Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Asheville staff presents ridership-vs.-coverage choices in transit comprehensive operations analysis
Summary
City transportation staff and Jarrett Walker Associates presented two conceptual transit networks — one prioritizing ridership and one prioritizing coverage — and asked council to pick a position so a draft plan can be developed. Council members pressed staff on county coordination, data used and timeline for a decision.
Asheville transportation staff and consultants from Jarrett Walker Associates presented two conceptual designs for the city’s Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) on Oct. 9, asking the City Council to indicate whether the city should prioritize ridership (concentrated, frequent service) or coverage (wider geographic access with lower frequency). Ashley Hair, the city’s transportation director, introduced the update; Ricky, a Jarrett Walker consultant, described the tradeoffs in detail.
The consultants said both concepts use the city’s existing budget and vehicle resources but allocate them differently. The ridership concept concentrates buses on a few high‑demand corridors to produce frequent (15‑minute) service there, increasing the average resident’s access to jobs by roughly 10 percent. The coverage concept spreads service more evenly so residents across the city retain transit access, with most routes running 30–60 minute headways and better coordinated timed transfers at ArtStation.
Why it matters: the two approaches prioritize different outcomes — ridership supports dense corridors and higher per‑passenger productivity, while coverage preserves access for people who live away from main corridors. Ricky said this is a values choice for the council, not a purely technical one: "If you tell me the goal is ridership, I would design a network that concentrates service on the most dense, walkable corridors," he said.
Council members asked for specifics on data and logistics. Councilwoman Roni asked whether the county had been part of the study; Ricky said Buncombe County has been involved in process and engagement. Council members also asked whether the analysis accounted for households without cars; Ricky said the team did analyze households without cars and other demographic subgroups. Ashley Hair said the public engagement phase closes Oct. 26 and staff aims to return to council on Nov. 18 for direction on where on the ridership–coverage spectrum to land. If council directs a change, staff and consultants expect to produce a draft network in December and a final network by January–February; implementation, if adopted, would align with the city’s next budget cycle (July).
Staff emphasized operational constraints are already factored into conceptual designs, including driver availability and fleet size. Hair told council the COA team is preparing materials to explain the decision council will be asked to make on Nov. 18, and that Jarrett Walker’s reports and slide decks are available on the project website. The presentation also highlighted current service issues: only about 62 percent of buses are on time under the existing network, and scheduling changes would aim to improve on‑time performance and timed transfers at ArtStation.
Next steps: staff will summarize public engagement results and return to council in November seeking direction on the ridership/coverage balance that will shape the draft network. That draft will be subject to further public review before a final design is proposed for council approval and budgeting.
Ending: The COA is positioned as an operational re‑design, not a funding ask; any expansion beyond current budget assumptions would require separate council action and additional funding decisions.
