page 30 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report iv
List of Tables
Table ES‐1: Capital Unit Costs ................................................................................................................ ES‐12
Table ES‐2: Financial Plan Based on the Contractor Providing Vehicles ................................................ ES‐16
Table ES‐3: Financial Plan Based on the City of Georgetown Providing Vehicles .................................. ES‐17
Table 1: 2014 Land Use within Georgetown City Limits ............................................................................. 25
Table 2: Future Land Use within Georgetown City Limits and ETJ ............................................................. 27
Table 3: CARTS Georgetown Service Characteristics .................................................................................. 45
Table 4: Productivity Report for CARTS Demand‐Response Service .......................................................... 45
Table 5: CARTS Georgetown Performance Indicators ................................................................................ 47
Table 6: Route Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 63
Table 7: Route Interlining and Transfers at the Downtown Transfer Center – Weekdays ......................... 64
Table 8: Proposed Fixed Route Operations Plan – Weekday ...................................................................... 64
Table 9: Proposed Fixed Route Operations Plan – Saturday ...................................................................... 64
Table 10: Peer City Farebox Recovery Rates ............................................................................................... 66
Table 11: Capital Unit Costs ........................................................................................................................ 67
Table 12: Financial Plan Based on the Contractor Providing Vehicles ........................................................ 72
Table 13: Financial Plan Based on the City of Georgetown Providing Vehicles .......................................... 73
Page 31 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐1
ES Executive Summary
ES.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study is to develop a local transit plan for the City of Georgetown that would serve
transit needs within the city limits and connect to existing and future regional transit options to form a
regional transit network that would improve mobility, improve the region’s environmental and
economic sustainability, and slow the increase of congestion on roadways. Capital Metro and the city
have undertaken this study to assist Georgetown in realizing its public transit goals and to help advance
regional goals for transit expansion.
Capital Metro’s Project Connect North Corridor Plan is a driving force behind the transit development
plan for the City of Georgetown. Project Connect is a plan to expand transit service outside the existing
service area to improve regional mobility. The North Corridor Plan of Project Connect includes express
bus service to Georgetown from downtown Austin. It is the intent of this local transit plan to
recommend service that serves Georgetown’s transit needs that also complement the regional
connections in Project Connect.
The city, as illustrated in Figure ES‐1 is a northern suburb of Austin with a 2010 population of 47,400 and
a 2013 U.S. Census Bureau estimated population of 54,898. The San Gabriel River goes through the core
of the city, forming the northern edge of the downtown area. Although the city is growing, it retains a
small‐town feel, especially in the central core of the city. The well‐maintained and active downtown
area and historic square, located just east of IH 35, are a source of pride for the city. Southwestern
University, a small, private liberal arts institution established in 1840, forms the eastern boundary of the
downtown area and plays a role in the history and culture of the city.
A more recent significant influence on the culture of the city is the growing senior population. With the
development of Sun City Texas (originally named Sun City Georgetown) in 1995, as well as other active‐
adult communities, there is a large senior population in the city. This creates unique circumstances and
challenges for the city, especially as the once active seniors age and become less independent, less
mobile, and more in need of a variety of social services, including public transportation.
Georgetown has a small number of large employers. The major employers in the city (and number of
employees from the spring of 2014) are Southwestern University (514), AirBorn, Inc. (462), and St.
David’s Georgetown Hospital (453). While there is a large employment base north of Austin, much of it
is located in communities south of Georgetown. It should also be noted that Williamson County
Government (1582), Georgetown Independent School District (1550), and the City of Georgetown (532)
top the list; however, these employers have employees in multiple locations across the city.
Page 32 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐2
Figure ES‐1: Georgetown City Limits (2014)
Source: URS, 2015.
ES.2 Goals of the Plan
Transit system performance must be measured based on goals and standards that reflect the operating
environment and values of the community it serves. The goals and objectives recommended for the City
of Georgetown were created to establish a baseline. These measures are meant to be a starting point
for Georgetown and Capital Metro to build on and further develop in the future. In order to make these
goals and objectives successful, Georgetown will need to establish performance measures and begin
tracking and monitoring service performance.
Page 33 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐3
The project team developed goals, objectives, and strategies for the transit development plan. Below
are the goals of the plan (objectives and strategies of the plan are outlined in Section 2 of the full
report).
Goal 1: Provide a safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible transportation option for residents and
visitors of Georgetown
Goal 2: Adequately address the mobility needs of Georgetown residents
Goal 3: Maximize resource utilization and operational efficiency with respect to system
administration and operations
Goal 4: Develop a local system that operates effectively in the short‐term, continues to develop
an audience for regional transit options in the mid‐term, and will connect the local community
to the region in the long‐term
ES.3 Public Involvement and Outreach
Public input played a prominent role in the development of the Georgetown Transit Development Plan.
Capital Metro and the City of Georgetown used a combination of public meetings, public intercept
surveys (conducted at a local event and at the public library), an online survey, and stakeholder
interviews. In addition, Capital Metro and the City of Georgetown disseminated information through
their websites and social media accounts.
ES.3.1 Public Meetings
Two public meetings were held for the Georgetown Transit Development Plan. Both meetings were
advertised in the Williamson County Sun and through the City of Georgetown’s and Capital Metro’s
social media outlets.
Public Meeting #1
The first meeting, held January 22, 2015 was a combined open house with the Georgetown Sidewalk
Master Plan project held at McCoy Elementary School in Georgetown. Twenty‐five people attended the
open‐house, which included several maps and visual aids to introduce the project to the public. The
consultant team informally engaged attendees and provided a project overview, answered questions
and solicited feedback. A representative from Capital Metro was also in attendance to discuss the
project and its relationship to the regional expansion efforts of Capital Metro.
Public Meeting #2
The second public meeting was held from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the Georgetown Public Library on April 1,
2015. Thirty‐seven people attended the meeting. The meeting consisted of an open house and
presentation. During the open house portion of the meeting, attendees had a chance to review project
information exhibits, ask questions of project team members and interact with elected officials from the
city. The presentation given at the meeting, as well as the sign‐in sheet from the meeting, are included
in Appendix B of this report.
ES.3.2 Public Intercept Surveys
The Project Team developed a written survey to solicit public input regarding transit in Georgetown.
Survey questions included current transportation habits and hypothetical future transit use.
Page 34 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐4
Georgetown Christmas Stroll Intercept Survey
Capital Metro and the City of Georgetown sponsored a booth at Downtown Georgetown’s annual
Christmas Stroll on the evening of December 5 and all day on December 6. The booth included materials
from Capital Metro about Project Connect and featured large maps of the local area. Project team
members staffing the booth interacted with individuals walking by the booth, which was in a central
location. Although most of the “strollers” were from Georgetown, the event also draws people from
Austin and other nearby towns and cities (e.g., Round Rock, Pflugerville). This event offered a good
opportunity to interact with large crowds of people in a casual setting. Twenty‐five people signed in at
the booth, 28 people filled out surveys, and a number of other people stopped by to chat over the
course of the two‐day event. The individuals who completed surveys represented a mix of students,
young families, and working and retired individuals ranging in age from their twenties to early sixties.
Georgetown Public Library Intercept Survey
An intercept survey was conducted inside the foyer of the Georgetown Public Library on February 11,
2015, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The late afternoon timing was chosen in order to have the potential
to encounter a variety of people, including students, families, working individuals, and retired
individuals. Three members of the Project Team engaged with passers‐by to request feedback regarding
transit in Georgetown. Twenty‐five surveys were completed during this intercept survey event.
ES.3.3 Online Survey
The Project Team developed an online survey and uploaded the survey to the City of Georgetown
website on April 13, 2015. The survey included questions pertaining to the proposed route network,
transit priorities, and transit preferences. Results from the survey will be used by the city to help guide
transit development decisions during this project and any future planning projects related to the
development or expansion of public transportation in the City of Georgetown.
ES.3.4 Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholders were identified by City of Georgetown Planning staff, Capital Metro staff, and consultant
staff. The primary purpose of the stakeholder interviews was to identify community transit needs,
preferences, and potential markets. Ten organizations were interviewed during the first quarter of 2015
including, Boys & Girls Club of Georgetown, United Way of Williamson County, Southwestern University,
Sun City Texas Community Association, Georgetown Main Street, City of Round Rock, City of
Georgetown, Wolf Ranch Town Center, Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS), and
Georgetown Independent School District.
ES.4 Existing Conditions
ES.4.1 Existing Transit Services in Georgetown
CARTS SERVICE
CARTS buses operate from seven transit stations located throughout the CARTS service area in Central
Texas. Fixed‐route service is operated between the seven stations, and this service is available to anyone
in the service area. CARTS also provides “curb‐to‐curb” service, also known as demand‐response or on‐
call service, for mobility impaired individuals and individuals in need of special assistance in portions of
the CARTS service area. CARTS operates 60 mini‐buses and vans to provide fixed‐route and on‐call
services across Central Texas.
Page 35 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐5
Fixed‐Route Service in Georgetown – CARTS operates a fixed, interurban bus route between
Georgetown and Austin twice daily, Monday through Friday.
Curb‐to‐Curb Service in Georgetown – The CARTS Community Transit service provides on‐call
services within the CARTS service area. Passengers reserve rides by telephone or online with a
preferred 24‐hour advanced notice. The Community Transit service is offered Monday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Fares range from $2.00 to $6.00, depending on the zone of
the destination.
Medical Transit Service in Georgetown – CARTS provides non‐emergency medical
transportation services for Logisticare Solutions, LLC, a broker under contract to the Texas
Department of Health and Human Services to arrange transportation for eligible persons in the
CARTS District.
Commuter Rail Service
Capital Metro’s MetroRail provides rail service between Austin and Leander Monday through Friday in
the morning and evening peak periods. No mid‐day service is provided at Leander Station. On Saturdays,
MetroRail northbound service terminates at Lakeline Station, thus no service is available at Leander
Station. MetroRail does not operate on Sundays. Although the service does not operate in Georgetown,
the Leander Station is approximately 17 minutes west of downtown Georgetown by car.
ES.4.2 Review of Relevant Plans
The following plans include information for achieving multi‐modal planning objectives. The most
relevant plans are the Project Connect: North Corridor Plan, which acts as the system plan for the
Central Texas region. The Lone Star Rail Project proposes the implementation of commuter rail between
Georgetown, Austin, and San Antonio. The previous Georgetown Transit Development Plan provides a
starting point in terms of data and the vision of the city. Finally, the city has conducted biannual surveys
that show some of the transportation interests of the greater community.
Project Connect: North Corridor Plan
Project Connect was developed by the project partners in the Central Texas region to coordinate
transportation options. The Project Connect High‐Capacity Transit System Plan provides a framework for
moving forward with high‐capacity transit in Central Texas, with the goal of including the fiscally
constrained portions of the Project Connect System Plan in the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (CAMPO 2040) and implementing the components of
the plan as fiscally feasible. Project Connect is the vision for Central Texas’s high‐capacity transit system.
Linking activity centers within the fastest growing region in the country, Project Connect aims to connect
people, places, and opportunities in an easy, efficient way. The vision unites efforts to develop the best
solutions for getting around Central Texas and addressing regional growth challenges.
For the City of Georgetown, major elements of the plan (illustrated in Figure ES‐2) include:
Extending Capital Metro’s premium MetroRapid service to Round Rock and Georgetown
New express routes from Georgetown and Round Rock to leverage investments in the new
express lanes along MoPac
Lone Star Rail District’s commuter rail project from Georgetown through Austin to San Antonio
Using the MoKan Corridor from Pflugerville to downtown Austin as a dedicated busway with
limited stops, with future service extended to Georgetown
Utilizing Capital Metro’s Express and Connect bus services to provide transit options within the
Corridor
Page 36 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐6
CAMPO 2035 (and updated 2040)
The CAMPO 2035 plan is a long‐range plan that specifies a set of investments and strategies to maintain,
manage, and improve the surface transportation system in the five‐county region of Williamson, Travis,
Hays, Caldwell, and Bastrop Counties. CAMPO 2035 was the basis for the Project Connect System Plan.
The Project Connect team worked with CAMPO on the development of the Project Connect System Plan
to ensure that the fiscally constrained portions of the System Plan would then inform the planning
process for CAMPO 2040 which was officially adopted on May 11, 2015.
Lone Star Rail Project
The Lone Star Rail Project is the central element of the Lone Star Rail District (LSRD), which is an
independent public agency created in 2002. LSRD is governed by a board of directors made up of
representatives of member cities and counties, various planning and transit agencies, the business
community, and general public. Its planning area covers Williamson, Travis, Hays, Comal, and Bexar
Counties.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), and the
LSRD began an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed passenger rail line that would
travel along the IH 35 corridor connecting the greater Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas.
Agency and public scoping meetings were held in January 2015.
The Lone Star Regional Rail Project would provide regional passenger rail service connecting
communities along the IH 35 corridor between the metropolitan areas of Austin and San Antonio,
including the City of Georgetown. As currently envisioned, the project would span approximately 120
miles across member counties.
Page 37 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐7
Figure ES‐2: Project Connect: North Corridor Study LPA
Source: Capital Metro, 2014.
Page 38 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐8
2008 City of Georgetown Transit Plan
The City of Georgetown, in conjunction with the Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS), and
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), completed the Georgetown Fixed‐Route Action Plan.
The purpose of this effort was to design a fixed‐route transit service and implementation plan for the
City of Georgetown.
Bus service was proposed to operate using four buses on six routes. This service was to include four half‐
hour routes interlined (after completing one route, when the vehicle arrives at the transfer center it
would become a second route and would alternate between the two routes to reduce the need for
transfers). One route would have operated on a half schedule to serve the major shopping areas. This
would have served that route exclusively. The Sun City Route would have operated on a one‐hour
schedule using a single bus.
The six routes were projected to serve a total of about 112,000 annual trips the first year and 180,000
the third year. To operate the service, 9.5 full‐time equivalent driver positions were expected to be
required, costing about $965,000 to operate annually. Start‐up costs were projected at $633,000,
including $500,000 for buses and $85,000 for shelters as the two primary cost items. In 2008, it was
assumed that there were no federal funds available initially, and that operating costs would be picked
up by the City of Georgetown, federal/state funds, advertising/sponsorships, CARTS, and rider fares.
City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan (OTP)
The Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) was completed in February 2015 and is critical to the overall
development of the city as it guides future roadway improvements, construction of new facilities, and
outlines the city’s transportation goals. The adoption of the OTP sets forth long‐term capital planning
and financing considerations designed to ensure that basic transportation infrastructure needs and
right‐of‐way will be available as the city grows and network needs improvements. The OTP takes a
multi‐modal approach, including plans and policies for roadways, pedestrian and bicycle mobility, and
transit for a horizon year of 2035. Recommendations from the OTP include:
Development, adoption, and implementation of a bicycle master plan
Adoption and implementation of the Sidewalk Master Plan in 2015
Expansion of roadway capacity in the city limits and ETJ by 56 percent
Initiation of the process to develop a master transit plan
o Establishment of plan objectives
o Determination of transit service operation method (partner with adjacent communities or
keep service within Georgetown)
o Determination of funding availability
o Determination of transit connectivity needs, both locally and regionally
o Determination of the major transfer points
Other City Plans Evaluated
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit
Downtown Master Plan Update, Chapter 4 – Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation & Streetscape
Design
City of Round Rock Transit/Transportation Plans
City of Georgetown Citizen Surveys
Page 39 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐9
ES.5 Service and Operations Plan
Based on input from the public outreach process and the comprehensive data analysis tasks, the project
team developed recommendations for service and financial plans. The proposed fixed route transit
system would serve many local destinations radiating from a centralized transfer center providing
transit service within the City of Georgetown. A five route transit system was identified to provide a
foundation of local service for the city. The routes were developed to link as many local origins and
destinations as possible while keeping route lengths and running times reasonable. Service operation
assumptions include:
Operating each route on a 60‐minute frequency;
Development of a central transfer center; and
Complementary demand‐response Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service.
ES.5.1 Fixed‐Route Recommendations
Service and Operations Plan
The service plan is focused on serving key markets and activity centers while creating a bi‐directional
network of direct and simple routes that operate with a timed‐transfer for most routes in downtown
Georgetown. The proposed service will operate 60‐minute frequencies (also known as headways) all day
on the four core routes and for six hours per day to Sun City. Three buses are needed to operate the
fixed‐route system. In an effort to create one‐seat trips and crosstown routing, the routes will be
interlined or paired together. Key components of the plan are as follows:
Introduces bi‐directional linear routing in the north, south, west, and east sectors of the city
Proposes a Downtown Transfer Center in the vicinity of 9th Street, 8th Street, West Street and
Martin Luther King Street near the library and the future City Hall
Provides one‐seat rides from Southwestern University and the neighborhoods in the east to the
shopping in the west at Wolf Ranch and the Rivery area
Provides service from all areas of the city to downtown
Provides transit connections to the primary shopping centers and medical facilities
Proposes six day service, Monday to Saturday
Continues to provide connections to the CARTS Georgetown Station for regional service to
Round Rock and Austin
Provides complementary curb‐to‐curb paratransit service for seniors and persons with
disabilities
Provide a special events circulator to use as needed for the Christmas Stroll, the Red Poppy
Festival, and other events throughout the year
Service Characteristics
Figure ES‐3 illustrates the bus routes proposed in this Transit Development Plan. The following routes
are proposed for service in Georgetown:
Route 1 – Eastside/Southwestern University
Route 2 – Wolf Ranch Parkway
Route 3 – Hospital/Leander Road
Route 4 – Austin Avenue/Williams Drive
Route 5 – Sun City/Williams Drive
Special Events Circulator (Future)
Page 40 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐10
Figure ES‐3: Proposed Georgetown System Map
Page 41 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐11
ES.5.2 Service Plan Operations
Routes 1, 2, 3, and 4 will operate 12 revenue hours on weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with 60‐
minute headways on all routes. The round trip travel times on Routes 1, 2, 3, and 4 are between 23 and
25 minutes. Each route will have a minimum of five minutes for a layover at the transfer center.
Saturday service will operate 10 service hours from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with 60‐minute headways on
Routes 1 to 4. Route 5 to Sun City will operate weekdays only from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Route Interlining and Timed Transfers
The proposed system is designed to pair routes to provide one‐seat rides from one side of the service
area to the other. For example, Route 1 on the east side is interlined with Route 2 to Wolf Ranch
Parkway which connects the residential areas on Quail Valley to shopping at HEB and Wolf Ranch Town
Center. In addition, routes will be timed to arrive and depart the Downtown Transfer Center at
designated intervals to allow for timed‐transfers or a limited pulse. This means that every half hour at
least two of the routes will arrive at the transfer center at the same time allowing a five‐minute window
for transfers to occur. This alleviates the issue of having 30‐minute to 60‐minute wait times to transfer
between buses.
Revenue Hours
Weekday fixed‐route operations require 31 daily revenue hours for fixed‐route service. The four core
routes each operate with a total of 6.5 daily revenue hours and the Route 5 to Sun City operates with six
revenue hours. Saturday service requires 21 revenue hours due to the shorter span of service and
reduced number of routes. Route 5 only operates on weekdays.
Revenue Miles
The proposed weekday service plan will require 417.6 total daily revenue miles. The four core routes
range between 62 and 76 daily revenue miles. Route 5’s 139 daily revenue miles make up about 33
percent of the revenue miles for the system even though it only operates six hours per day. It is
recommended to cycle buses between each route in order to balance out the mileage and wear on the
vehicles over time.
The total revenue miles for Saturday is reduced by 45 percent (232 revenue miles) from weekday service
due to the reduction in revenue hours and that the Sun City route is a weekday only route.
Paratransit Service
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that all fixed‐route transit systems provide complementary
demand‐response service. ADA only requires that demand response services operate within a ¾ mile
service area of a fixed route. It is recommended to continue to operate an ADA‐only paratransit service
within the boundaries of the city.
The paratransit service will operate with two demand‐response buses 12 hours per day on weekdays
and 10 hours per day on Saturdays. The demand‐response system will operate 24 daily revenue hours
on weekdays. Paratransit service will be able to use the Route 5 bus when not in service between 6:30
a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Capital Plan
The primary capital investments for the system will relate to the procurement of vehicles and bus stop
infrastructure. Since the system is most likely to be contracted with a turnkey operator, support
infrastructure like a maintenance facility will not be necessary to initiate service. To begin the service, an
investment in bus stop signage and other amenities will be required and should be implemented in
Page 42 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐12
phases as the system matures. It was assumed that up to 100 signs with poles would be procured as well
as 20 benches and two shelters. While it is not expected all of this material would be installed right
away, these quantities allow the city to procure the material at a price that will reflect a decent volume.
The city may want to approach CMTA or other transit system for the opportunity to purchase shelters
since there are only two needed at this time. The shelters would be placed at the transfer center.
A key factor in understanding the vehicle needs of the system will be the details of the contract with the
service provider. These contracts can be structured in a number of ways depending on the full scope of
services to be provided. The determination on whether the contractor provides vehicles for the service
will dictate if or how many vehicles will be procured for the system. If vehicles are to be provided by the
contractor, then the city can expect to pay a higher unit cost for the service contract.
The system will need a total of five vehicles to begin revenue service. Three vehicles will be used for
fixed‐route service and two vehicles will be used for complementary paratransit. It is recommended that
the city’s fleet consist of four cutaway van vehicles (similar to the vehicles used by CARTS) and an MV‐1
vehicle. The MV‐1 would be used solely for paratransit while the cutaway vehicles can be used for either
fixed‐route or demand‐response service.
Table ES‐1 outlines capital needs for the system. It should be noted the vehicle costs may be deferred or
even eliminated depending on the service contract implemented.
Table ES‐1: Capital Unit Costs
Item Unit Cost* Number of Proposed
Units Total Cost
Flag Stop Signs/Poles $250 100 $25,000
Benches $600 20 $12,000
Shelters $2000 2 $4,000
Cutaway Van $100,000 0‐4 $0‐$400,000
MV‐1 $55,000 0‐1 $0‐$55,000
Source: URS, 2015.
* Bus stop amenity prices are retail prices through web search and may be reduced by purchasing through CMTA
or other procurement. Additionally, these prices do not include labor costs of installation.
Service Monitoring and Performance Standards
Service Monitoring
Transit systems have recurrent needs and requirements to collect and report a wide range of
information about operations and ridership. The continual compilation of data is essential for the
effective planning and management of transit services. Without detailed operations information, the
ability to effectively monitor and report system performance and subsequently revise services would be
severely impacted. Resource limitations frequently limit comprehensive service monitoring programs.
However, the information resulting from service monitoring is very important because fundamental
transit functions such as scheduling, service planning, maintenance, finance, and marketing require this
data for decision making and reporting.
Key considerations for establishing a service monitoring program include:
Identification of the data categories to be collected
Page 43 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐13
Methods and sources to be used in data collection
Procedures to be used to process and store the data
Evaluating and reporting the data in a meaningful and ongoing format
Determining where required reports should be transmitted
Ensuring required reports are properly transmitted
Program elements must be identified prior to the initiation of service as certain data must be recorded
on a daily basis. The City of Georgetown should work with Capital Metro to ensure the data is collected,
evaluated, and reported in an accurate and timely manner. In addition to compilation of statistical data,
periodic field observations of system operations and contract monitoring must also be regularly
undertaken.
Performance Indicators and Standards
Performance measures must be developed to address standards within the following categories of
efficiency, service quality, and service design.
These standards will be used to guide future service evaluation; set standards for future service changes,
and to ensure compliance with the ADA, Title VI, and other local, state, and federal requirements.
The City of Georgetown service performance indicators that will be used to monitor efficiency,
effectiveness, and productivity include:
Passengers per Revenue Hour: Total number of passengers divided by total number of revenue
service hours
Operating Cost per Revenue Hour: Calculated by dividing operating costs by the total number of
revenue (in service) hours
Operating Cost per Passenger: Total operating costs divided by total passengers (unlinked trips)
Cost Recovery prior to Subsidy (Farebox Recovery): Calculated by dividing the revenue from the
farebox by the total operating costs
Revenue to non‐revenue hour: Non‐revenue hours that include time for the operator to travel
between the bus yard and the scheduled starting point of the service
Specific standards for the above‐listed indicators will be agreed upon by the City of Georgetown and
Capital Metro during contract negotiations before revenue service is implemented.
Service quality standards help staff evaluate system performance pertaining to reliable and high quality
service which encourages ridership. The recommended service quality performance standards include
the following:
On‐time performance: Buses must arrive at the stop no later than five minutes from the
scheduled timepoint 90 percent of the time. To be considered on‐time, buses should also not
depart a timepoint prior to the time in the schedule.
Missed trips per month: No trips should be missed or cancelled for fixed route or demand
response. It is important to schedule appropriate operator spare board and to have adequate
vehicle spares to ensure reliable service.
Service to all ADA eligible customers within ¾ mile of a fixed route.
Implementation Plan
The following section outlines the recommended phased approach of the TDP.
Page 44 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐14
Year 0 – FY 2016 – Contracting and System Start‐up
Present Plan for adoption to Georgetown City Council.
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro finalize budget for service based on council priorities.
Maintain existing CARTS service during Year 0.
Set system start‐up date – Financial Plan (Section 6.4) assumes a start date of October 1, 2016
(beginning of federal fiscal year 2017) which matches the city’s fiscal year. However, service
could start as soon as January 1, 2016, depending on contracting terms, but would require
substantial changes to the financial plan.
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro enter into an agreement for service.
Develop Capital Plan.
Procure buses for service, if not included in Contractor service.
Procure bus stop amenities – stops, benches, and shelters.
Initiate marketing campaign to promote new service.
90 days before start‐up
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro coordinate outreach to the public about service and
implementation date.
Begin bus stop placement and transfer center implementation.
Year 1 – FY 2017 – Implementation
Implement new service.
Develop method for collecting feedback from clients – customer comments should be
documented by contractor for analysis by the city.
Prepare Title VI review to ensure that the level and quality of fixed‐route and demand‐response
services are provided in a non‐discriminatory manner.
Update and establish regular procedures for maintaining system goals, objectives, and strategies
based on first six months of service.
Provide annual TDP update to Capital Metro.
Year 2 – FY 2018
Conduct on‐board counts and rider survey – the survey would be most effective in the spring of
2018 to allow for 18 months from initial start‐up. Travel patterns and utilization by passengers
should be established by then.
Assess service for potential service improvements or changes for implementation at the
beginning of FY 19.
Begin to implement a more comprehensive passenger amenities program to optimize bus stops
and add benches and shelters as necessary.
Monitor fleet needs to plan for adequate inventory.
Incorporate any budgetary changes into city budget and service contract for FY 19.
Provide annual TDP update to Capital Metro.
90 days before October 1, 2018
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro coordinate outreach to the public about service changes,
if necessary.
Year 3 – FY 2019
Implement service improvements, if warranted.
Provide annual TDP update to Capital Metro.
Page 45 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐15
ES.5.3 Management Options
Direct (City Management and Operation)
The City of Georgetown would be responsible for the hiring of a transit management executive and all
necessary staff. Vehicles and equipment would be handled through a public procurement process.
Advantages associated with the direct option include full continuing control by the local jurisdiction over
the quality of transit operations. The city could incorporate standards of administration and
performance consistent with standards applicable to city employees. An additional benefit due to the
addition of mechanics, technicians, and vehicles would be the enhanced capacity of performing fleet
maintenance functions in‐house rather than externally. Expenses supporting profit and overhead due to
private‐sector management or operation would be foregone.
Potential disadvantages with the direct option include the challenges of hiring and retaining expert
personnel at satisfactory wage levels to oversee transit operations. Additionally, as public employees,
transit staff members such as operators are often unionized. The Direct option will require stringent
care to assure conformance with federal labor protection regulations and may pose additional
challenges for management when administering labor contracts. Finally, without strong performance
measures and guidelines for administration in place, day‐to‐day service decision making can become
highly susceptible to the political processes at the municipal government level.
Contract Management
This scenario involves the competitive selection of a firm/organization to manage the transit service.
The city may own and maintain the equipment, facility, and vehicles and would hire the labor to support
the transit service. A transit management firm or CARTS would have access to experienced and
specialized personnel that is needed often, but may be too expensive for the city to retain directly and
sustain year‐round. The city and/or Capital Metro would maintain control, but unlike the direct option
management expertise can be competitively procured from the contractor as needed on a contract
basis. In addition to potential cost‐effectiveness gains relative to the direct option, transit management
firms can be highly experienced in pooling resources to respond to a host of matters relating to
intergovernmental reporting and compliance, service promotion, labor, and operations, and may exceed
the responsiveness capacities of city staff.
ES.5.4 Financial Plan
A five‐year financial plan was developed for the system based on the capital needs, operating plan, and
an assumed start date of October 1, 2016 (beginning of FY 2017). This start date will allow the city
adequate time to negotiate a contract with a service provider, procure vehicles (if necessary) and
assemble federal funds. Table ES‐2 illustrates the funding levels required for the system if the contractor
provides the vehicles. Table ES‐3 shows a financial plan based on the City providing vehicles. Plans
include the continuation of existing CARTS service paid for by the city for FY 16. The system
contemplated in this plan is presumed to be replacing the CARTS service in FY 17. Key aspects of the
financial plan are:
The plan assumes 10% farebox recovery.
Negotiating a contract where the contractor provides the vehicles will allow the city to pool
5307 funds from FY 16 and use them for operating costs in FY 17.
Conversely, if the city procures the vehicles, then the annual amounts of local funding are more
consistent from year to year.
The unit costs for operating in the proposed financial plan are not negotiated prices.
Page 46 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐16
Table ES‐2: Financial Plan Based on the Contractor Providing Vehicles
Operating Plan Peak
Vehicles Hours/Day Rev Hours
Daily Annualized Days
Route 1&2 – Weekday 1 13 13 3,263 251 $244,725
Route 1&2 – Saturday 1 11 11 605 55 $45,375
Route 3&4 – Weekday 1 13 13 3,263 251 $244,725
Route 3&4 – Saturday 1 11 11 605 55 $45,375
Sun City/Paratransit 1 6 6 1,506 251 $112,950
Special Event 2 6 12 264 22 $19,800
9,506
Paratransit 1 12 6 1,848 308 $138,600
Fixed Route $/Rev hour $/Rev Hour Paratransit
Operating cost/year $75 $851,550 $75
Revenues FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
5307 $251,091 $316,282 $251,091 $251,091 $251,091
Capital $20,000 $12,800 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
O&M $165,900 $303,482 $251,091 $251,091 $251,091
Other Sources
Local Funding $170,900 $466,113 $534,464 $554,103 $574,233
Total Revenue $356,800 $782,395 $785,555 $805,194 $825,324
Expenses
Buses $‐
MV‐1 $‐
Bus Updates $‐
Stop Amenities $25,000 $16,000
Capital Total $25,000 $16,000 $ ‐$ ‐ $ ‐
Operating $331,800 $851,550 $872,839 $894,660 $917,026
Fares $ (85,155)$ (87,284)$ (89,466) $ (91,703)
Operating Total $331,800 $766,395 $785,555 $805,194 $825,324
Total Expense $356,800 $782,395 $785,555 $805,194 $825,324
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 47 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐17
Table ES‐3: Financial Plan Based on the City of Georgetown Providing Vehicles
Operating Plan Peak
Vehicles Hours/Day Rev Hours
Daily Annualized Days
Route 1&2 – Weekday 1 13 13 3,263 251 $212,095
Route 1&2 – Saturday 1 11 11 605 55 $39,325
Route 3&4 – Weekday 1 13 13 3,263 251 $212,095
Route 3&4 – Saturday 1 11 11 605 55 $39,325
Sun City/Paratransit 1 6 6 1,506 251 $97,890
Special Event 2 6 12 264 22 $17,160
9,506
Paratransit 1 12 6 1,848 308 $120,120
Fixed Route $/Rev hour $/Rev Hour Paratransit
Operating cost/year $65 $738,010 $65
Revenues FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
5307 $251,091 $251,091 $251,091 $276,200 $276,200
Capital $236,000 $12,800 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
O&M $15,091 $238,291 $251,091 $276,200 $276,200
Other Sources
Local Funding $373,069 $429,118 $429,723 $421,634 $439,080
Total Revenue $624,160 $680,209 $680,814 $697,835 $715,280
Expenses
Buses $200,000
MV‐1 $55,000
Bus Updates $15,000
Stop Amenities $25,000 $16,000
Capital Total $295,000 $16,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Operating $329,160 $738,010 $756,460 $775,372 $794,756
Fares $(73,801) $(75,646) $(77,537) $(79,476)
Operating Total $329,160 $664,209 $680,814 $697,835 $715,280
Total Expense $624,160 $680,209 $680,814 $697,835 $715,280
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 48 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report Executive Summary ES‐18
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 49 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 1
Introduction 1.0
The purpose of this study is to develop a local transit plan for the City of Georgetown that would serve
transit needs within the city limits and connect to existing and future regional transit options to form a
regional transit network that would improve mobility, improve the region’s environmental and
economic sustainability, and slow the increase of congestion on roadways. Capital Metro and the city
have undertaken this study to assist Georgetown in realizing its public transit goals and to help advance
regional goals for transit expansion.
Capital Metro’s Project Connect North Corridor Plan is a driving force behind the transit development
plan for the City of Georgetown. Project Connect is a plan to expand transit service outside the existing
service area to improve regional mobility. The North Corridor Plan of Project Connect includes express
bus service to Georgetown from downtown Austin. It is the intent of this local transit plan to
recommend service that serves Georgetown’s transit needs that also complement the regional
connections in Project Connect.
This report provides an assessment of transit needs in the city and the proposed service,
implementation and financial plans for transit service. Appendix A contains a fact sheet about this study.
1.1 City of Georgetown Overview
Figure 1 shows the city limits of Georgetown and Figure 2 shows central Georgetown. The city is a
northern suburb of Austin with a 2010 population of 47,400 and a 2013 U.S. Census Bureau estimated
population of 54,898. The San Gabriel River goes through the core of the city, forming the northern edge
of the downtown area. Although the city is growing, it retains a small‐town feel, especially in the central
core of the city. The well‐maintained and active downtown area and historic square, located just east of
IH 35, are a source of pride for the city. Southwestern University, a small, private liberal arts institution
established in 1840, forms the eastern boundary of the downtown area and plays a role in the history
and culture of the city.
A more recent significant influence on the culture of the city is the growing senior population. With the
development of Sun City Texas (originally named Sun City Georgetown) in 1995, as well as other active‐
adult communities, there is a large senior population in the city. This creates unique circumstances and
challenges for the city, especially as the once active seniors age and become less independent, less
mobile, and more in need of a variety of social services, including public transportation.
Georgetown has a small number of large employers. The major employers in the city (and number of
employees from the spring of 2014) are Southwestern University (514), AirBorn, Inc. (462), and St.
David’s Georgetown Hospital (453). While there is a large employment base north of Austin, much of it
is located in communities south of Georgetown. It should also be noted that Williamson County
Government (1582), Georgetown Independent School District (1550), and the City of Georgetown (532)
top the list; however, these employers have employees in multiple locations across the city.
Page 50 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 2
Figure 4: Georgetown City Limits (2014)
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 51 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 3
Figure 5: Central Georgetown
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 52 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 4
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 53 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 5
Goals, Objectives, and Service Standards 2.0
Transit system performance must be measured based on goals and standards that reflect the operating
environment and values of the community it serves. The goals and objectives recommended for the City
of Georgetown were created to establish a baseline. These measures are meant to be a starting point
for Georgetown and Capital Metro to build on and further develop in the future. In order to make these
goals and objectives successful Georgetown will need to establish performance measures and begin
tracking and monitoring service performance.
2.1 Goals and Objectives
The 2008 plan listed five goals (and supporting objectives) for the initial TDP. Those goals were to 1)
Identify and Prioritize the Transit Needs of the City, 2) Conduct Extensive Outreach to the Community, 3)
Design Services to Meet the Needs of the City, 4) Develop a Transit Action Plan for Georgetown, and 5)
Gain Support for the Transit System from the Community.
For this current study, the project team has developed goals, objectives, and strategies that both expand
and refine the goals and objectives of the 2008 study, as shown below. These goals and objectives are
guidelines for future evaluation of services.
Goal 1: Provide a safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible transportation option for residents and
visitors of Georgetown.
Objective: Improve service efficiency and reliability for existing service by meeting or exceeding
established standards of performance.
Strategy: Identify key performance indicators specific to Georgetown; establish standards for
these indicators that correlate with effective service delivery.
Strategy: Establish a schedule for service evaluation and follow‐up remedial actions.
Strategy: Improve productivity in the service area.
Goal 2: Adequately address the mobility needs of Georgetown residents.
Objective: Improve access to employment, healthcare, shopping, and recreation.
Strategy: Identify locations of employment, healthcare, shopping and recreation locations.
Strategy: Define delivery times for employment, healthcare, shopping and recreation
locations.
Strategy: Refine routing to provide more direct access to some of the major destinations in the
city, within existing resources based on location and delivery time review.
Goal 3: Maximize resource utilization and operational efficiency with respect to system administration
and operations.
Objective: Maintain capital assets (vehicles and maintenance materials) in State of Good Repair.
Strategy: Develop objective standards for measuring conditions of capital assets.
Strategy: Establish performance measures for capital assets.
Strategy: Develop policies and standards for replacement and rehabilitation of capital assets.
Page 54 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 6
Goal 4: Develop a local system that operates effectively in the short‐term, continues to develop an
audience for regional transit options in the mid‐term, and will connect the local community to the
region in the long‐term.
Objective: Provide access to activity centers today with an understanding of where future regional
transit infrastructure is proposed to be located.
Strategy: Submit regional transit projects to the CAMPO Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
Strategy: Develop dedicated funding sources for local transit system.
Strategy: Promote Project Connect North through city website and biennial Citizen Survey.
Coordinate public awareness of Project Connect through public meetings and open houses.
2.2 Service Design and Performance Indicators and Standards
Performance measures must be developed to address standards within the following categories: of
efficiency, service quality, and service design.
Efficiency, effectiveness and productivity
Service quality
Service design
These standards will be used to guide future service evaluation; set standards for future service changes,
and to ensure compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VI, and other local, state,
and federal requirements.
The City of Georgetown service performance indicators that will be used to monitor efficiency,
effectiveness, and productivity include:
Passengers per Revenue Hour: The total number of passengers divided by the total number of
revenue service hours provides a data point for monitoring ridership as it relates to total bus
hours operated. This key productivity measurement works as an effective tool for future service
planning. Improving ridership is often the goal of planning bus service, however it is just as
important to plan for additional ridership with a “right sized” route or system.
Operating Cost per Revenue Hour: This is calculated by dividing operating costs by the total
number of revenue (in service) hours. Operating cost per revenue hour is one of the key cost
effective performance measures to gauge the amount of service provided to the cost to operate
that service. The standard should be tracked every six months for the system and by route to
identify service areas that are less cost effective compared to other routes within the bus
system.
Operating Cost per Passenger: The total operating costs are divided by total passengers
(unlinked trips) to calculate the cost for each passenger on the service. This is designed to track
the cost effectiveness for the system as it relates to ridership over time.
Cost Recovery prior to Subsidy (Farebox Recovery): This is calculated by dividing the revenue
from the farebox by the total operating costs. Farebox recovery shows the amount of the total
revenue that is generated by passenger fares. The goal for most small to medium sized systems
should ultimately be 15 to 20 percent farebox recovery after the system has time to mature
after one to two years in service.
Revenue to non‐revenue hour: Non‐revenue hours are deadhead hours that include the time
for the operator to travel between the bus yard and the scheduled starting point of the service.
This also includes the hours of paid operator time before and after shifts.
Page 55 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 7
Specific standards for the above‐listed indicators will be agreed upon by the City of Georgetown and
Capital Metro during contract negotiations before revenue service is implemented.
Service quality standards help staff evaluate system performance pertaining to reliable and high quality
service which encourages ridership. The recommended service quality performance standards include
the following:
On‐time performance: Buses must arrive at the stop no later than five minutes from the
scheduled timepoint 90 percent of the time. To be considered on‐time, buses should also not
depart a timepoint prior to the time in the schedule.
Missed trips per month: No trips should be missed or cancelled for fixed route or demand‐
response. It is important to schedule appropriate operator spare board and to have adequate
vehicle spares to ensure reliable service.
Service to all ADA eligible customers within ¾ mile of a fixed route.
Service design standards help guide decisions for adding new service and making changes to the system.
It identifies standards to design the service with a more consistent and uniform approach. The service
design standards include the following:
Bus stop design: All bus stops should be clearly marked with bus stop signs. It is preferable that
the bus stop signs show the route(s) serving each stop. Route number decals can be added to
signs or removed from signs during service changes. Bus stop amenities should be added to
stops only when a minimum boarding threshold has been met. These thresholds can be defined
after one year of fixed‐route service.
New service: Ridership and productivity measures should be defined prior to introducing new
service. Service should operate for at least one‐year as a pilot program to allow for ridership to
develop.
Page 56 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 8
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 57 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 9
Public Involvement and Outreach 3.0
Public input played a prominent role in the development of the Georgetown Transit Development Plan.
Capital Metro and the City of Georgetown used a combination of public meetings, public intercept
surveys (conducted at a local event and at the public library), an online survey, and stakeholder
interviews. In addition, Capital Metro and the City of Georgetown disseminated information through
their websites and social media accounts.
3.1 Public Meetings
Two public meetings were held for the Georgetown Transit Development Plan. The first meeting
occurred on January 22, 2015, at McCoy Elementary School, and the second was held on April 1, 2015,
at the Georgetown Public Library. Both meetings were advertised in the Williamson County Sun and
through the City of Georgetown’s and Capital Metro’s social media outlets.
Public Meeting #1 3.1.1
The first meeting, held January 22, 2015 was a combined open house with the Georgetown Sidewalk
Master Plan project held at McCoy Elementary School in Georgetown. Twenty‐five people attended the
open‐house, which included several maps and visual aids to introduce the project to the public. The
consultant team informally engaged attendees and provided a project overview, answered questions
and solicited feedback. A representative from Capital Metro was also in attendance to discuss the
project and its relationship to the regional expansion efforts of Capital Metro. The sign‐in sheet for this
meeting is included in Appendix B of this report.
Feedback during the first meeting included identification of locations that meeting attendees felt should
be served by transit. Attendees drew on a map, included in Appendix B, to indicate important locations.
These locations included:
Sun City
HEB on Williams Drive
Single‐family residential on Shell Road (Village neighborhood)
The Oaks (retirement community) on Williams Drive
Benold Middle School
Multi‐family residential between Lakeway Drive and Golden Oaks Drive (Golden Oaks and Reata
East neighborhoods)
Boys & Girls Club
Georgetown High School
Multi‐family residential near the hospital
HEB on IH 35
St. David’s Georgetown Hospital
Multi‐family residential off of Leader west of IH 35
Tippitt Middle School
Round Rock Premium Outlets
Seton Medical Center Williamson (in Round Rock)
Southwestern University
Downtown Square
Forbes Middle School
Page 58 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 10
Attendees also identified the top priorities for transit in Georgetown by placing dots on a board under
one of their top three transit priorities. A photo of the transit priorities board is included in Appendix B.
The priority options included access to employment centers, access to retail centers, connections to
regional transit services, access to social services (including medical), access to entertainment and
recreation, weekday service, weekend service and other. The top three priorities identified at the public
meeting were:
Access to retail centers
Connections to regional transit services
Access to social services (including medical)
Five people at the first public meeting took the intercept survey that was developed for the project. All
five respondents stated that they would use public transit in Georgetown at least once per month if it
were available. Current forms of transportation for the respondents included a personal vehicle,
carpool, bicycle and walking. None of the respondents stated that they use CARTS as one of their
current forms of transportation. Four respondents identified the convenience to or availability of transit
where they live and where they need to go as a reason that would make them more likely to use transit.
Public Meeting #2 3.1.2
The second public meeting was held from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the Georgetown Public Library on April 1,
2015. Thirty‐seven people attended the meeting. The meeting consisted of an open house and
presentation. During the open house portion of the meeting, attendees had a chance to review project
information exhibits, ask questions of project team members and interact with elected officials from the
city. The presentation given at the meeting, as well as the sign‐in sheet from the meeting, are included
in Appendix C of this report.
A printed map was provided to allow attendees to mark important locations for the project team to
note during the development of the transit plan. A photo of the map is included in Appendix C. The
locations identified on the map included:
Heritage Community Gardens at Mickler Park (entrance on Hutto Road north of Quail Valley
Drive)
Heritage Oaks on Shell Road northeast of Williams Drive (Custom Active Adult Community)
Georgetown Recreation Center (Three respondents)
Lake Aire Center (shopping center with various medical facilities, including the Lonestar Circle of
Care facility, at River Bend Drive at Williams Drive)
Single‐family residential at Northwest Boulevard and Golden Oaks Drive
Several questions and concerns were shared with the Project Team during the meeting. Some of the
topics included:
The need for commuters to connect to CARTS service and future Project Connect service to
Austin
The need for young people to get from Quail Valley to the recreation center and pool
The need to serve the local workforce commuting to places of employment within Georgetown
The cost of implementing the proposed transit plan
The need for effective marketing to advertise the transit service
Outreach regarding transit to high schools
Park‐and‐ride opportunities for special events
Page 59 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 11
Weather protection at bus stops
Weekend service
No formal surveys were provided to attendees at the second public meeting, however all attendees
were encouraged to fill out the provided comment form. Three comment forms were received from the
public. Additionally, one comment in support of the transit development plan was received via
telephone. Written comments from the public included:
The need to consider practical routes for connecting the southeast and southwest quadrants of
the city with the recreation center to allow children of working parents to access the center
The need for public transit from Georgetown to Austin to Austin Bergstrom Airport
The need for a bus stop at Austin Avenue at the recreation center (or sidewalk connections)
The need for a bus stop at Heritage Oaks/Georgetown Village (or sidewalk connections to HEB)
The need to consider work force cycle times along with active adult cycles
3.2 Public Intercept Surveys
The Project Team developed a written survey to solicit public input regarding transit in Georgetown. The
survey instrument is provided in Appendix D. Survey questions included demographics, home and work
zip codes, current transportation habits, and hypothetical future transit use.
The intercept surveys were administered on two occasions. Additionally a few surveys were completed
by attendees at the first public meeting in January. The first intercept survey event occurred at the
Georgetown Christmas Stroll on December 5 and 6, 2014. The second intercept survey was conducted
on February 11, 2015, at the Georgetown Public Library. Project Team members administered the
survey by intercepting people at the two locations and asking them to answer a few questions regarding
public transit in Georgetown. Those who agreed to participate answered the questions verbally or filled
out the survey on their own and handed it back to one of the team members.
Georgetown Christmas Stroll Intercept Survey 3.2.1
Capital Metro and the City of Georgetown sponsored a booth at Downtown Georgetown’s annual
Christmas Stroll on the evening of December 5 and all day on December 6. The booth included materials
from Capital Metro about Project Connect and featured large maps of the local area. Project team
members staffing the booth interacted with individuals walking by the booth, which was in a central
location. Although most of the “strollers” were from Georgetown, the event also draws people from
Austin and other nearby towns and cities (e.g., Round Rock, Pflugerville). This event offered a good
opportunity to interact with large crowds of people in a casual setting. Twenty‐five people signed in at
the booth, 28 people filled out surveys, and a number of other people stopped by to chat over the
course of the two‐day event.
The individuals who completed surveys represented a mix of students, young families, and working and
retired individuals ranging in age from their twenties to early sixties. Fifty‐eight percent of the
respondents were men and 42 percent were women. The largest age groups represented were 41 to 52
and 53 to 64 with only a few individuals (three) in the 17 to 28 age group and three in the 29 to 40 age
group. Most of these respondents rely on their personal cars (or a car pool) for transportation with only
a handful noting that they use public transit (CARTS or the Capital Metro Express Bus), ride a bicycle, or
walk to their destinations.
Page 60 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 12
Nearly 70 percent of those who completed surveys indicated that they would use public transit at least
once a month to go to work or to reach an entertainment/recreation destination and a little over 50
percent said that they would use transit at least once a month to do their shopping. Figure 3 illustrates
the potential transit use of Christmas Stroll respondents. When asked, “What would make you more
likely to begin using public transportation?” the most common response (about 55 percent of the
respondents) was that they would use transit if it were convenient to where they live and to their
destination. About 28 percent explained that they would use transit if it took less time to get to their
destination, and only a few people indicated that they would use public transit to avoid paying higher
gas prices or if it made them feel more safe/secure.
Figure 6: Number of Christmas Stroll Respondents That Would Use Transit
Survey respondents were also asked about desired connections for public transportation and their
responses varied. The most common request was for transportation from Georgetown to Austin (either
the MetroRail Red Line station in Leander, Lakeline Mall, or central Austin) or Austin Bergstrom Airport.
Several individuals noted the need for public transit for those without vehicles such as low‐income
individuals, youth, or the elderly. Other requested connections are as follows:
Central Georgetown to the education area in Round Rock(TX State, ACC)
Central Georgetown to the medical area
Central Georgetown to Wolf Ranch
Central Georgetown to Lake Georgetown
Convention Center to downtown Georgetown
Indian Springs neighborhood to Lake Georgetown, downtown, and medical area
Sun City to downtown Georgetown and Austin
Williams Drive to downtown Georgetown and Wolf Ranch
2nd Street to the Department of Motor Vehicles
East Georgetown to ball fields and animal shelter on W.L. Walden Drive at N. College Street
Access needed to the Federal Qualified Healthcare Center (Lonestar Circle of Care on Williams
Drive)
70%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Work or Entertainment
Shopping
Would Use Transit at Least Once per
Month
Would Use Transit at
Least Once per Month
Page 61 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 13
Georgetown Public Library Intercept Survey 3.2.2
An intercept survey was conducted inside the foyer of the Georgetown Public Library on February 11,
2015, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The late afternoon timing was chosen in order to have the potential
to encounter a variety of people, including students, families, working individuals and retired
individuals. Three members of the Project Team engaged with passers‐by to request feedback regarding
transit in Georgetown.
Twenty‐five surveys were completed during this intercept survey event, with a nearly even split
between male and female respondents. The largest age group of respondents was the “65+” category,
at ten individuals. The next largest group was the 41 to 52 category, at eight individuals. As expected,
nearly all respondents use a car for the vast majority of their trips. Very few individuals surveyed
incorporate walking and biking into their transportation routine on a regular basis. No respondents
indicated that they use the CARTS bus service, and only a few indicated that they utilize Austin’s bus and
rail services on occasion. Figure 4 illustrates the breakdown of existing transportation habits of
respondents at the Georgetown Public Library.
Figure 7: Existing Transportation Habits of Public Library Respondents
The majority of the senior age group indicated that they would not use transit on a regular basis, but 50
percent of the seniors surveyed said they would use transit once a month for one or more of the
following types of activities: entertainment, shopping, social services, medical appointments, library
visits, and special events downtown.
Those in the 41 to 52 age category were more varied in their current transportation choices, with
carpooling, bicycling, and walking all being well‐represented. The individuals surveyed in this age
category all indicated that they would use transit for at least one type of trip, except for one respondent
who did not answer this question. Figure 5 illustrates the potential transit use of Library Intercept Survey
respondents by age group.
23
3
4
4
0
Automobile
Carpool
Bike
Walk
CARTS
Page 62 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 14
Figure 8: Number of Public Library Respondents That Would Use Transit
3.3 Online Survey
The Project Team developed an online survey and uploaded the survey to the City of Georgetown
website on April 13, 2015. The survey included questions pertaining to the proposed route network,
transit priorities, and transit preferences. The complete survey instrument is provided in Appendix E.
Results from the survey will be used by the city to help guide transit development decisions during this
project and any future planning projects related to the development or expansion of public
transportation in the City of Georgetown.
3.4 Stakeholder Interviews
This section provides a summary of discussions with local organizations, business groups, and regional
transportation agencies. Stakeholders were identified by City of Georgetown Planning staff, Capital
Metro staff, and consultant staff. The primary purpose of the stakeholder interviews was to identify
community transit needs, preferences, and potential markets. Notes from the stakeholder interviews
are provided in Appendix F of this report.
Ten organizations were interviewed during the first quarter of 2015, as identified below.
Daniel Anstee, Branch Director – Boys & Girls Club of Georgetown
LeAnn Powers, Chief Professional Officer – United Way of Williamson County
Craig Erwin, Associate Vice President for Finance – Southwestern University
Jim Romine, Executive Director – Sun City Texas Community Association
Shelly Hargrove, Main Street Manager – Georgetown Main Street
Caren Lee, Transit Coordinator – City of Round Rock
Matt Synatschk, Senior Planner – City of Georgetown
Jennifer Bills, Senior Planner – City of Georgetown
Cari Miller, Tourism/CVB Manager – City of Georgetown
Rhonda Pritchard, General Manager – Wolf Ranch Town Center
67%
88%
75%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%
40 and Under Age Group
41‐52 Age Group
53‐64 Age Group
65+ Age Group
Would Use Transit at Least Once per
Month
Would Use Transit at
Least Once per Month
Page 63 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 15
Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant to the Assistant City Manager – City of Georgetown
Dave Marsh, General Manager and Lyle Nelson, Chief of Staff – Capital Area Rural
Transportation System (CARTS)
David Biesheuvel, Director, Construction & Facilities and Suzanne Marchman, Director,
Community Engagement & Communications – Georgetown Independent School District
Interviews were conducted both in person and over the telephone using an informal, conversational
format that was guided by a few key questions, including:
What role should public transit play in Georgetown and the region?
Who are the people that most need to be served by transit and what destinations should be
targeted?
Their responses to the interview questions are summarized below.
What role should public transit play in Georgetown and the region?
Stakeholders stated that public transit in Georgetown could benefit the members of the community
without means of transportation; help reduce some traffic and parking problems; and provide an
alternative mode of transportation to travel to shopping centers, the Downtown Square, the
Southwestern University campus, medical facilities and jobs. Some stakeholders also pointed out that
there is a need to connect to regional transit service to downtown Austin (Project Connect or Lone Star
Rail), shopping in Round Rock, Lakeline Mall and the Capital Metro station in Leander. The Williams
Road, Austin Avenue and University Avenue corridors were identified as the primary transportation
corridors. Overall stakeholders believed that the two primary markets for transit were tourism and life
line service for lower income residents to jobs and services.
Who are the people that most need to be served by transit and what destinations should be targeted?
According to the stakeholders, the people that most need to be served by transit include:
seniors/elderly,
zero to one vehicle households,
low to moderate income,
bicyclists,
students,
regional job commuters, and
tourists.
Destinations that should be targeted by transit include:
Southwestern University,
St. David’s Hospital,
social service organizations including the Caring Place,
the Downtown Square,
library,
parks,
Sun City,
the new Rivery Conference Center, and
shopping (including Wolf Ranch, Walmart and HEB).
Page 64 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 16
Regional service to Round Rock and Austin was also a priority. Lower income residential areas such as
the San Jose neighborhood, south Georgetown off Quail Valley and the housing developments north of
Williams were identified as specific areas that could benefit from transit service.
Additional comments include:
Downtown should be the hub of the service
Transfer location should be on the westside of downtown near the new City Hall and the library
Limited service from the Social Center on Sun City to Wolf Ranch and downtown should be
considered
Fixed route service should use the smaller buses
Service should continue to the CARTS Georgetown Station from downtown Georgetown
Transit can help to alleviate some of the perceived parking constraints in downtown during
special events
Service to HEB on University is very important as some people are currently walking along
University with bags of groceries
Need to connect Wolf Ranch to outlet mall in Round Rock
Page 65 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 17
Existing Conditions 4.0
4.1 City Overview
Georgetown is the county seat of suburban Williamson County, with a population of approximately
47,400 based on the 2010 census. Southwestern University, the oldest university in Texas, which was
founded in 1840, is located about one‐half mile east from the historic square. Sun City Texas is a large
retirement‐oriented and age‐restricted development that accounts for more than one‐third of
Georgetown's population.
Georgetown has a sizable number of Victorian examples of commercial and residential architecture. In
1976, a local historic ordinance was passed to protect the significance of the historic central business
district, and in 1977, the Williamson County Courthouse Historical District, containing 46 contributing
structures, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Georgetown is also known as the "Red
Poppy" Capital of Texas for the red poppy wildflowers planted throughout the city. Georgetown's Red
Poppy Festival is held each year in April on the historic square and attracts up to 30,000 visitors.
Georgetown is located approximately 25 miles north of Austin's Central Business District and according
to the US Census Bureau; the city has a total area of nearly 24.9 square miles. The city is located on the
northeastern edge of Texas Hill Country. The North and Middle Forks of the San Gabriel River both run
through the city, providing over 30 miles of hike and bike trails and several parks.
4.2 Demographics
Population Density 4.2.1
As shown in Figure 6, Georgetown is not a densely populated city. Moderate densities of three to six
people per acre are present in the central portion of the city, a small area to the north, and a lower‐
income area to the south. With a city population of just over 47,000 in 2010, there are a few small
pockets of more densely populated areas are located just to the south of downtown on the south side of
University Drive and to the north and west of downtown on the north side of Williams Drive. No areas of
population density greater than nine people per acre are present in the City of Georgetown.
Employment Density 4.2.2
Figure 7 illustrates the employment centers in the City of Georgetown. The majority of the city has an
employment density of zero to two people per acre. The low employment density in Georgetown is
caused by a combination of conditions, including the small number of large employers and the low
density of the city, which leads to small businesses being scattered and mixed in with a variety of land
uses. The result is a lower concentration of large business parks or employment centers where potential
transit ridership would be concentrated.
Page 66 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 18
Figure 9: Population Density (2013)
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 67 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 19
Figure 10: Employment Density (2013)
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 68 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 20
Population Over 65 Years of Age 4.2.3
As expected, the highest concentrations of individuals over 65 years of age occur in the Sun City
community. Over 60 percent of Sun City’s population is over the age of 65, and as of 2010,
approximately 11,500 people live in the 5,300‐acre community. Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of
the senior population in the city. Just South of Sun City, near the intersection of Williams Drive and Shell
Road, Heritage Oaks is another age restricted development with 390 units that recently completed
construction of all units. On the other end of the spectrum, the northern tip of the city, bounded by IH
35 to the east, FM 143 to the north, and SH 195 to the west, has a population that is zero to ten percent
over the age of 65. Much of the southern portion of the city also falls into that category. The central part
of the city is largely in the 11 to 25 percent range, with a few areas of 26 to 40 percent and zero to ten
percent.
Population Under 18 Years of Age 4.2.4
Figure 9 illustrates the distribution of the youth population in Georgetown. As expected, the
concentrations of the youth population are generally the reverse of the concentrations of the senior
population. Sun City has a very low youth population, and the areas in the north tip and the south that
had low senior populations are shown to have youth populations of between 26 and 40 percent of the
total population. The area just north and east of downtown Georgetown is the only area besides Sun
City with a youth population of zero to ten percent.
Zero‐Car Households 4.2.5
As shown in Figure 10, the majority of the city has a very low rate of driving‐age individuals with no car
available to them (zero to one percent). Two percent of the population over 16 in the central eastern
arm of the city does not have access to a vehicle, and portions of the center and southern parts of the
city have three and four percent, respectively, of the driving‐age population without access to a vehicle.
The highest rates of four to six percent occur in the north on the west side of IH 35 from SH 195 to the
north and Williams Drive to the south.
Median Income 4.2.6
The majority of the City of Georgetown has a median income of between $20,000 and $40,000. As
indicated in Figure 11, higher median incomes are present in pockets of the city, mostly to the west and
north. A median income of between $40,000 and $60,000 is present in the central west arm of the city,
bounded by IH 35 to the east, SH 29 to the north, and FM 2443 to the south. A median income of
between $60,000 and $80,000 is present in the northern part of the city near IH 35 on the south side of
SH 195.
Page 69 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 21
Figure 11: Percent of Population Age 65 and Older (2013)
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 70 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 22
Figure 12: Percent of Population Under Age 18 (2013)
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 71 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 23
Figure 13: Percent of Driving ‐Age Population with Zero Car Availability (2013)
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 72 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 24
Figure 14: Median Income (2013)
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 73 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 25
4.3 Land Use
Existing Land Use 4.3.1
Existing land use in Georgetown is primarily public, single‐family residential, open space/vacant, and
agricultural. There is also a considerable percentage of acreage within the city limits, 14 percent, that
was not identified in the city’s current land use data. Table 1 provides a summary of the existing land
uses within the city limits of Georgetown. The table does not include the land within the ETJ. A map of
the existing land use is provided as Figure 12.
Table 4: 2014 Land Use within Georgetown City Limits
Land Use Acres Percent of City Limits
Agricultural 3,330.76 9.40%
Industrial 221.94 0.63%
Commercial 2,178.63 6.15%
Public 8,219.02 23.19%
Semi‐Public 13.92 0.04%
Multi‐Family 140.00 0.40%
Triplex/Quadplex 22.53 0.06%
Two‐Family 123.63 0.35%
Condominium 230.38 0.65%
Manufactured Housing 103.51 0.29%
Residential 4,580.41 12.93%
Park 1,033.17 2.92%
Open Space 10,264.59 28.97%
Unidentified 4,974.18 14.04%
Total 35,436.66 100.00%
Page 74 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 26
Figure 15: Existing Land Uses in the City of Georgetown
Page 75 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 27
Future Land Use 4.3.2
Georgetown’s plan for future land use includes the land in the ETJ in addition to the land within the city
limits. The land within the ETJ is approximately double the amount of acres within the city limits at the
end of 2014. The city’s plan for future land use includes a wider mix of housing types and densities than
exists in the current land use. The future land use also introduces an “Employment Center” designation
that is not part of the current land use, indicating the city’s intent to encourage development of
employment centers and attract major employers to the city. Table 2 summarizes the future land use
plan for the City of Georgetown and its ETJ. The future land use plan is illustrated in Figure 13.
Table 5: Future Land Use within Georgetown City Limits and ETJ
Land Use LU Acres Percent of City
Limits
Regional Commercial RC 2,155.58 1.87%
Special Area Mixed Use SMUA 1,207.81 1.05%
Institutional INST 2,055.87 1.78%
Moderate Density Residential MDR 17,407.45 15.10%
Community Commercial CC 1,582.68 1.37%
Employment Center EC 4,883.24 4.24%
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center MUNC 1,259.61 1.09%
High Density Residential HDR 600.29 0.52%
Mining M 5,203.18 4.51%
Low Density Residential LDR 26,036.95 22.58%
Agricultural Rural Residential ARR 29,688.08 25.75%
Mixed Use Community MUC 6,448.09 5.59%
Parks, Recreation, Open Space OS 16,769.22 14.54%
Total 115,298.00 100.00%
Page 76 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 28
Figure 16: Future Land Use Plan for the City of Georgetown
Page 77 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 29
4.4 Existing Transit Services in Georgetown
CARTS SERVICE 4.4.1
CARTS buses operate from seven transit stations located throughout the CARTS service area in Central
Texas. Fixed‐route service is operated between the seven stations, and this service is available to anyone
in the service area. CARTS also provides “curb‐to‐curb” service, also known as demand‐response or on‐
call service, for mobility impaired individuals and individuals in need of special assistance in the CARTS
service area. CARTS operates 60 mini‐buses and vans to provide fixed‐route and on‐call services across
Central Texas.
Fixed Route Service in Georgetown
CARTS operates a fixed, interurban bus route between Georgetown and Austin twice daily, Monday
through Friday. Passengers in Georgetown are picked up by the interurban bus at two locations:
Downtown Georgetown Bus Stop at 9th and Main Streets and the CARTS Georgetown Station at 3620
South Austin Avenue. From Georgetown, the Red Route 1511 stops at University Oaks (IKEA), CARTS
Round Rock, Tech Ridge Park & Ride, Austin Greyhound, and CARTS Austin. In Austin, CARTS passengers
have the option of utilizing the Grasshopper, a special CARTS on‐call service that is only available to
those transferring from another CARTS service in Austin, to reach their final destinations.
Curb‐to‐Curb Service in Georgetown
The CARTS Community Transit service provides on‐call services within CARTS service area. Passengers
reserve rides by telephone or online with a preferred 24‐hour advanced notice. This type of service is
called paratransit service by many transit agencies. The Community Transit service is offered Monday
through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The fare for the service ranges from $2.00 to $6.00,
depending on the zone of the destination. The Community Transit service also makes several scheduled
trips from Georgetown to select locations. On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday a bus departs
Georgetown for Austin at 8:00 a.m. and returns at 2:00 p.m. On Tuesday and Thursday a bus travels to
round rock, leaving at 8:00 a.m. and returns at 12:00 p.m. On the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of the month, a
bus travels to Temple from Georgetown at 8:30 a.m. and returns at 2:00 p.m.
Medical Transit Service in Georgetown
CARTS provides non‐emergency medical transportation services for Logisticare Solutions, LLC, a broker
under contract to the Texas Department of Health and Human Services to arrange transportation for
eligible persons in the CARTS District. These services are free and can be arranged through HHS call
centers. People using Texas Health Steps and other Medicaid programs are eligible for the service. The
service is called the HHSC Medical Transportation Program.
Commuter Rail Service 4.4.2
Capital Metro’s MetroRail provides rail service between Austin and Leander Monday through Friday in
the morning and evening peak periods. No mid‐day service is provided at Leander Station. On Saturdays,
MetroRail northbound service terminates at Lakeline Station, thus no service is available at Leander
Station. MetroRail does not operate on Sundays.
Although the service does not operate in Georgetown, the Leander Station is approximately 17 minutes
west of downtown Georgetown by car. Figure 14 shows the location of the Leander MetroRail Station
(on the left edge of the map) relative to the City of Georgetown.
Page 78 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 30
Figure 17: Georgetown’s Relative Location to Capital Metro Leander MetroRail Station
Source: URS, 2015.
Greyhound Bus Service 4.4.3
Georgetown has a Greyhound bus service at the CARTS Georgetown Station at 3260 South Austin
Avenue. The route serving Georgetown provides connection to the Austin Bus Station where passengers
then transfer to routes heading to cities such as Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.
Amtrak Rail Service 4.4.4
Georgetown does not have Amtrak service in the city limits. The nearest Amtrak station to Georgetown
is in Taylor, approximately 20 miles east of the city. There are also stations to the south of Georgetown
in Austin and to the north in Temple.
Non‐Profit Services 4.4.5
Faith in Action Georgetown provides rides for the elderly who are unable to drive. Faith in Action drivers
are volunteers who utilize their personal vehicles free of charge to help seniors get to medical
appointments and run errands. Clients who have enrolled in the program are allowed two one‐way trips
per week and must be over the age of 65 and unable to drive. Volunteer drivers are not able to
accommodate people in wheelchairs; however, they can provide assistance to clients from their home
to the vehicle and then from the vehicle into the destination (known as door‐to‐door service).
Page 79 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 31
Volunteers can also provide door‐through‐door service, which means that the volunteer would stay with
the client to assist during the trip.
Faith in Action Georgetown is a partner of Drive a Senior, another non‐profit program that utilizes
volunteer drivers to assist those in need of transportation assistance by offering curb‐to‐curb, door‐to‐
door, and door‐through‐door service. Drive a Senior has several service areas in the region, including
five Austin service areas, an Elgin service area, and a Pflugerville/Round Rock service area. Another Faith
in Action partner operates the Northwest Austin service area.
Taxi and Other Demand‐Response Car Services 4.4.6
Flash Transportation Services provides shuttle service from Austin‐Bergstrom International Airport to
Georgetown. Flash also provides service in shuttles, limousines, Lincoln Town Cars, and vans for special
occasions, tourist day trips, and daily local trips.
Georgetown Taxi provides taxi and limousine services in Georgetown for local and out‐of‐town service.
Services include private airport transportation to the Austin‐Bergstrom International Airport and late
night/early morning services by appointment.
Agency/Facility‐Specific Shuttle Services 4.4.7
Many agencies provide targeted service for their clients to access the services of the agency. Scott &
White Healthcare System has a shuttle service that transports people among the four Scott & White
facilities in the area. The Boys & Girls Club of Georgetown provides its own transportation for children
from area schools to the Boys & Girls Club sites. It also coordinates with the GISD school bus system to
facilitate its targeted transportation system.
4.5 Review of Relevant Plans
The following plans include information for achieving multi‐modal planning objectives. The most directly
relevant plans are the Project Connect: North Corridor Plan, which acts as the system plan for the
Central Texas region. The Lone Star Rail Project proposes the implementation of commuter rail between
Georgetown, Austin, and San Antonio. The previous Georgetown Transit Development Plan provides a
starting point in terms of data, as well as the vision of the city. Finally, the city has conducted biannual
surveys that show some of the transportation interests of the greater community, which is important to
consider in the event of any potential future ballot initiatives to fund transportation improvements.
While the service areas in these plans are different than that of the City of Georgetown, having a clear
understanding of regional and neighboring services allows the city to develop transit options that are
complementary to regional and other local services both in the short‐ and long‐term.
Regional Plans 4.5.1
Project Connect: North Corridor Plan
Project Connect was developed by the project partners in the Central Texas region to coordinate
transportation options. The Project Connect High‐Capacity Transit System Plan provides a framework for
moving forward with high‐capacity transit in Central Texas, with the goal of including the fiscally
constrained portions of the Project Connect System Plan in the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (CAMPO 2040) and implementing the components of
the plan as fiscally feasible. Project Connect is the vision for Central Texas’ high‐capacity transit system.
Linking activity centers within the fastest growing region in the country, Project Connect aims to connect
Page 80 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 32
people, places, and opportunities in an easy, efficient way. The vision unites efforts to develop the best
solutions for getting around Central Texas and addressing regional growth challenges.
From 2005 to 2035, the region’s population is forecasted to increase by 123 percent, with employment
increasing by 135 percent. Half the population of Williamson and Travis counties are projected to reside
in the North Corridor by 2035 and 55 percent of all jobs in the five‐county region will be located in the
North Corridor. The North Corridor extends north from approximately US 290 north of Downtown
Austin, and generally follows IH 35 north of the City of Georgetown, as shown in Figure 15. Additionally,
14 of the 38 regional growth centers (areas with a dense mix of employment, housing, and retail)
identified in the CAMPO 2035 plan are located in the North Corridor. With this significant population
and employment projected to reside in the North Corridor by 2035, the Project Connect: North Corridor
Study was initiated as one of the first projects to advance elements of the regional plan. High‐Capacity
transit improvements are expected to:
Provide direct and frequent service between Austin’s core and the North Corridor
Link activity centers in the North Corridor with Connect and Rapid service
Serve both traditional and new target transit markets
Maximize both existing vacant and planned future land use opportunities
Offer a scalable and expandable transit network
Capital Metro, CAMPO, the Lone Star Rail District, and the cities of Austin, Pflugerville, Round Rock,
Georgetown, and other partners are working together to improve long‐term mobility and accessibility in
the North Corridor. The North Corridor team began an alternatives analysis in June 2012 by collecting
public input on the issues facing the corridor. The project identified transportation problems within the
corridor (“purpose and need”); determined feasible alternatives to address those problems; analyzed,
evaluated, and refined alternatives; and selected a locally preferred alternative (LPA). Options
considered included both roadway and transit projects, and while not all projects will connect to
Georgetown initially, extensions are expected to bring additional travel options to the city. For the City
of Georgetown, major elements of the plan include the following, and are illustrated in Figure 16.
Extending Capital Metro’s premium MetroRapid service from The Domain to Round Rock and
Georgetown.
New express routes from Georgetown and Round Rock to leverage investments in the new
express lanes along MoPac.
Moving forward with Lone Star Rail District’s plans for commuter rail from Georgetown through
Austin to San Antonio.
Initially using the MoKan Corridor from Pflugerville to downtown Austin as a dedicated busway
with limited stops. Corridor preservation would allow the bus way to be extended to
Georgetown in the future.
Utilizing Capital Metro’s Express and Connect bus services to provide transit options within the
Corridor, like Round Rock’s University Boulevard Center to Cedar Park and Round Rock’s
established Park & Ride center to Hutto, and linking the centers from Georgetown to central
Austin.
Page 81 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 33
Figure 18: Extent of Project Connect North Corridor
Source: URS, 2011.
Page 82 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 34
Figure 19: Project Connect: North Corridor Study LPA
Source: Capital Metro, 2014.
Page 83 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 35
CAMPO 2035 (and updated 2040)
The CAMPO 2035 plan is a long‐range plan that specifies a set of investments and strategies to maintain,
manage, and improve the surface transportation system in the five‐county region of Williamson, Travis,
Hays, Caldwell, and Bastrop Counties in Central Texas. Major transit projects recommended in the plan
include:
Urban commuter rail (MetroRail)
Urban Rail
Intercity passenger rail (LSTAR)
Intercity bus service
Express bus and commuter bus
Rapid bus (MetroRapid)
Based on the 2035 plan‘s fiscally constrained analysis, approximately $28.4 billion would be available to
construct, operate, and maintain the regional transportation system over the 25‐year timeframe (2010‐
2035), with $2.9 billion dedicated to transit capital expenditures and $10.3 billion dedicated to
operations and maintenance (O&M).
CAMPO 2035 was the basis for the Project Connect System Plan. The Project Connect team worked with
CAMPO on the development of the Project Connect System Plan to ensure that the fiscally constrained
portions of the System Plan would then inform the planning process for CAMPO 2040.
The process to update the regional transportation plan, CAMPO 2040, began in May 2013, and was
officially adopted on May 11, 2015.
Lone Star Rail Project
The Lone Star Rail Project, shown in Figure 17, is the central element of the Lone Star Rail District (LSRD),
which is an independent public agency authorized by the Texas Legislature in 1997 and created in 2002.
LSRD is governed by a board of directors made up of representatives of member cities and counties,
various planning and transit agencies, the business community, and general public. Its planning area
covers Williamson, Travis, Hays, Comal, and Bexar Counties.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), and the
LSRD began an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed passenger rail line that would
travel along the IH 35 corridor connecting the greater Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas.
Agency and public scoping meetings were held in January 2015.
The LSRD has worked closely with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), as a major stakeholder, to evaluate
operational scenarios for joint freight and passenger operations within UPRR's existing system. A
potential alternative to be evaluated in the EIS includes development and operation of passenger rail
service within the abandoned MoKan railroad right‐of‐way between Georgetown and Round Rock, and
along the existing UPRR corridor between Round Rock and San Antonio. A branch route providing
passenger rail service between Round Rock and Taylor along the existing UPRR corridor could also be
evaluated.
A potential alternative could include development of a freight bypass to accommodate some existing
freight rail traffic that could be displaced by the proposed passenger rail operations. The proposed
freight rail bypass could extend from near Taylor along a greenfield alignment to Seguin. From Seguin,
the proposed freight rail bypass could follow existing UPRR right‐of‐way and terminate near downtown
San Antonio.
Page 84 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 36
The need for the proposed project stems from the rapid growth occurring in Central Texas. Congestion
within the IH 35 corridor has resulted in decreased mobility and travel time reliability for both travelers
and freight transporters. The deficiencies of the existing transportation network, including lack of modal
transportation options and limited roadway capacity, contribute to decreased regional air quality,
increased crash rates, and diminished quality of life for residents living in proximity to IH 35.
The Lone Star Regional Rail Project would provide regional passenger rail service connecting
communities along the IH 35 corridor between the metropolitan areas of Austin and San Antonio,
including the City of Georgetown. As currently envisioned, the project would span approximately 120
miles across Williamson, Travis, Bastrop, Hays, Caldwell, Comal, Guadalupe, and Bexar counties. Based
upon previous studies, the purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility, accessibility,
transportation reliability, modal choice, safety, and facilitate economic development along the IH 35
corridor in Central and South Texas.
Page 85 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 37
Figure 20: Lone Star Rail Project
Source: Lone Star Rail District.
Local Plans 4.5.2
City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan (OTP)
Development of the Plan
The Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) was completed in February 2015 and is critical to the overall
development of the city as it guides future roadway improvements, construction of new facilities, and
outlines the city’s transportation goals. The adoption of the OTP, sets forth long term capital planning
and financing considerations designed to ensure that basic transportation infrastructure needs and
right‐of‐way will be available as the city grows and network needs improvements.
Page 86 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 38
The updated plan is a continuation of the effort that the city completed in 2004 with the adoption of the
initial OTP, which provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel characteristics, a travel demand
model, review of the city’s roadway functional classification system, and a revised Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The 2004 OTP assisted the city in defining cross‐sectional needs as well as
access management and detailed intersection needs.
Since the 2004 OTP, the city has experienced tremendous growth, including several major retail and
residential developments. Additionally, Georgetown’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2008
includes a revised Future Land Use Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for physical
growth and land use within the city, the OTP provides guidelines for transportation management and
development. These documents should be used in coordination with one another, not as separate
competing documents. The update provides a review of the existing sidewalk and pedestrian/bicycle
infrastructure and outlines the requirements for future analysis and planning studies.
The transportation improvement recommendations are based on the projected 2035 travel demands.
The implementation program will categorize improvements through short‐term and long‐term
prioritization recommendations. The improvements already chosen for funding are identified as “near
term” and those where funding, routing, and right‐of‐way have not been identified are considered “long
term”. Potential improvements offered for consideration include roadway widening and/or extensions,
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and transit programming. The study involves an evaluation of
various transportation improvements and considers the impacts related to traffic/mobility, anticipated
construction, and right‐of‐way costs as well as environmental/land use criteria.
The study area for the OTP includes the City of Georgetown city limits as well as the Extra Territorial
Jurisdictional (ETJ) area, which typically extends one to two miles beyond the city’s limits. This area
includes added roadways of which the city has sole control, including Williams Drive, Shell Road, D B
Wood Road, and Inner Loop. These facilities provide critical connectivity for the residents within the city
and, while there are some limitations, there are opportunities for roadway expansion.
The goals and objectives of the OTP are:
Implement improvements to the local road and traffic control system, including new
thoroughfare linkages to enhance connectivity, improved and coordinated traffic signalization,
standards for access management to enhance traffic flow and safety.
Progress toward a functional, well‐integrated, multi‐modal transportation system that provides
a variety of choices – bicycle, public transportation, and pedestrian – on a local and regional
level.
Reduce reliance on single‐occupant automobile traffic by retrofitting bicycle lanes and sidewalks
in underserved areas to enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility; incorporating these facilities in
new developments; and encouraging compact mixed‐use and other “walkable” development
types.
Guide the future growth and development of the city toward a more balanced approach
between employment and commercial centers, schools and other high traffic generators.
Transit Service Pilot Program
The City of Georgetown does not independently provide or support transit services. The city is not in the
Capital Metro service area and does not have direct access to Capital Metro bus or rail services. In order
for residents to use the Capital Metro transit system, they currently must travel to Round Rock or
Leander to ride the existing bus and rail lines. Limited transit service (Community and Connector Transit
Page 87 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 39
services) is provided by CARTS; however, the routes are limited with regard to drop‐off points and
service times.
During November of 2008, the City of Georgetown partnered with CARTS and TxDOT to develop a transit
pilot program. The Georgetown Fixed‐Route Action Plan was funded using $75,000 from CARTS and was
anticipated to last for seven months. The stated purpose of the service was to design a fixed‐route
transit service and implementation plan that would provide services from selected locations within the
city. The program consisted of two separately‐funded phases. The two‐phase pilot project included four
buses serving six routes for seven months of service. The initial startup‐up costs included completion of
full bus shelters – including shelter, signage, hub, and bicycle racks – at a total of 5 stops.
Phase 1 began on November 28, 2008 and continued through February 7, 2009, completing the 600
service hours as stated in the Notice to Proceed. The buses operated two fixed routes, Monday through
Saturday between 11:00 a.m. and 8:15 p.m. for a total of 9.5 service hours a day. Phase 1 ended with a
total of 598.5 hours of transit service, serving 1,475 trips (or 34.3 riders per day). Phase 1 of the pilot
program cost the city $21,850, not including the $813 recouped from farebox revenue.
After reviewing the metrics from Phase 1, CARTS and the city began Phase 2 of the pilot program.
Lessons learned from Phase 1 (including the need for additional stops and expanded operating times)
were incorporated into new operating characteristics for Phase 2, which began on March 2, 2009 and
continued through April 11, 2009. During Phase 2, CARTS operated the same two fixed routes, adding
several additional stops. The days of service were limited to weekdays and the hours of service were
extended to 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
The pilot program was in service for a total of 1,486.5 hours. While the project allowed city staff to gain
some preliminary insight into the need and desire for transit service, it was ultimately not cost effective
for the city to develop self‐contained (local, within the city service) transit service, so the city opted to
discontinue the program until either funding or demand warrant it.
Lessons Learned from 2008‐09 Pilot Program
The city was hopeful that it would reach the 50,000 residential population threshold during the 2010
United States Census, which would have significant implications on both state and local levels. With a
population over 50,000, the city would qualify for more funding opportunities for transportation
improvements.
According to the 2010 Census, the City of Georgetown has a population of 47,400. This represents a 67%
increase between 2000 and 2010. If the city continues to grow at this rate, it is possible that the City’s
population could reach 100,000 residents by 2020. However, the city’s Planning and Development
department estimates the population to be 79,000 by 2020 and exceed 125,000 by 2030. These
estimates are consistent with the CAMPO population model and the updated TDM. This rapid growth
and development indicates that the city should begin considering transit options in its future
transportation planning efforts.
Once Georgetown reaches the 50,000 population figure, it may be classified as a Small Urbanized Area,
which would mean the city would not be tied to the City of Austin and it would become a separate
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This designation has significant implications in terms of transit
funding. The city will become eligible to receive separate funding from the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and will not be combined with Capital Metro. The city is currently not part of
Capital Metro’s service area, and being in the same MSA as Capital Metro does not allow for separate
funding (the funding of multiple transit agencies within one MSA). The FTA typically funds up to 50% of
Page 88 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 40
operating expenses and potentially 80% of capital expenses. The newly established areas are not
expected to have the ability to allocate the funds immediately; thus, they may become eligible for
transit funds of approximately $200,000. In addition, the designation does not guarantee the city will
receive the funds, but it does allow them to apply for the funds once a transit district is authorized.
Under this new designation, the city would develop its own transit system or connect to existing Capital
Metro system. The city needs good transit service – locally and regionally – to provide its citizens with
mobility choices. There are on‐going discussions taking place that would make the City of Georgetown
the northern terminus of the proposed Austin‐San Antonio Commuter Rail Line – Lone Star Rail District
(LSRD). The location currently under consideration is near the intersection of FM 1460 and SE Inner
Loop; however, the completion date and funding mechanisms are yet to be determined and the city
could potentially have its own bus system prior to this date.
2008 City of Georgetown Transit Plan
The City of Georgetown, in conjunction with the Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS), and
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), has completed the Georgetown Fixed‐Route Action
Plan. The purpose of this effort was to design a fixed‐route transit service and implementation plan for
the City of Georgetown.
Bus service was proposed to operate using four buses on six routes. This service was to include four half‐
hour routes interlined (after completing one route, when the vehicle arrives at the transfer center it
would become a second route and would alternate between the two routes to reduce the need for
transfers). One route would have operated on a half schedule to serve the major shopping areas. This
would have served that route exclusively. The Sun City Route would have operated on a one‐hour
schedule using a single bus.
The six routes were projected to serve a total of about 112,000 annual trips the first year and 180,000
the third year. The service was to rely on cut‐away buses supplied by CARTS initially, with bigger buses
being an option as ridership warranted. To operate the service, 9.5 full‐time equivalent driver positions
were expected to be required, costing about $965,000 to operate annually. Start‐up costs were
projected at $633,000, including $500,000 for buses and $85,000 for shelters as the two primary cost
items.
In 2008, it was assumed that there were no federal funds available initially, and that operating costs
would be picked up by the City of Georgetown, federal/state funds, advertising/sponsorships, CARTS,
and rider fares.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City of Georgetown in 2004. Since that time, some
elements of the plan have been updated or added. The Transportation Plan is in the process of being
updated, and the Housing Element was added to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2012.
Housing Element
The Housing Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan studies housing needs of the city with an
emphasis on affordable housing. This document was developed in 2012, well after the 2030
Comprehensive Plan was adopted; thus, its research and findings are recent and relevant to the city’s
existing conditions in 2015.
The document focused on affordability for households at or below 80 percent of the median income for
the Georgetown area, which translated to an income of $48,734 or less at the time the document was
Page 89 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 41
developed. The Housing Element definition of “at or below 80 percent of median income” is always
calculated with the most current available data for median income. Two high priority actions are
recommended to be initiated within five years:
Provide incentives to workforce housing developers (affordable housing developers) to
construct new affordable housing units in Georgetown to bridge the gap between affordable
housing demand and affordable housing supply
Identify suitable multi‐family zoning locations to create an appropriate mix of housing variety in
the city.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan outlines a two‐pronged approach to the city’s
development by implementing a growth management plan and a future land use plan. The document
includes land use goals, policies, and actions to help make the city’s vision a reality. Factors that will
influence future development, found in the Land Use Element include soils, floodplains, Edwards Aquifer
protection zones (Recharge, Contributing, and Transition Zones), active limestone quarries, runway
protection zones around Georgetown Municipal Airport, and the Courthouse View Protection Overlay
District, which protects view sheds toward the historic Williamson County Courthouse in downtown
Georgetown.
The document establishes a tiered growth framework, which allows the city to concentrate
development in rings or tiers around the developed core of the city and thus achieve more compact
future development. Tier 1 is the focus for approximately the first ten years, then Tier 2 for the next ten
years, and Tier 3 for 20 years and beyond. This more deliberate pattern to new development will reduce
the potential for “leap‐frog” communities that pop up far away from current development on the edges
of the city limits or ETJ. This in turn will make infrastructure and utility service expansion less costly for
the city.
Four goals are identified in the Land Use Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
1. Promote sound, sustainable, and compact development patterns with balanced land uses, a
variety of housing choices, and well‐integrated transportation, public facilities, and open space
amenities.
2. Promote sound investment in Georgetown’s older developed areas, including downtown, aging
commercial and industrial areas, in‐town neighborhoods, and other areas expected to
experience land use change or obsolescence.
3. Provide a development framework for the fringe that guides sound, sustainable patterns of land
use, limits sprawl, protects community character, demonstrates sound stewardship of the
environment, and provides for efficient provision of public services and facilities as the city
expands.
4. Maintain and strengthen viable land uses and land use patterns (e.g., stable neighborhoods,
economically sound commercial and employment areas, etc.).
City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit
The 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan was adopted on March 10, 2015. The Transit Development Plan process
will coordinate and collaborate with the Sidewalk Master Plan process as both processes move forward.
The 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan prioritizes the implementation and/or replacement of sidewalks within
the City of Georgetown. There are 144 miles of roadways in the city that have sidewalks, and another
Page 90 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 42
387 miles of roadways where sidewalks are not present. Additionally, 13 percent of existing sidewalks
are in poor condition. The first task was to work with the community to determine the location
preferences for upgrades to take place. Pedestrian attractors, pedestrian safety, demographics, and
special considerations were used to prioritize proposed improvements. Identified projects were
prioritized into three levels of priority, with Priority 1, 2, and 3 projects costing $10.1, $7.0, and $7.8
million, respectively.
Currently, sidewalks are implemented or replaced using $75,000 annually from the general fund. The
city also created a City Residential Sidewalk Fund; however, this is currently unfunded. The study has
identified potential funding partners that include Special Revenue Districts (Downtown, Rivery, Williams
Drive Gateway Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones [TIRZ]), Federal, State, County and Independent
School District, Public Improvement Districts (PIDs), Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs), and Bonded
funds. The Master Plan recommends that the city adopt an operations and maintenance program of
$4,980,000 (or $480,000 annually) over a ten‐year period.
The study recommends that the city enforce the unified development code (UDC) sidewalk installation
requirements, monitor and manage the residential sidewalk fund, develop minor rewording of the UDC,
and update the Sidewalks Management Plan (SWMP) every 10 years. The study also makes the following
recommendations for the design and maintenance of sidewalks.
Sidewalk Design
o Locate sidewalks on one side of every roadway
o Separate sidewalks from traffic
o Develop clear sidewalk design guidelines
o Focus on crosswalks at signalized intersections
o Consider additional pedestrian safety designs above current design
Sidewalk Installation and Maintenance
o Implement Priority 1 projects before 2025
o Formalize public request tracking system
o Complete sidewalk “gaps”
o Initiate an annual review process
o Adopt operations and maintenance (O&M) standards
o Adopt annual funding recommendations that support O&M
Downtown Master Plan Update, Chapter 4 – Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation &
Streetscape Design
This document, updated in January 2014, provides proposed ways to improve pedestrian and bicycle
circulation in the downtown historic core. Implementation of some pedestrian circulation and
accessibility projects will be aided by the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan and annual Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP). Proposed signalized intersections for pedestrians, bike trail connections, and open space
will be considered during downtown routing efforts for the Transit Development Plan.
City of Round Rock Transit/Transportation Plans
The City of Round Rock currently operates a demand‐response service in its city limits and extra‐
territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The service, operated by Star Shuttle, is a reservation‐based, curb‐to‐
curb service. Fares are $5 for residents within city limits and $7 for residents of the ETJ. Discounted fares
are $2 for youth (under 12) and senior (over 60) riders and $3 for low‐income and disabled riders.
Page 91 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 43
Round Rock also participates in the following services: CARTS Interurban Bus Service, Drive a Senior,
Veteran Transportation Service – United for the People, and Medicaid Transportation Services.
Round Rock is currently in the process of developing a Transit Plan for local bus service. Initial
discussions with city staff indicate that they are likely to provide their own transit service outside of the
Capital Metro umbrella of services.
City of Georgetown Citizen Surveys
Beginning in 1998, the City of Georgetown began conducting biennial citizen and employee surveys. The
results of these surveys have been used to gain valuable input into the needs, operations, and priorities
of the city. The last three city surveys (2008, 2010, and 2012) were evaluated for this study.
Prior to the 2012 survey, no information was included about how the survey was administered. The
2012 survey noted that of the 20,965 household addresses that reside in the city, based on the
Williamson Central Appraisal District’s property tax land parcel database and then compared to the local
911 address database, a sample of 2,400 addresses were sent surveys. The survey was mailed to
households, and it contained a web‐link to allow respondents to submit surveys via the internet. There
was a response rate of 44 percent, with 34 percent responding on‐line and 66 percent responding via
mail.
During the 2008 survey, when asked about the top three issues that Georgetown will face in next five
years, “Managing Growth/Development” was first with 65 percent, “Traffic/Transportation” was second
with 60 percent. Both of these concerns are related as new residents and employees must be
accommodated largely on the existing roadway network. When asked if residents would be willing to
fund public transportation such as a fixed route bus system or commuter rail at a cost of up to $25
annually per family in taxes and fees, nearly sixty percent were supportive (with 32 percent strongly
supportive). When asked about expanding sidewalks and bike paths, approximately 55 percent were
supportive (with 28 percent strongly supportive). The final transportation question asked respondents
to rank transportation options. Commuter rail service between Georgetown, Austin, and San Antonio
received 34.5 percent, High‐Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes between Georgetown and Austin received
26.3 percent, developing a fixed bus route system within Georgetown and developing bus rapid transit
between Georgetown and Austin each received 16.3 percent with “none” (4.5 percent) and “don’t
know” (2.3 percent) rounding out the responses.
In 2010, residents were asked what changes would make Georgetown a better place to live.
Approximately 50 percent answered as either a transportation issue (“improve traffic situation” at about
20 percent, or “implement public transportation” at about 16 percent) or a development issue
(“manage growth/development” at 14 percent). When asked how supportive respondents would be to
developing a public transportation system that would cost the city $900,000 per year (or about $58 per
household), about 53 percent were supportive. When asked about developing a passenger rail system at
a cost to the city of $1 million per year (or about $64 per household), about 46 percent were supportive.
Expanding sidewalks or adding on‐street bike lanes, each with a cost to the city of $5 million (or about
$25 per household), resulted in 42 percent and 41 percent, respectively, of respondents being
supportive. The final transportation question asked respondents what their top transportation priority
would be. Improvements to existing roadway system received 30.1 percent, passenger rail service
between Georgetown, Austin and San Antonio received 23.2 percent, developing a fixed bus route
system within Georgetown received 16.1 percent, developing bus rapid transit between Georgetown
and Austin each received 13.4 percent, developing HOV lanes between Georgetown and Austin received
9.3 percent, with “none” (4.6 percent) and “don’t know” (2.6 percent) rounding out the responses.
Page 92 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 44
For the 2012 survey, residents were again asked what changes would make Georgetown a better place
to live. About 20 percent replied “improve traffic situation,” and only 11 percent replied “implement
public transportation.” About 18 percent responded “manage growth/development.” Again, citizens
were asked if they would support a tax increase for several transportation‐related items. Approximately
46 percent of citizens would support a tax increase to extend sidewalks to new locations, making this
the most supported item. Approximately 36 percent of residents would support a commuter rail system
to Austin and San Antonio, and 33 percent of residents support added bicycle lanes. Finally, only about
27 percent of citizens support increased taxes to add a fixed route bus system. The 2012 survey did not
ask respondents to identify their top transportation.
2010 Census and the Impact on Transit Funding
The Impact on Transit Funding study prepared by Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) outlines a scenario
for implementing and funding transit service in Georgetown if the city were to be categorized by the
U.S. Census Bureau after the 2010 Census as a “small urbanized area.” Georgetown did not receive this
designation, however, and instead was categorized as part of the Austin large urbanized area. This
designation by the U.S. Census Bureau has transit funding implications for Georgetown, most of which
are not covered in detail in this report. Further, transportation funding mechanisms have changed since
this report was prepared; MAP 21 replaced SAFETEA‐LU in 2012 as the funding mechanism for federal
surface transportation programs.
Page 93 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 45
Transit Service Performance 5.0
5.1 CARTS Demand‐Response Service Statistics
Overview 5.1.1
CARTS operates with a fiscal year (FY) that begins on September 1 of each calendar year. Demand‐
response, or curb‐to‐curb, service is the only type of transit service offered within the City of
Georgetown. Fixed‐route intercity service provided by CARTS (to Austin) also stops at a commuter lot in
Georgetown, but these fixed‐route services do not provide local bus service. CARTS fares are $2.00 for a
one‐way trip within Williamson County and $4.00 for a one‐way trip outside the county. Half‐priced
fares are offered for elderly and disabled passengers.
General operating statistics for the demand‐response routes running in Georgetown were reviewed for
FY2011 through FY2014; a summary of these statistics is provided in Tables 3 and 4. Route 904 and
Route 911 signify the two buses that are used for the service. The buses do not have different service
areas or routes. Table 3 provides a summary of key service statistics for the total demand‐response
service in Georgetown (both routes). Total passengers have generally increased from FY2011 through
FY2014. Total revenue miles and revenue hours have both nearly doubled between FY2011 and FY2014.
Passengers per trip have stayed relatively constant across the board at just over one person per trip.
Table 6: CARTS Georgetown Service Characteristics
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
Total Passengers 7,219 8,136 10,361 8,942
Passengers Per Trip 1.07 1.09 1.09 1.07
Total No Shows 206 404 475 573
Total Revenue Hours 1,991 2,834 4,228 4,215
Total Revenue Miles 21,735 30,578 44,666 45,417
Source: CARTS, 2015.
Table 7: Productivity Report for CARTS Demand‐Response Service
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
Total Passengers 7,219 8,136 10,361 8,942
Passengers Per Trip 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.01
Average Trip Length 15.66 min. 21.11 min. 22.95 min. 25.79 min.
Average Trip Distance 2.95 miles 4.04 miles 4.29 miles 4.85 miles
Total No Shows 206 404 475 573
Total Revenue Hours 1,991 1,991 1,991 1,991
Total Revenue Miles 21,735 30,577 44,666 45,417
Note: In FY 2012, a second bus was added to the system.
Source: CARTS, 2015.
Page 94 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 46
As shown in Figure 18, total passengers reached a high in FY2013, and then dipped down again in
FY2014 to a level that is still higher than the totals for FY2011 and FY2012.
Figure 21: CARTS Passengers for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014)
Figure 19 shows significant increases in revenue miles from FY2011 through FY2013, and then leveling
off for only a slight increase in FY2014. Trip lengths have been generally increasing over the past four
years, which provides an explanation for the revenue miles increasing at a higher rate than trips
provided.
Figure 22: Annual Revenue Miles for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014)
Figure 20 shows a nearly identical trend to that shown in Figure 19. The revenue hours increased sharply
from FY2011 through FY2013 and then decreased very slightly from FY2013 to FY2014. The similar
nature of the trending of revenue miles and revenue hours indicates that operational parameters have
likely not changed much over the past four years. The amount of time it takes to provide a mile of
service remained relatively constant as the mileage increased. It can thus be inferred from these trends
that road conditions and congestion have not significantly degraded over the past four years.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2011 2012 2013 2014
Total Passengers
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
2011 2012 2013 2014
Revenue Miles
Page 95 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 47
Figure 23: Annual Revenue Hours for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014)
Performance Indicators 5.1.2
This section characterizes the performance of the CARTS Georgetown demand‐response service using
standard transit performance measures.
As noted above, the number of passenger trips has increased between 2011 and 2014, but the second
route that was initiated in 2012 has not doubled the passenger trips, so the passengers per mile and per
hour have decreased compared to 2011 numbers. These figures are shown in Table 5.
Table 8: CARTS Georgetown Performance Indicators
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
Annual Passenger Trips 7,219 8,136 10,361 8,942
Passengers per Revenue Mile 0.33 0.27 0.23 0.20
Passengers per Revenue Hour 3.63 2.87 2.45 2.12
Source: CARTS, 2015
Service Effectiveness
The number of passengers who are served per hour of revenue service and per mile of revenue service
are indications of the productivity, or effectiveness, of the service. Figure 21 shows that passengers per
revenue mile have steadily decreased since FY2011. Total passengers have increased over time, while
passengers per trip have remained relatively constant across the past four years at approximately one
passenger per trip. During this same time period, trip distances have risen. Despite the increase in total
passengers, trip distances are increasing at a higher rate than total passengers. This means that a given
passenger is in a vehicle for a longer distance now than in FY2011, so fewer passengers are now served
per mile of service. Longer trip distances could mean that clients are choosing CARTS for their longer trip
needs and finding alternatives for their shorter trip needs.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
2011 2012 2013 2014
Revenue Hours
Page 96 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 48
Figure 24: Passengers per Revenue Mile for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014)
Figure 22 also shows a similar declining trend for passengers per revenue hour. If trip distances are
longer, total passengers are not increasing as fast as trip distances are, and passengers per trip is
remaining constant, then fewer passengers can be served in a given hour.
Figure 25: Passengers per Revenue Hour for Georgetown Demand‐Response Service (2011‐2014)
0.0
0.2
0.4
2011 2012 2013 2014
Passengers per Revenue Mile
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2011 2012 2013 2014
Passengers per Revenue Hour
Page 97 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 49
Service and Operations Plan 6.0
Based on input from the public outreach process and the comprehensive data analysis tasks, the project
team developed recommendations for service and financial plans. The proposed fixed route transit
system would serve many local destinations radiating from a centralized transfer center providing
transit service within the City of Georgetown. A five route transit system was identified to provide a
foundation of local service for the city. The routes were developed to link as many local origins and
destinations as possible while keeping route lengths and running times reasonable.
Service operation assumptions include:
Operating each route on a 60‐minute frequency;
Development of a central transfer center; and
Complementary demand‐response ADA paratransit service.
6.1 Fixed Route Recommendations
Service and Operations Plan 6.1.1
The service plan is focused on serving key markets and activity centers while creating a bi‐directional
network of direct and simple routes that operate with a timed‐transfer for most routes in downtown
Georgetown. The proposed service will operate 60‐minute frequencies (also known as headways) all day
on the four core routes and for six hours per day to Sun City. Three buses are needed to operate the
fixed‐route system. In an effort to create one‐seat trips and crosstown routing, the routes will be
interlined or paired together. Although no travel demand modeling was done as part of this TDP effort,
the 2008 TDP included ridership projections. Based on the 2008 projections similar routing patterns are
expected to generate about 19,000 to 22,000 trips per year per route for Monday to Saturday service.
The route structure proposed in the service plan provides a base structure for service growth. The
service, guided by public input throughout the development of this Transit Development Plan, is
recommended for implementation in January 2016. Key components of the plan are as follows:
Introduces bi‐directional linear routing in the north, south, west, and east sectors of the city
Proposes a downtown transfer center in the vicinity of 9th Street, 8th Street, West Street and
Martin Luther King Street near the library and the future City Hall
Provides one‐seat rides from Southwestern University and the neighborhoods in the east to the
shopping in the west at Wolf Ranch and the Rivery area
Provides service from all areas of the city to downtown
Provides transit connections to the primary shopping centers and medical facilities
Proposes six day service Monday to Saturday
Continues to provide connections to the CARTS Georgetown Station for regional service to
Round Rock and Austin
Provides complementary curb‐to‐curb paratransit service for seniors and persons with
disabilities
Provide a special events circulator to use as needed for the Christmas Stroll, the Red Poppy
Festival, and other events throughout the year
Service Characteristics 6.1.2
Figure 23 illustrates the bus routes proposed in this Transit Development Plan.
Page 98 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 50
Figure 26: Proposed Georgetown System Map
Page 99 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 51
The following sections present a detailed summary for each proposed weekday route.
Route by Route Overview 6.1.3
Route 1 – Eastside/Southwestern University
The proposed Route 1 Eastside/Southwestern University connects Quail Valley Drive in the south to
Southwestern University and downtown via Maple Street and 7th Street. The route makes a round trip in
approximately 25 minutes and is interlined with Route 2. A round trip is a trip to a given location and
back again, typically along the same route.
A turn‐by‐turn description of the proposed route is as follows:
Outbound from proposed transfer center – North on Martin Luther King Street, East on W. 7th Street,
South on Maple Street, West on Quail Valley Drive, South on Texstar Drive, East on High Tech Drive,
North on Tower Drive, East on Quail Valley Drive, South on Creekside Lane, East on Southwalk Street,
North on Smith Branch Boulevard, East on Quail Valley Drive, as illustrated on Figure 24.
Inbound from Quail Valley Drive (beginning from end of loop) – North on Maple Street, West on 7th
Street, South on Martin Luther King Street.
Proposed bus stops for the route include:
Downtown transfer center near 9th Street and Martin Luther King Street
7th Street and Main Street
Maple Street and Southwestern Boulevard
Maple Street and Soule Drive (Southwestern University)
Maple Street and 13th Street
Maple Street and 18th Street
Maple Street and Quail Valley Drive
Smith Branch Boulevard and Britannia Boulevard
Quail Valley Drive and Texstar Drive
High Tech Drive and Tower Drive
The same bus stop locations are recommended for both the outbound and inbound directions.
Page 100 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 52
Figure 27: Proposed Route 1 – Eastside/Southwestern University
Page 101 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 53
Route 2 – Wolf Ranch Parkway
The proposed Route 2 Wolf Ranch Parkway connects downtown to the shopping areas of Wolf Ranch
Town Center, Walmart and the future conference center on Rivery Boulevard. The route makes a round
trip in approximately 23 minutes and is interlined with Route 1.
A turn‐by‐turn description of the proposed route is as follows:
Outbound from proposed transfer center – South on Martin Luther King Street, East on W. 9th Street,
South on Scenic Drive, West on W. University Avenue, North on Wolf Ranch Parkway, East on Rivery
Driveway, Northeast on Rivery Driveway, North on Rivery Boulevard, as illustrated on Figure 25.
Inbound from Rivery Park Conference Center and Hotel (Future) – North on Rivery Boulevard, Southwest
on Wolf Ranch Parkway, East on W. University Avenue, North on Scenic Drive, West on W. 9th Street,
North on Martin Luther King Street.
Proposed outbound bus stop locations for the route include:
Downtown transfer center near 9th Street and Martin Luther King Street
Scenic Drive and 10th Street
HEB (near University Avenue and IH 35)
Wolf Ranch Town Center (University Avenue and Simon Road)
University Avenue and Wolf Ranch Parkway
Walmart (Rivery Driveway)
Rivery Driveway and Rivery Boulevard
Rivery Park Conference Center and Hotel (future)
The same bus stop locations are recommended for both the outbound and inbound directions.
Page 102 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 54
Figure 28: Proposed Route 2 – Wolf Ranch Parkway
Page 103 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 55
Route 3 – Hospital/Leander Road
The proposed Route 3 Hospital/Leander Road connects downtown to the San Jose neighborhood, St.
David’s Hospital, and the multi‐family residential area in southwest Georgetown. Route 3 also provides
service within one block of the Caring Place on Railroad Avenue. The route makes a round trip in
approximately 25 minutes and is interlined with Route 4.
A turn‐by‐turn description of the proposed route is as follows:
Outbound from proposed transfer center – South on Martin Luther King Street, East on W. 9th Street,
South on S. Austin Avenue, West on W. 17th Street, South on Railroad Avenue, West on 19th Street,
North on Bridge Street, West on W. 17th Street (turns into Scenic Drive), South on Scenic Drive,
Southwest on Leander Road, South on Luther Drive, Northwest on Rockmoor Drive, Northeast on
Thousand Oaks Boulevard, as illustrated on Figure 26.
Inbound from Thousand Oaks Boulevard – North on Luther Drive, Northeast on Leander Road, North on
Scenic Drive (turns into W. 17th Street), South on Bridge Street, East on 19th Street, North on Railroad
Avenue, East on W. 17th Street, North on S. Austin Avenue, West on W. 9th Street, North on Martin
Luther King Street.
Proposed outbound bus stop locations for the route include:
Downtown transfer center near 9th Street and Martin Luther King Street
9th Street and Austin Avenue
Austin Avenue and 17th Street
17th Street and Hart Street
19th Street and Railroad
St. David’s Hospital (Scenic Drive)
Wesleyan at Scenic (Scenic Drive)
Leander Road and Luther Drive
Georgetown Park Apartments (Luther Drive)
Luther Drive and Rockmoor Drive
Rockmoor Drive and Thousand Oaks Boulevard
The same bus stop locations are recommended for both the outbound and inbound directions.
Page 104 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 56
Figure 29: Proposed Route 3 – Hospital/Leander Road
Page 105 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 57
Route 4 – Austin Avenue/Williams Drive
The proposed Route 4 Austin Avenue/Williams Drive connects the downtown transfer center to
Downtown Square, the Austin Avenue corridor and to the multi‐family residential area north of Williams
Drive. The route makes a round trip in approximately 24 minutes and it interlined with Route 3.
A turn‐by‐turn description of the proposed route is as follows:
Outbound from proposed transfer center – East on W. 8th Street, North on S. Austin Avenue, Northwest
on Williams Drive, East on Rivery Boulevard (Future), North on Rivery Boulevard (Future), Northwest on
Northwest Boulevard, Southwest on River Bend Drive, Southeast on Dawn Drive, Northeast on Golden
Oaks Drive, as illustrated on Figure 27.
Inbound from Golden Oaks Drive – Southeast on Northwest Boulevard, Southwest on Rivery Boulevard
(Future), West on Rivery Boulevard (Future), Southeast on Williams Drive, South on S. Austin Avenue,
West on W. 8th Street.
Proposed outbound bus stop locations for the route include:
Downtown transfer center near 9th Street and Martin Luther King Street
Austin Avenue and 7th Street
Austin Avenue and 2nd Street
Austin Avenue and Williams Drive
Williams Drive and Rivery Boulevard
Northwest Boulevard and Janis Drive
Northwest Boulevard and River Bend Drive
Dawn Drive and Golden Oaks Drive
The same bus stop locations are recommended for both the outbound and inbound directions.
Page 106 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 58
Figure 30: Proposed Route 4 – Austin Avenue/Williams Drive
Page 107 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 59
Route 5 – Sun City/Williams Drive
The proposed Route 5 Sun City/Williams Drive is a mid‐day only service providing connections from the
downtown transfer center to the HEB on University Avenue, Wolf Ranch Town Center, Walmart on
Rivery Driveway, the Williams Drive corridor, and the Sun City Activity Center. The route makes a round
trip in approximately 50 minutes.
A turn‐by‐turn description of the proposed route is as follows:
Outbound from proposed transfer center – West on W. 8th Street, South on Scenic Drive, West on
University Avenue, North on Wolf Ranch Parkway, Northwest on Rivery Boulevard, Northwest on
Williams Drive, Northeast on Del Webb Boulevard, Northeast on Sun City Boulevard, as illustrated on
Figure 28.
Inbound from Sun City Boulevard – Southwest on Del Webb Boulevard, Southeast on Williams Drive,
Southwest on Rivery Boulevard, Southwest on Wolf Ranch Parkway, East on University Avenue, North on
Scenic Drive, East on W. 8th Street.
Proposed outbound bus stop locations for the route include:
Downtown transfer center near 9th Street and Martin Luther King Street
Scenic Drive and 10th Street
HEB (near University Avenue and IH 35)
Wolf Ranch Town Center (University Avenue and Simon Road)
University Avenue and Wolf Ranch Parkway
Walmart (Rivery Driveway)
Rivery Boulevard and Williams Drive
Williams Drive and River Bend Drive
Williams Drive and Lakeway Drive
Williams Drive and Estrella Crossing
HEB (Williams Drive and Shell Road)
Scott & White Clinic (Williams Drive and Del Webb Boulevard)
Sun City Activity Center
The same bus stop locations are recommended for both the outbound and inbound directions.
Page 108 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 60
Figure 31: Proposed Route 5 – Sun City/Williams Drive
Page 109 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 61
Special Events Circulator (Future)
The Special Events Circulator is designed to provide direct service between the Rivery Park Conference
Center and the Downtown Square during special events and festivals. The proposed route will also
provide service to the hotels along IH 35 frontage roads. The route will allow for park and ride options to
relieve some of the perceived parking constraints in downtown during the events.
A turn‐by‐turn description of the proposed route is as follows:
Outbound from proposed transfer center – East on W. 8th Street, North on S. Austin Avenue, Northwest
on Williams Drive, North on IH 35 Frontage Road, Northwest on Northwest Boulevard (Future bridge),
Southwest on Rivery Boulevard (Future), West on Rivery Boulevard (Future), Southwest on Rivery
Boulevard to Rivery Park Conference Center and Hotel (Future), as illustrated on Figure 29.
Inbound from Rivery Park Conference Center and Hotel (Future) – Northwest on Rivery Boulevard, East
on Rivery Boulevard (Future), Northeast on Rivery Boulevard (Future), Southeast on Northwest
Boulevard, South on IH 35 Frontage Road, Southeast on Williams Drive, South on S. Austin Avenue, West
on W. 8th Street.
This route is not designed to include fixed stops however the general routing of the bus is to provide
service from hotels, shopping centers, and residential areas to downtown Georgetown and the Rivery
Park Conference Center.
For the purposes of the financial plan, 282 hours were added to cover at least a portion of the cost
associated with special events. This accounts for 22 event days for 12 hours of bus service. It is expected
that the city may recover some of the costs associated with these services through agreements with
event sponsors.
Page 110 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 62
Figure 32: Proposed Special Event Circulator (Future)
Page 111 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 63
6.2 Service Plan Operations
Routes 1, 2, 3, and 4 will operate 12 revenue hours on weekdays from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm with 60‐
minute headways on all routes. The round trip travel times on Routes 1, 2, 3, and 4 are between 23 and
25 minutes. Each route will have a minimum of five minutes for a layover at the transfer center.
Saturday service will operate 10 service hours from 8:30 am to 6:30 pm with 60‐minute headways on
Routes 1 to 4. Route 5 Sun City will operate weekdays only from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. Table 6, below,
illustrates the proposed schedule of service for fixed route service.
Table 9: Route Characteristics
Route
Headways (in minutes)
Span of Service AM Peak
(6:30 – 9:00 a.m.) Base PM Off‐peak
(4:00 – 6:30 p.m.)
Weekday
1 60 60 60 6:30 am to 6:30 pm
2 60 60 60 7:00 am to 7:00 pm
3 60 60 60 6:30 am to 6:30 pm
4 60 60 60 7:00 am to 7:00 pm
5 60 60 60 10:00 am to 4:00 pm
Saturday
1 60 60 60 8:00 am to 6:00 pm
2 60 60 60 8:30 am to 6:30 pm
3 60 60 60 8:00 am to 6:00 pm
4 60 60 60 8:30 am to 6:30 pm
Source: URS, 2015.
Route Interlining and Timed Transfers 6.2.1
The proposed system is designed to pair routes to provide one‐seat rides from one side of the service
area to the other. For example, Route 1 on the east side is interlined with Route 2 to Wolf Ranch
Parkway which connects the residential areas on Quail Valley to shopping at HEB and Wolf Ranch Town
Center. In addition, routes will be timed to arrive and depart the downtown transfer center at
designated intervals to allow for timed‐transfers or a limited pulse. This means that every half hour at
least two of the routes will arrive at the transfer center at the same time allowing a five‐minute window
for transfers to occur. This alleviates the issue of having 30‐minute to 60‐minute wait times to transfer
between buses. As shown in Table 7 not all routes will pulse at the same time at the transfer center. For
example, passengers on Route 1 have the option of staying on the bus to travel on Route 2 or they can
transfer within the five minute window to Route 4. Since Route 1 and Route 3 arrive at the transfer
center at the same time the transfers between the routes are not timed. Transfers are also not timed
between routes 2 and 4.
Page 112 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 64
Table 10: Route Interlining and Transfers at the Downtown Transfer Center – Weekdays
Starting
Route
Departs
Transfer
Center
Arrives
Transfer
Center
Layover at
Transfer
Center
Paired
Route
Departs
Transfer
Center
Arrives
Transfer
Center
Layover at
Transfer
Center
Route 1 :30 :55 5 minutes Route 2 :00 :25 5 minutes
Route 3 :30 :55 5 minutes Route 4 :00 :25 5 minutes
Source: URS, 2015.
Revenue Hours
Weekday fixed‐route operations require 31 daily revenue hours for fixed‐route service. The four core
routes each operate with a total of 6.5 daily revenue hours and the Route 5 to Sun City operates with six
revenue hours. Saturday service requires 21 revenue hours due to the shorter span of service and
reduced number of routes. Route 5 only operates on weekdays.
Revenue Miles
The proposed weekday service plan will require 417.6 total daily revenue miles. The four core routes
range between 62 and 76 daily revenue miles. Route 5’s 139 daily revenue miles make up about 33
percent of the revenue miles for the system even though it only operates six hours per day. It is
recommended to cycle buses between each route in order to balance out the mileage and wear on the
vehicles over time.
The total revenue miles for Saturday is reduced by 45 percent (232 revenue miles) from weekday service
due to the reduction in revenue hours and that the Sun City route is a weekday only route.
Tables 8 and 9 present the operations plan for the proposed Weekday and Saturday services.
Table 11: Proposed Fixed Route Operations Plan – Weekday
Route No. Proposed Route Name (Corridor) Weekday Revenue
Hours
Weekday Revenue
Miles
1 Eastside/Southwestern University 6.25 62.4
2 Wolf Ranch Parkway 6.25 76.8
3 Hospital/Leander Road 6.25 67.2
4 Austin Avenue/Williams Drive 6.25 72.0
5 Sun City 6.00 139.2
Total 31.00 417.6
Source: URS, 2015.
Table 12: Proposed Fixed Route Operations Plan – Saturday
Route No. Proposed Route Name (Corridor) Saturday Revenue
Hours
Saturday Revenue
Miles
1 Eastside/Southwestern University 5.25 52.0
2 Wolf Ranch Parkway 5.25 64.0
3 Hospital/Leander Road 5.25 56.0
4 Austin Avenue/Williams Drive 5.25 60.0
Total 21.00 232.0
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 113 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 65
Intermodal Connectivity
A key factor in the success of a transit system is intermodal connectivity. The ability of transit users to
connect to local transit services via pedestrian and bicycle facilities and to use local transit to reach
regional transit connections impacts the ridership of a local system. A system that includes regional
connections and safe pedestrian and bicycle access to its facilities will be more successful than a system
that does not offer intermodal connectivity. The City of Georgetown plans to complement the future
local bus system with connections to other transportation modes. Intermodal connectivity
considerations will help transit riders get to the bus stop at the beginning of their trip and reach their
final destination at the end of the trip (often referred to as first‐mile and last‐mile connections). The city
has completed an audit of the existing sidewalk infrastructure and has developed a master plan for
improving its sidewalk network, including both refurbishment/replacement of existing sidewalk
infrastructure and construction of new sidewalk facilities. Additionally, a bike share program is already
in place in downtown Georgetown. There are currently two locations, the Georgetown Public Library
and the Georgetown Visitors Center, where bicycles can be checked out. Transit riders can also use their
personal bicycles to begin and end their transit trips, as bike racks will be available on all Georgetown
buses.
The future local bus system will also connect with regional transit services. CARTS will continue to
operate trips from downtown Georgetown to the CARTS Georgetown Station on South Austin Avenue
north of the SE Inner Loop; the future route of these trips would change slightly to connect with the
future transfer center in downtown Georgetown. Connections to future regional services implemented
by Capital Metro (Project Connect) and Lone Star Rail District would also be provided by Georgetown’s
local bus service.
Paratransit Service
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that all fixed‐route transit systems provide
complementary demand‐response service. ADA only requires that demand‐response services operate
within a ¾ mile service area of a fixed route. Currently CARTS operates a curb‐to‐curb general public
demand‐response system throughout the Georgetown city limits. It is recommended to continue to
operate an ADA‐only paratransit service within the boundaries of the city instead of the ¾ mile
catchment area.
The paratransit service will operate with two demand‐response buses 12 hours per day on weekdays
and 10 hours per day on Saturdays. The demand‐response system will operate 24 daily revenue hours
on weekdays. Paratransit service will be able to use the Route 5 Sun City bus when is not in service
between 6:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Fare Policy
Determining a fare policy for the system is a local decision. It is very difficult to project ridership, but the
target for revenues should be close to 10‐12 percent of operating costs. Figures from peer city farebox
revenues are shown in Table 10. A 10‐12 percent farebox recovery rate should be used as a goal for
Georgetown, and as data shows, there are few autonomous peer cities with both a similar population
and without the presence of a major college campus. San Marcos, Killeen/Temple (which are now
served by the same transit agency), San Angelo, and Tyler are all central Texas communities that do not
have major college campuses, are relatively geographically separated from other municipalities, and
have populations that provide reasonable comparisons. While Georgetown has a smaller population
than most of the peer cities, it is expected to see a growth pattern that will put it within this range in the
coming years.
Page 114 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 66
Table 13: Peer City Farebox Recovery Rates
Peer System Year 2010
Population
Operating
Expense
Farebox
Revenue
Farebox
Recovery Rate
San Marcos 45,000 $717,069 $29,431 4.1%
Hill Country (Killeen/Temple) 194,000 $2,858,387 $371,526 13.0%
San Angelo 93,000 $1,227,050 $110,902 9.0%
Tyler 97,000 $1,059,543 $109,725 10.4%
Average of All Four Peer Cities $5,862,049 $621,584 10.6%
Source: National Transit Database, Year 2013 Figures.
Until the system is initiated and the city gains a full understanding of how the system will be utilized, the
base fare should be set for a year with an adjustment planned for year 2. CMTA base fare is $1.25 and
CARTS requires $2 for intra‐county trips. Since the Georgetown system is limited to the city limits it is
recommended that the city implement a base fare of $1.50. This is based on what seems to be the
market for the trip lengths in the system (less distance than the full county fare at CARTS) but higher
than CMTA which is more of a volume‐based fare. It should be widely publicized by the city that fare
structure will be re‐examined for year 2 and potentially adjusted based on ridership and desired
revenue recovery percentage (10%).
CARTS utilized a stored‐value card system for fares on its system. If CARTS is selected to operate the
service, that fare system is customer friendly and reduces cash handling. Most systems do offer a
reduced or half‐fare for the elderly, disabled, and school‐aged children. The city should consider adding
this type of fare at the outset of service but this would negatively impact the revenue recovery rate.
Other structural changes to the fare policy like adding weekly passes and other discounted fares should
be reserved for a future fare analysis based on actual understanding of system utilization.
Capital Plan 6.2.2
The primary capital investments for the system will relate to the procurement of vehicles and bus stop
infrastructure. Since the system is most likely to be contracted with a turnkey operator, support
infrastructure like a maintenance facility will not be necessary to initiate service. To begin the service, an
investment in bus stop signage and other amenities will be required and should be implemented in
phases as the system matures. It was assumed that up to 100 signs with poles would be procured as well
as 20 benches and two shelters. While it is not expected all of this material would be installed right
away, these quantities allow the city to procure the material at a price that will reflect a decent volume.
The city may want to approach CMTA or other transit system for the opportunity to purchase shelters
since there are only two needed at this time. The shelters would be placed at the transfer center.
A key factor in understanding the vehicle needs of the system will be the details of the contract with the
service provider. These contracts can be structured in a number of ways depending on the full scope of
services to be provided. The determination on whether the contractor provides vehicles for the service
will dictate if or how many vehicles will be procured for the system. If vehicles are to be provided by the
contractor, then the city can expect to pay a higher unit cost for the service contract.
The system will need a total of five vehicles to begin revenue service. Three vehicles will be used for
fixed route service and two vehicles will be used for complementary paratransit. It is recommended that
the city’s fleet consist of four cutaway van vehicles (similar to the vehicles used by CARTS) and an MV‐1
Page 115 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 67
vehicle (pictured in Figure 30). The MV‐1 would be used solely for paratransit while the cut‐away
vehicles can be used for either fixed‐route or demand‐response service.
Figure 33: MV‐1 Vehicle
Table 11 outlines capital needs for the system. It should be noted the vehicle costs may be deferred or
even eliminated depending on the service contract implemented.
Table 14: Capital Unit Costs
Item Unit Cost* Number of Proposed
Units Total Cost
Flag Stop Signs/Poles $250 100 $25,000
Benches $600 20 $12,000
Shelters $2000 2 $4,000
Cutaway Van $100,000 0‐4 $0‐$400,000
MV‐1 $55,000 0‐1 $0‐$55,000
Source: URS, 2015.
* Bus stop amenity prices are retail prices through web search and may be reduced by purchasing through CMTA
or other procurement. Additionally, these prices do not include labor costs of installation.
Marketing Plan 6.2.3
A comprehensive marketing plan for the recommended system should be developed to assist in
implementing the new system. This can be done through a partnership between the city and Capital
Metro staff. A strong marketing plan is crucial for establishing the foundation for future marketing
strategies once the implementation is completed.
Items to be addressed could include:
Overall system image/brand
Graphics/maps/schedules
Community outreach
Advertising
Coordination techniques with other organizations
Page 116 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 68
It is essential that a distinctive system logo, vehicle paint scheme, signage, and theme for the new
services be developed to generate a unique and positive image for the transit program. A key
recommendation is that the image (logo/graphics) created be unique to the service area and avoid the
more conventional or institutional look often utilized by new transit systems.
Customer Service is closely linked with marketing as this function typically:
Provides transit service information through various methods including internet, printed media
and telephone
Coordinates the sale of fare media
Handles customer complaints, commendations, inquiries, requests, and suggestions
Responsible for “Lost and Found”
Service Monitoring 6.2.4
Transit systems have recurrent needs and requirements to collect and report a wide range of
information about operations and ridership. The continual compilation of data is essential for the
effective planning and management of transit services. Without detailed operations information, the
ability to effectively monitor and report system performance and subsequently revise services would be
severely impacted. Resource limitations frequently limit comprehensive service monitoring programs.
However, the information resulting from service monitoring is very important because fundamental
transit functions such as scheduling, service planning, maintenance, finance, and marketing require this
data for decision making and reporting.
Key considerations for establishing a service monitoring program include:
Identification of the data categories to be collected
Methods and sources to be used in data collection
Procedures to be used to process and store the data
Evaluating and reporting the data in a meaningful and ongoing format
Determining where required reports should be transmitted
Ensuring required reports are properly transmitted
Program elements must be identified prior to the initiation of service as certain data must be recorded
on a daily basis. The City of Georgetown should work with Capital Metro to ensure the data is collected,
evaluated, and reported in an accurate and timely manner. In addition to compilation of statistical data,
periodic field observations of system operations and contract monitoring must also be regularly
undertaken.
Implementation Plan
The following section outlines the recommended phased approach of the TDP.
Year 0 – FY 2016 – Contracting and System Start‐up
Present Plan for adoption to Georgetown City Council
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro finalize budget for service based on council priorities
Maintain existing CARTS service during Year 0.
Set system start‐up date – Financial Plan (Section 6.4) assumes a start date of October 1, 2016
(beginning of federal fiscal year 2017) which matches the city’s fiscal year. However, service
could start as soon as January 1, 2016, depending on contracting terms, but would require
substantial changes to the financial plan.
Page 117 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 69
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro enter into an agreement for service.
Develop Capital Plan.
Procure buses for service, if not included in Contractor service.
Procure bus stop amenities – stops, benches, and shelters.
Initiate marketing campaign to promote new service.
90 days before start‐up
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro coordinate outreach to the public about service and
implementation date
Begin bus stop placement and transfer center implementation
Year 1 – FY 2017 – Implementation
Implement new service.
Develop method for collecting feedback from clients – customer comments should be
documented by contractor for analysis by the city.
Prepare Title VI review to ensure that the level and quality of fixed‐route and demand‐response
services are provided in a non‐discriminatory manner. The City of Georgetown and Capital
Metro will need to provide equitable service that meets the requirements of the Title VI Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI ensures that no person shall be excluded from participation
in, denied benefits of or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national
origin under any program receiving federal financial assistance. This process may best be
incorporated into the Capital Metro plan.
Update and establish regular procedures for maintaining system goals, objectives, and strategies
based on first six months of service.
Provide annual TDP update to Capital Metro.
Year 2 – FY 2018
Conduct on‐board counts and rider survey – the survey would be most effective in the spring of
2018 to allow for 18 months from initial start‐up. Travel patterns and utilization by passengers
should be established by then.
Assess service for potential service improvements or changes for implementation at the
beginning of FY 19.
Begin to implement a more comprehensive passenger amenities program to optimize bus stops
and add benches and shelters as necessary.
Monitor fleet needs to plan for adequate inventory.
Incorporate any budgetary changes into city budget and service contract for FY 19.
Provide annual TDP update to Capital Metro.
90 days before October 1, 2018
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro coordinate outreach to the public about service changes,
if necessary.
Year 3 – FY 2019
Implement service improvements, if warranted.
Provide annual TDP update to Capital Metro.
Page 118 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 70
6.3 Management Options
Direct (City Management and Operation) 6.3.1
The City of Georgetown would be responsible for the hiring of a transit management executive and all
necessary staff. Vehicles and equipment would be handled through a public procurement process.
Advantages associated with the direct option include full continuing control by the local jurisdiction over
the quality of transit operations. The city could incorporate standards of administration and
performance consistent with standards applicable to city employees. An additional benefit due to the
addition of mechanics, technicians, and vehicles would be the enhanced capacity of performing fleet
maintenance functions in‐house rather than externally. Expenses supporting profit and overhead due to
private‐sector management or operation would be foregone.
Potential disadvantages with the direct option include the challenges of hiring and retaining expert
personnel at satisfactory wage levels to oversee transit operations. Additionally, as public employees,
transit staff members such as operators are often unionized. The Direct option will require stringent
care to assure conformance with federal labor protection regulations and may pose additional
challenges for management when administering labor contracts. Finally, without strong performance
measures and guidelines for administration in place, day‐to‐day service decision making can become
highly susceptible to the political processes at the municipal government level.
Contract Management 6.3.2
This scenario involves the competitive selection of a firm/organization to manage the transit service.
The city may own and maintain the equipment, facility, and vehicles and would hire the labor to support
the transit service. A transit management firm or CARTS would have access to experienced and
specialized personnel that is needed often, but may be too expensive for the city to retain directly and
sustain year‐round. The city and/or Capital Metro would maintain control, but unlike the direct option
management expertise can be competitively procured from the contractor as needed on a contract
basis. In addition to potential cost‐effectiveness gains relative to the direct option, transit management
firms can be highly experienced in pooling resources to respond to a host of matters relating to
intergovernmental reporting and compliance, service promotion, labor, and operations, and may exceed
the responsiveness capacities of city staff.
6.4 Financial Plan
A five‐year financial plan was developed for the system based on the capital needs, operating plan, and
an assumed start date of October 1, 2016 (beginning of FY 2017). This start date will allow the city
adequate time to negotiate a contract with a service provider, procure vehicles (if necessary) and
assemble federal funds.
FTA Section 5307 Funding 6.4.1
The urbanized formula funding program (Section 5307) provides dollars for capital and operating
assistance in urbanized areas (UZA) as well as transportation‐related planning. The formula is based on
the UZA’s population, population density, and transit service statistics. Based on the formula, the
revenue coming to the region should increase as more service is introduced and as the population
continues to grow. It is difficult to estimate the future §5307 revenue because it is highly dependent on
the amount authorized at the federal level. The current level of FTA §5307 funding allocated to the City
of Georgetown is approximately $256,000 annually. These funds can be used for both operating and
capital expenditures with 50% and 20% non‐federal funding match requirements, respectively. The
Page 119 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 71
urbanized formula is also broken down into three categories based on population that have different
regulations governing eligible expenditures and the formula itself.
Operating Costs 6.4.2
As mentioned in the operating plan, the overall cost of the system will be different depending on
whether or not the vehicles are included in the service contract. If the city chooses to have the service
contractor to provide vehicles then a major capital outlay in FY 16 can be avoided, however, the city can
expect to pay a higher unit cost for service. Table 12 illustrates the funding levels required for the
system if the contractor provides the vehicles. Table 13 shows a financial plan based on the city
providing vehicles. Plans include the continuation of existing CARTS service paid for by the city for FY 16.
The system contemplated in this plan is presumed to be replacing the CARTS service in FY 17.
As the Tables 12 and 13 illustrate, total operating costs for the system will be between $740,000 and
$850,000 depending on the negotiated unit cost for service. The plans are structured to use the 5307
funding for capital first and then the remainder is used to subsidize operations. Since the service costs
will utilize the entire allocation of federal funds, more complicated funding structures are not necessary.
The city will need to commit $420,000 to $530,000 annually to cover costs for the system. Key aspects of
the financial plan are:
The plan assumes 10% farebox recovery. The city should reserve a contingency to cover net
operating cost, in case; the system utilization does not generate this percentage of fare revenue.
It may take several years for the system to mature and a revised fare structure in order to
generate a level of ridership necessary for that farebox recovery rate.
Negotiating a contract where the contractor provides the vehicles will allow the city to pool
5307 funds from FY 16 and use them for operating costs in FY 17. While long term operating
costs will be higher, the city can reduce short‐term outlay of local funds; $170,000 in FY 16 and
$466,000 in FY 17. Typically, the contractor will want a longer period of performance (up to 5
years or more) in order to amortize the cost of vehicles across more years of service.
Conversely, if the city procures the vehicles, then the annual amounts of local funding are more
consistent from year to year. Long‐term operating costs will be lower and potential save the city
$100,000 per year in operating costs. This method will, however, require $373,000 in FY 16,
double that of the provided‐vehicles scenario.
The unit costs for operating in the proposed financial plan are not negotiated prices. The cost
and subsequent local funding amounts are subject to change based on the agreed pricing in a
service contract.
Page 120 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 72
Table 15: Financial Plan Based on the Contractor Providing Vehicles
Operating Plan Peak
Vehicles Hours/Day Rev Hours
Daily Annualized Days
Route 1&2 – Weekday 1 13 13 3,263 251 $244,725
Route 1&2 – Saturday 1 11 11 605 55 $45,375
Route 3&4 – Weekday 1 13 13 3,263 251 $244,725
Route 3&4 – Saturday 1 11 11 605 55 $45,375
Sun City/Paratransit 1 6 6 1,506 251 $112,950
Special Event 2 6 12 264 22 $19,800
9,506
Paratransit 1 12 6 1,848 308 $138,600
Fixed Route $/Rev hour $/Rev Hour Paratransit
Operating cost/year $75 $851,550 $75
Revenues FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
5307 $251,091 $316,282 $251,091 $276,200 $276,200
Capital $20,000 $12,800 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
O&M $165,900 $303,482 $251,091 $276,200 $276,200
Other Sources
Local Funding $170,900 $466,113 $534,464 $528,994 $549,123
Total Revenue $356,800 $782,395 $785,555 $805,194 $825,324
Expenses
Buses $‐
MV‐1 $‐
Bus Updates $‐
Stop Amenities $25,000 $16,000
Capital Total $25,000 $16,000 $ ‐$ ‐ $ ‐
Operating $331,800 $851,550 $872,839 $894,660 $917,026
Fares $ (85,155)$ (87,284)$ (89,466) $ (91,703)
Operating Total $331,800 $766,395 $785,555 $805,194 $825,324
Total Expense $356,800 $782,395 $785,555 $805,194 $825,324
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 121 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 73
Table 16: Financial Plan Based on the City of Georgetown Providing Vehicles
Operating Plan Peak
Vehicles Hours/Day Rev Hours
Daily Annualized Days
Route 1&2 – Weekday 1 13 13 3,263 251 $212,095
Route 1&2 – Saturday 1 11 11 605 55 $39,325
Route 3&4 – Weekday 1 13 13 3,263 251 $212,095
Route 3&4 – Saturday 1 11 11 605 55 $39,325
Sun City/Paratransit 1 6 6 1,506 251 $97,890
Special Event 2 6 12 264 22 $17,160
9,506
Paratransit 1 12 6 1,848 308 $120,120
Fixed Route $/Rev hour $/Rev Hour Paratransit
Operating cost/year $65 $738,010 $65
Revenues FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
5307 $251,091 $251,091 $251,091 $276,200 $276,200
Capital $236,000 $12,800 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
O&M $15,091 $238,291 $251,091 $276,200 $276,200
Other Sources
Local Funding $373,069 $429,118 $429,723 $421,634 $439,080
Total Revenue $624,160 $680,209 $680,814 $697,835 $715,280
Expenses
Buses $200,000
MV‐1 $55,000
Bus Updates $15,000
Stop Amenities $25,000 $16,000
Capital Total $295,000 $16,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Operating $329,160 $738,010 $756,460 $775,372 $794,756
Fares $(73,801) $(75,646) $(77,537) $(79,476)
Operating Total $329,160 $664,209 $680,814 $697,835 $715,280
Total Expense $624,160 $680,209 $680,814 $697,835 $715,280
Source: URS, 2015.
Page 122 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report 74
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 123 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices i
Table of Contents
Appendix A: Georgetown Transit Development Plan Fact Sheet ................................................... A‐1
Appendix B: Public Meeting 1: January 22, 2015 ........................................................................... B‐1
Appendix C: Public Meeting 2: April 1, 2015 ................................................................................. C‐1
Appendix D: City of Georgetown Public Intercept Survey .............................................................. D‐1
Appendix E: City of Georgetown On‐Line Survey .......................................................................... E‐1
Appendix F: Stakeholder Comments ............................................................................................ F‐1
Page 124 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 125 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices A‐1
Appendix A: Georgetown Transit Development Plan Fact Sheet
Page 126 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices A‐2
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 127 of 200
STUDY OVERVIEW
City of Georgetown Transit Development Plan
Next Steps
Bus Service Plan Goals
Project Elements
The City of Georgetown and Capital Metro have
initiated a Transit Development Plan to determine
the opportunities and the associated requirements
for providing public transit service. This study will
identify and design transit alternatives that will take
into account the varied needs of the area’s
population and employment markets and support the
City of Georgetown’s commitment to enhancing
mobility options.
Georgetown has grown by 67 percent since 2000.
In 2010 the City became part of the Austin
Urbanized area allowing for partnering with Capital
Metro to provide transit. Georgetown, through this
study, will be prepared with a comprehensive
understanding of its transit needs and options for
proceeding towards implementation.
Key study components include:
Reviewing relevant area studies and collect
additional data as required;
Assessing transit needs and identifying potential
transit markets;
Evaluating and selecting transit alternatives for
implementation;
Developing appropriate transit service and
system alternatives;
Conducting public and agency outreach activities;
Preparing short-term service and financial plans.
Present Plan for adoption by City Council;
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro finalize
budget based on City Council priorities;
Set implementation date;
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro enter into an
agreement for service;
Include proposed service in the Capital Metro
service change process;
City of Georgetown and Capital Metro coordinate
outreach to the public about service and
implementation date;
Implement bus service.
Study Purpose
Through technical analysis and public outreach effort,
transit opportunities have been identified.
Provide lifeline service to shopping, jobs, medical
appointments, and social services
Connect tourists locations including the Downtown
Square, Wolf Ranch Shopping Center, and the
future Rivery conference center and hotel
Provide service to transit dependent populations
Provide service to Southwestern University and Sun
City
Create a cost-effective, useful and user-friendly
transit system
Establish a solid foundation for transit to build on
over time
Meet future regional services – Project Connect
Create a cost effective, useful and user-friendly
transit plan
Establish a solid foundation for transit to build on
over time
Meet future regional services – Project Connect
Page 128 of 200
Page 129 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices B‐1
Appendix B: Public Meeting 1: January 22, 2015
Sign‐In Sheets (Christmas Stroll, December 5‐6, 2014; Public Meeting 1)
Display Boards
Page 130 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices B‐2
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 131 of 200
Page 132 of 200
Page 133 of 200
Page 134 of 200
Page 135 of 200
Page 136 of 200
Page 137 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices C‐1
Appendix C: Public Meeting 2: April 1, 2015
Sign‐In Sheets
Display Boards
Presentation
Page 138 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices C‐2
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 139 of 200
Page 140 of 200
Page 141 of 200
Page 142 of 200
Page 143 of 200
Georgetown Transit
Development Plan
Georgetown Public Library
April 1, 2015
Page 144 of 200
•What is a Transit Development Plan?
•Why a Transit Plan Now?
•Project Tasks and Schedule
•Existing Conditions and Public Outreach
•Project Goals
•Proposed Route Network and Characteristics
•Next Steps
Agenda
Page 145 of 200
•Provides an assessment of transit opportunities and the
associated requirements for providing public transit service
to the City of Georgetown.
•Identifies and designs transit alternatives that consider the
varied needs of the area’s growing population and
employment markets.
•Develop service and financial plans for future transit
options
What is a Transit Development Plan?
Page 146 of 200
•Georgetown has grown by 67 percent since 2000 and population
is projected to double by 2030
•Increased regional roadway congestion with limited travel
options in the area
•Opportunity to coordinate with other multi-modal plans
including the Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan, Project Connect
North Corridor Plan and the City’s Overall Transportation Plan
•In 2010 the City became part of the Austin Urbanized Area
allowing for partnering with Capital Metro to provide transit
service
•Availability of federal funds
Why a Transit Plan Now?
Page 147 of 200
•Public Involvement and Outreach
•Existing Conditions
•Mission and Goals
•Evaluate Course of Action/Transit Needs
Assessment
•Three-Year Implementation Plan
– Service and operations plan
– Financial plan
– Phases of implementation
•Draft and Final Transit Development Plan
Tasks
Page 148 of 200
Project Schedule
Month:Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April
Project Management
1 Project Steering Committee
2 Public Involvement
Stakeholder Interviews
Intercept Surveys
Public Meeting
3 Performance and Situational Appraisal
4 Mission and Goals
5 Develop and Evaluate Alternative Courses of Action
6 Three Year Implementation Plan
7 Relationship to Other Plans
8 TDP Report and Executive Summary
Monthly Project Meetings/Calls
Ste ering Committee Meetings
Final Report
Public Meeting
2014 2015
Page 149 of 200
7
•Evaluation of Existing Conditions
–Existing and future demographic analysis
–Land use
–Review of relevant Georgetown planning
documents
–Analysis of multi-modal accommodations
•Assessment of CARTS Service in
Georgetown
•Field Observations
•Public Outreach
–Christmas Stroll Survey
–Intercept Survey at Library
–Public Meeting in January
–Stakeholder Interviews
Existing Conditions
Page 150 of 200
8
Existing Conditions – Population Density
Page 151 of 200
9
Existing Conditions –Employment Density
Page 152 of 200
10
Existing Conditions – Zero Car Availability
Page 153 of 200
11
•Operates general public demand response service throughout
the city
•Major destinations on demand-response service; HEB, Walmart,
Madella Hilliard Neighborhood Center, Davita Dialysis Center,
The Caring Place
•Operates the Red Route with three southbound/two
northbound trips on weekdays between Georgetown, Round
Rock, Tech Ridge (Austin), and central Austin
Existing Conditions – CARTS Bus Service
Page 154 of 200
12
Public Outreach
What we heard we head from the public?
•Bus service to activity centers including Southwestern
University, Downtown Square, and Wolf Ranch
Shopping Center
•Connections to future high capacity transit service to
Austin
•Service to future conference center and hotel off Rivery
•Provide service to Sun City, hospital, medical offices,
social service agencies, and shopping including HEB and
Walmart
•Service to transit dependent populations and tourists
Page 155 of 200
•Provide lifeline service to shopping, jobs, medical
appointments, and social services
•Connect tourists locations including the Downtown Square
and the future Rivery Conference Center and hotel
•Provide service to transit dependent populations
•Provide service to Southwestern University
•Create a cost effective, useful and user-friendly transit plan
•Establish a solid foundation for transit to build on over time
•Meet future regional services – Project Connect
Proposed Service Plan Goals
Page 156 of 200
14
Proposed Transit Plan
•Route 1 – service to high density
housing off Quail Valley to
Southwestern University and
downtown
•Route 2 – service from downtown
to HEB, Wolf Ranch and Rivery
area (paired with Route 1)
•Route 3 – service from downtown
to StonehavenApartments, St.
Davids Hospital and southwest
Georgetown
•Route 4 – service through
downtown on Austin Avenue and
west on Williams (paired with
Route 3)
•Tripper service from downtown
Georgetown to meet CARTS buses
to/from Austin
•Sun City Route to Rivery, Wolf
Ranch and downtown
•Special Events Circulator
connecting Rivery and downtown
Page 157 of 200
•Begin service with small buses
•Operate Core System with four primary routes with a timed-
transfer at a downtown transfer location (in vicinity of 8th and
MLK)
–Interline (pair) routes that allow for a one-seat ride east/west and north/south
–Routes operate every 30 minutes or 60 minutes depending on service scenario
–Hub and spoke system from downtown transfer location
•Other services include:
–Service from downtown timed to meet CARTS service to/from Austin
–Sun City service with scheduled trips throughout the day connecting to HEB
(Williams Dr.), Rivery, Wolf Ranch, and downtown
–Special event service for downtown events and access to new conference center
•Provide complementary paratransit service
•Phase in new service over time to meet demand including
connections to regional services
Recommended Service Characteristics
Page 158 of 200
16
•Identify bus stop locations
•Identify Transfer Center location in downtown
•Select a service plan option
–Service hours – hours bus service operates each day
–Service days – weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays
–Frequency of service – every 30 minutes or every 60 minutes
•Identify a contract and management process to deliver service
•Other important steps include bus procurement, marketing and
branding service, developing fare structure
Implementation Planning
Page 159 of 200
17
•Present plan for adoption by City Council
•City of Georgetown and Capital Metro finalize budget for
service based on City Council priorities
•Set implementation date
•City of Georgetown and Capital Metro enter into an agreement
for service
•Include proposed service in Capital Metro service change
process
•City of Georgetown and Capital Metro coordinate outreach to
the public about service and implementation date
•Implement service
Next Steps
Page 160 of 200
Page 161 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices D‐1
Appendix D: City of Georgetown Public Intercept Survey
Page 162 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices D‐2
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 163 of 200
Georgetown Transit Plan – Survey on Transit Needs
Capital Metro wants to get your ideas about public transit service in our area. Please take a few minutes and share your
opinions with us. We truly appreciate your time and input.
1. Gender: M F 2. Home Zip
Code:
3. Work/School Zip
Code:
4.Ethnicity: Caucasian 5.Age: (under 16)
Hispanic (17-28)
African-American (29-40)
Asian-American (41-52)
Other, please
specify _________
(53-64)
(65+)
6. If available, would you use public transportation for the
following types of trips? (Please check all that apply)
7. Which types of transportation do you currently use
and how often? (Please check all that apply)
Work – Never Once or twice a month 1-3 times a
week 4-7 times a week More
Automobile – Never Once or twice a month 1-3
times a week 4-7 times a week More
School – Never Once or twice a month 1-3 times
a week 4-7 times a week More
Carpool - Never Once or twice a month 1-3 times
a week 4-7 times a week More
Entertainment/Recreation – Never Once or twice a
month 1-3 times a week 4-7 times a week More
Bicycle - Never Once or twice a month 1-3 times
a week 4-7 times a week More
Shop/Run Errands – Never Once or twice a month
1-3 times a week 4-7 times a week More
Walk - Never Once or twice a month 1-3 times a
week 4-7 times a week More
Social Services – Never Once or twice a month
1-3 times a week 4-7 times a week More
Capital Area Rural Transportation Services (CARTS)
Once or twice a month 1-3 times a week 4-7 times
a week More
Medical appointments – Never Once or twice a
month 1-3 times a week 4-7 times a week More
Other/How
often?
Other/How often?
8. What would make you more likely to begin using public transportation? (Please select your top 3 reasons)
If it were convenient to where I live and where I’m going
If I felt safe/secure when using public transit
If it took less time to get where I am going
To avoid paying for gas
Other______________________________________
Page 164 of 200
Georgetown Transit Plan – Survey on Transit Needs
Capital Metro necesita sus ideas sobre el sistema de transportación público. Por favor tome un momento para compartir
sus pensamientos. Muchas gracias por sus sugerencias.
1. Sexo: Hombre Mujer 2. Codigo Postal
de su Casa:
3. Codigo Postal de
su Trabajo/Escuela:
4.Raza: Caucásico 5.Edad: (menos de 16)
Hispano (17-28)
Afro-Americano (29-40)
Asiatico-Americano (41-52)
Otro, favor de especificar (53-64)
(65+)
6. De ser posible, usaria transporte publico para los
siguientes tipos de viajes? (Favor de marcar los que apliquen)
7. Que tipo de transporte usa usted actualmente y que
tan seguido? (Favor de marcar los que apliquen)
Trabajo – Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3 veces a la
semana 4-7 veces a la semana Mas
Automóvil – Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3
veces a la semana
Escuela – Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3 veces a la
semana 4-7 veces a la semana Mas
Carpool/Comparte coche - Nunca 1-2 veces al
mes 1-3 veces a la semana
Entretenimiento Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3 veces a
la semana 4-7 veces a la semana Mas
Bicicleta - Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3 veces
a la semana
De Compras/Mandados Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3
veces a la semana 4-7 veces a la semana Mas
Camino - Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3 veces a
la semana
Servicios Sociales – Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3
veces a la semana 4-7 veces a la semana Mas
Servicios de Transporte Rural de Capital (CARTS)
Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3 veces a la semana
Citas Medicas – Nunca 1-2 veces al mes 1-3 veces
a la semana 4-7 veces a la semana Mas
Otros/Que
tan Seguido
Otros/Que tan
seguido?
8. Que te haria empezar a usar el transporte público? (Por favor seleccione las 3 razones que mas apliquen)
Si estuviera mas cerca de donde vivo y a donde voy
Si me sintiera mas seguro usando el transporte público
Si tomara menos tiempo llegar a mi destino
Para evitar pagar precios de gasolina más altos
Otro ________________________________________
Page 165 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices E‐1
Appendix E: City of Georgetown On‐Line Survey
Page 166 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices E‐2
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 167 of 200
Georgetown Transit Development Plan
1. Have you used transit in the last month?
Yes
No
2. If yes, how many times in the last month?
1-2 times
3-5 times
More than 5 times
Not applicable
3. If you used transit in the past month, which service(s) did you use? (Select all that apply.)
CARTS Demand-Response (curb-to-curb)
CARTS Red Route to Round Rock/Austin
Capital Metro Bus
Capital Metro MetroRail
Not applicable
Other (please specify)
4. What should be the primary purposes of transit in Georgetown? Please rank the below choices in order of
importance. (1 being the most important purpose of transit and 7 being the least)
Employment trips within Georgetown
Shopping
Recreation
Medical
School/University
Tourism/Special Event
Regional connections to Austin
Regional connections to Round Rock
1Page 168 of 200
5. If fixed-route bus service were available in Georgetown, how often would you ride it?
1-2 times per month
1-2 times per week
3-4 times per week
5 or more times per week
Never
Only if I were to become physically unable to drive
I don't know if I would ride it.
The Project Team has developed a proposed route network for local bus service in Georgetown. Please refer
to the map below for Questions 5 through 8.
2Page 169 of 200
3Page 170 of 200
6. In your opinion, when should the local bus service operate?
Weekdays only
Weekdays and Saturdays
Seven days a week
Other (please specify)
7. What are your thoughts about the proposed transit route network pictured above?
8. Where should bus stops be located along proposed routes? Please provide a place name and/or a street
intersection for each suggested bus stop location.
9. For future phases of service expansion, what other locations should the local routes serve?
10. Please provide any additional comments regarding local or regional transit.
DoneDone
4Page 171 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices F‐1
Appendix F: Stakeholder Comments
Page 172 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices F‐2
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 173 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices F‐3
Daniel Anstee, Branch Director – Boys & Girls Club of Georgetown
Most of the kids at the club are younger and it may not be ready to ride public transportation on
their own.
In most cases the club is neighborhood based and kids don’t have to go too far.
70% of kids are on the lunch program.
Boys and Girls Club is a low cost after school program for the underserved community.
The primary club is located at Old McCoy School but looking at relocating to a larger facility in
the southeast area of the city.
150 to 200 kids at the Stonehaven Club.
840 kids total – 70% from Georgetown.
Transportation maybe linked with school bus use.
Need for transit to lower income communities in the San Jose neighborhood and along Quail
Valley.
Need transportation to HEB, San Gabriel Park and Rec Center, hospital and City pools.
LeAnn Powers, Chief Professional Officer – United Way of Williamson County
Regional transit connections to Georgetown are important.
There is also a need to go east and west to Cedar Park and Leander from Georgetown and
Round Rock.
County wide transit service is needed to serve medical and transit dependent trips.
Faith in Action is doing some of these trips in Georgetown.
Looking for TxDOT grant to start a consolidated program with other social agencies in
Williamson County.
Have had some conversations with CARTS about Williamson County regional service but nothing
has progressed.
Integrated Core Collaborative is currently providing transit for frequent medical users.
Jim Romine, Executive Director – Sun City Texas Community Association
The Sun City route in 2008 was not well utilized.
A lot of residents don’t like to drive to Round Rock and Austin and may use transit for regional
trips.
Social Center on Sun City would be a good central bus stop.
Sun City residents would most likely want to go to Wolf Ranch, downtown Georgetown and HEB.
Most residents can still drive or are able to get a ride from spouse or friend.
The average home price in 2014 at Sun City was $270,000.
A stop at Scott & White off of Del Webb and Williams might be useful for transit service.
Most residents have access to a car of golf cart to get around the community.
Collin Creek Community Center has large parking lot and room for a bus to stop.
Flex service might also work in Sun City to circulate and provide trips to medical and grocery
destinations.
12,000 to 13,000 residents live in Sun City and the average age is 72.
Craig Irwin, Associate Vice President for Finance – Southwestern University
Transit service needs to tie the university to downtown, HEB and Wolf Ranch.
Page 174 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices F‐4
The university currently operates the Pirate shuttle 2 to 3 times per week to downtown, HEB
and Wolf Ranch.
There is a demand to go to downtown Austin on weekends and also to Round Rock.
The preferred bus route would circulate into the campus to the Campus Center. This routing
would get more exposure to students, faculty and staff.
A lot of student housing is on Maple but there are others off of University.
Currently the university has 1,500 students.
Shelly Hargrove, Main Street Manager – Georgetown Main Street
A future transfer center should be located downtown, preferably on the westside near the
library and new City Hall.
Downtown is the core of the community.
Southwestern University is key – students want to go to downtown to eat and shop.
Rivery Conference Center needs to be considered in the future for transit service.
Connection between Sun City and downtown is needed, especially at night.
Parking is perceived as a problem in downtown and transit could help during special events.
As more residential is developed in downtown, transit will play a more important role.
Caren Lee, Transit Coordinator – City of Round Rock
The City of Round Rock is in the process of completing a 10‐Year Transit Master Plan.
Looking at associated costs with different operating options (operated by third party, city
operates with contractor, city operates everything).
Master plan will have operations and service plan and will be completed by August 2015.
Round Rock is considering flex routes and fixed routes.
Wolf Ranch is a destination for Round Rock, there could be a connection between the Round
Rock Outlets and Wolf Ranch.
Today they have general public demand response with 5 buses and reverse commute to Tech
Ridge and Sears Call Center.
Current transit markets in Round Rock are work, school, medical, senior center and shopping.
Cari Miller, Tourism/CVB Manager – Georgetown Chamber of Commerce
Rivery Conference Center and the surrounding development is an important part of the future
transit service.
Service is needed along University to HEB and Wolf Ranch.
Consider a route connecting Sun City to downtown.
There may be a market for service to Round Rock including Ikea and the outlets.
Retirement communities other than Sun City could benefit from transit service.
Southwestern University route may need to be seasonal since not as many students stay in town
during the summer.
Rhonda Pritchard, General Manager – Wolf Ranch Town Center
Transit is very useful near Lakeline Mall (another Simon property).
Transit could benefit the community but buses should not operate on the Wolf Ranch property
at this time since there is too much traffic on weekends and it is not set up for buses.
Most people drive from store to store – not a lot of pedestrian traffic.
Wolf Ranch Road behind Target could be an option for a bus stop.
Page 175 of 200
GEORGETOWN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Final Report – Appendices F‐5
Looking at a new mall north of Wolf Ranch with more shops.
There may be a need for a connection to Round Rock Outlet Mall – mall to mall route.
Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant to the Assistant City Manager – City of Georgetown
Service is needed to the apartments in southwest Georgetown south of Leander.
In addition to routes connecting the shopping to downtown, transit should also serve lower
income areas in the south.
Southwestern University needs weekday service, the university currently operates the Pirate
Shuttle to Wolf Ranch a few days per week.
CARTS – Dave Marsh and Lyle
CARTS opened the Georgetown Transit Center in 2009.
In 2009 they provided service between Georgetown and Leander that did not have much
ridership.
CARTS completed a service plan for Georgetown in 2007 and 2008 however the City Council only
agreed to implement a limited Sun City Pilot Program route.
In 2012 Georgetown became part of Austin Urbanized Area.
October 2014 – CARTS began operations of Georgetown service through a contract with Cap
Metro.
CARTS currently uses 2 buses for demand response service in Georgetown.
All CARTS stations are shared with Greyhound.
Focused on rural and interurban service – connecting cities in the region – there is a pulse at the
CARTS Transit Center in Austin in the AM and PM and Grasshopper service for last mile service
to medical facilities.
CARTS would like to see similar routes as the 2008 recommendations.
CARTS would suggest using smaller buses on the fixed route service.
Keep the downtown Georgetown connection to the CARTS Transit Center.
Currently CARTS serves mostly medical and social service trips in Georgetown.
David Biesheuvel, Director, Construction & Facilities and Suzanne Marchman, Director of Community
Engagement & Communications – Georgetown Independent School District
School bus service goes to all schools.
Shuttle currently operates between the two high schools for shared classes.
Local bus service may be used for Career and Technical internships in the future.
Need service to San Gabriel Park in the summer.
Summer Meal Program could benefit from transit service.
Shopping centers and the movie theater may be other destinations for transit.
Page 176 of 200
Page 177 of 200
Page 178 of 200
City of Georgetown
Transit Development Plan
Final Report
Draft
June 2015
Page 179 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Georgetown Transit Plan
Service Options Discussion
In Support of Council Budget Priority, FY 14/15
February 9, 2016
Page 180 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Agenda
●Why Are We Here?
●Decision Making Criteria
●Discuss Service Delivery Options
●Ridership and Cost Estimates and Methodology
●Guidance on Transit Development Plan
Goal (1): Clarify Option to Continue Demand Response
Goal (2): Clarify Service Delivery Options, Cost
Goal (3): Gain Council Direction on Transit Service Delivery
Page 181 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Public
Transportation
Implementation
Committee
Pilot
Program
Census
Urbanized
Area
Capital
Metro
Service
Expansion
Policy
Council
Adopts
Budget
Strategic
Goal
Completed Transit
Feasibility Study Council
Decision on
Transit
Why are we here?
2008 201620152014
Population: 45k
Population: 57k
2009
Recommends
Fixed Route
2010
No Fed $ for
Operations
Fed $ for
Operations
Page 182 of 200
Transit Development Plan
2015 Transit Development
Plan
Reject Plan
Recommendation
Amend Plan
Cap Metro Board Review
Cap Metro Administered
Federal Funded
Capital Metro
Administered
Demand Response
Amend Plan Georgetown Administered
Demand Response
Voucher System New Plan
No FTA $
Accept Plan
Recommendation
Fixed Route Bus System
in 2017
Implement Full Plan
Implement Partial Plan
Service Delivery
Options
$208K
Local
Funds
$396K
$20K
$20K
TBD
$436K
$220K
Page 183 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Decision Making Criteria
Helps Address Community Concerns
Community Expectation/Desires
Ridership Current and Future
Cost Per Rider
Densities of Income, Age, Population, Car
Availability
Page 184 of 200
Transit Development Plan
capmetro.org
Demand Response
Can we continue Demand Response and maintain
eligibility for FTA through Capital Metro?
Yes, provided we revise TDP and provide justification to
Regional 5307 Review Board and Capital Metro Board.
Page 185 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Desire to
Cont.
Demand
Response
Revise TDP Council
Adoption
Regional 5307
Review Team
Recommendation to
Capital Metro
Capital Metro
Consideration
Demand Response Revision Process
Subject to Review and Approval
Page 186 of 200
Transit Development Plan
If Capital Metro Rejects Demand Response
Capital Metro
Rejects
Demand
Response
Apply for FTA
Direct
Recipient
Memorandum of
Understanding
With
CapMetro
FTA
Direct Recipient
Georgetown
Administers
Demand Response
All
Local
Funds
Demand
Response
Voucher
None
Page 187 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Voucher (P3) Model
1.Examples of Other Systems
A.Pilot Programs in Boston (MBTA), Topeka
1.Very mature systems
A.Blended service (Paratransit and Fixed Route)
B.First/Last Mile (not subsidized)
B.DART service in Plano
1.UBER drivers not present due to densities
2.Does work in Highland Park
C.Georgetown Drive A Senior (11K rides yr.)
1.Apply in annual competitive process through CAMPO
2.Receive FTA 5310 (Approx. $60K year)
3.Very specific market
4.All volunteer force
Page 188 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Voucher Model (cont.)
Issues to Consider
1.How would we administer?
a.Voucher Qualification/Distribution Process
b.Full Time Employee
c.Training Expenses (Requires Federal Certifications)
d.Procurement and Asset Maintenance Plans
2.Patch work of services requiring increased intensity of administrative requirements
3.How do we comply with Federal requirements?
a.ADA
b.Title 6 Compliance (Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program) DBE
c.Quality Control of Services Offered
4.Liabilities
a.6/2014 ADA lawsuit against Uber and Lyft in S.A., Texas
5.Ability to attract a private partner
Page 189 of 200
Transit Development Plan
•Route 1 –service to high density
housing off Quail Valley to
Southwestern University and
downtown
•Route 2 –service from
downtown to HEB, Wolf Ranch
and Rivery area (paired with
Route 1)
•Route 3 –service from
downtown to Stonehaven
Apartments, St. Davids Hospital
and southwest Georgetown
•Route 4 –service through
downtown on Austin Avenue and
west on Williams (paired with
Route 3)
•Route 5 -Sun City Feeder –
service from Sun City to Rivery,
Wolf Ranch and downtown
•Convention City Feeder -
connecting Rivery and downtown
•Regional Service –
connecting to CARTS Interurban
Coach
Page 190 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Ridership Projections Methodology
Demand Response –
4 yr. average (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015)
10% annual growth
Fixed Route –
Based 2008 Georgetown Public
Transportation Plan
Actuals from 2009 Pilot
Peer City review (San Marcos, Victoria)
Page 191 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Fixed Route
Fixed-Route Service
Year 1 Ridership
Estimate
Year 2 Ridership
Estimate
Year 3 Ridership
Estimate
Route 1 & 2 23,994 30,952 40,000
Route 3 & 4 23,994 30,952 40,000
Sun City Route 9,227 11,903 14,671
Convention Center Feeder 1,661 2,143 2,925
Total 58,876 75,950 97,596
2015
(actuals)
Year 1 Ridership
Estimate
Year 2 Ridership
Estimate
Year 3 Ridership
Estimate
Demand Response 9126 9,836 10,039 11,042
Page 192 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Operating Cost Estimates Methodology
1.Estimated Service Hours Determined by
Number of stops
Length of trips
2.Apply CARTS Hourly Operating Rate
$66.95/$75
3.Deduct Recovered Fares
10%
4.Split Net
60% Local, 40% Federal (5307)
5.Subtract Advertising Recovery
6.Divide Local Contribution (60%) by Riders
Cost per RiderPage 193 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Implementation Options
Implementation Option
Potential Costs to City of
Georgetown YR1
A.All Routes $ 435,837
B. 4 Core routes $ 364,195
C. 2 Core routes $ 219,498
D. Continue Demand Response (w/ FTA Funding)$ 208,883
E. Continue Demand Response (NO FTA Funding)$ 396,000Page 194 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Cost Per Rider Analysis
2015 Year 1 Year 1 Year 3 Year 3
Demand Response Fixed Route Demand
Response Fixed Route Demand
Response
Operating Cost (Total)$ 296,747 $ 851,550 $ 382,954 $ 894,660 $ 421,249
*Fare Recovery (10%)$ (37,061)$ (85,155)$ (38,295)$ (89,466)$ (42,125)
*Operating Cost Less Fare $ 259,686 $ 766,395 $ 344,659 $ 805,194 $ 379,124
**Local Operating Cost (60% Split)$ 155,812 $ 459,837 $ 206,795 $ 483,116 $ 208,883
***Advertising Recovery $ (24,000)$ (24,000)
Net (Op Cost less Advertising)$ 155,812 $ 435,837 $ 206,795 $ 459,116 $ 227,475
Total Riders (Projected)$ 9,126 $ 58,876 $ 10,039 $ 97,596 $ 11,042
Cost Per Rider (Local $ Only)$ 17 $ 7 $ 21 $ 5 $ 21
*Fare structure did not change.
** During calendar year 2015, cost of service increased in Demand Response increased from $60/hr to $66.95. Local share increased from 50% to 60% of
operating cost.
*** Advertising projection is $1000/bus/month based on peer review and market quote
YR 1 Demand Response Total Cost calculated by escalating 2015 Service Hours by 10% to reflect growth in riders. YR3 Fixed Costs Escalated by 5%
Fare recovery for Demand Response is 12.48%
Page 195 of 200
Transit Development Plan
2015 Transit Development
Plan
Reject Plan
Recommendation
Amend Plan
Cap Metro Board Review
Cap Metro Administered
Federal Funded
Capital Metro
Administered
Demand Response
Amend Plan Georgetown Administered
Demand Response
Voucher System New Plan
No FTA $
Accept Plan
Recommendation
Fixed Route Bus System
in 2017
Implement Full Plan
Implement Partial Plan
Service Delivery
Options
$208K
Local
Funds
$396K
$20K
$20K
TBD
$436K
$220K
Page 196 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Direction to Staff
Page 197 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Thank You
Questions?
capmetro.org11 Page 198 of 200
Transit Development Plan
Jim Briggs
General Manager of the Utilities
(512) 930-2010
Jim.briggs@georgetown.org
Nat Waggoner
Transportation Analyst
(512) 930-8171
nat.waggoner@georgetown.org
Michelle Meaux
Regional Coordination Planner
(512) 369-7785
michelle.meaux@capmetro.org
Page 199 of 200
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
February 9, 2016
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has
a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- Negotiations with the County and other cities regarding health district services
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment,
employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City attorney recruitment
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 200 of 200