HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024_GO_Transit_TDP_Final_Report2024 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITY OF OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN
FINAL REPORT - APRIL 2024
Prepared on behalf of GO Transit and the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC)
by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan i
Contents
Part 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Transit System Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Part 2: Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment ............................................................................................... 10
Existing Service Review .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Transit Needs Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
Peer Performance Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 35
Part 3: Public Engagement ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Public Engagement Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 43
Staff Meetings ................................................................................................................................................................................. 44
Operator Meetings ........................................................................................................................................................................ 45
Business Survey .............................................................................................................................................................................. 46
Rider Survey ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Community Survey .........................................................................................................................................................................57
Survey Results Comparison ........................................................................................................................................................ 66
Paratransit Rider Survey ...............................................................................................................................................................67
Steering Committee Meetings .................................................................................................................................................. 68
Summary of Engagement Feedback ........................................................................................................................................76
Part 4: Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 77
Scenario Framework ......................................................................................................................................................................78
Near-Term Scenario .......................................................................................................................................................................79
Long-Term Scenario ..................................................................................................................................................................... 93
Part 5: Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 101
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Existing GO Transit Routes (2023).................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Downtown Transit Center ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 3. Administration and Maintenance Facility ................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. System Boardings by Date and Schedule – 2022 ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 5. Distribution of System Ridership by Month and Schedule – 2022 .................................................................. 12
Figure 6. Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity .......................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7. Average Weekend Bus Stop Activity .......................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8. Average Daily Boardings by Route and Schedule ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 9. Distribution of Boardings by Route and Schedule ................................................................................................ 15
Figure 10. On-Time Performance by Route, September 2022 ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 11. Community Destinations – Schools and Higher Education............................................................................... 18
Figure 12. Community Destinations – Retail Locations .......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 13. Community Destinations – Healthcare and Social Services ............................................................................ 20
Figure 14. Community Destinations – Civic Organizations ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 15. Employment Density (Jobs per Acre) ...................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 16. Household Density (Households per Acre) ........................................................................................................... 23
Figure 17. Transit-Supportive Areas in Oshkosh ...................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 18. Percent of Individuals Below the Federal Poverty Level ................................................................................... 26
Figure 19. Percent of Households without Vehicle Access ....................................................................................................27
Figure 20. Percent of Individuals Aged 60 Years and Over ................................................................................................. 28
Figure 21. Percent of Individuals Under Age 18 ....................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 22. Percent of Individuals Self-Identifying as BIPOC ................................................................................................ 30
Figure 23. Percent Hispanic or Latino Individuals .................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 24. Percent of Households with One or More Individuals Experiencing Disability ........................................ 32
Figure 25. Percent of Households with Limited English Proficiency ................................................................................. 33
Figure 26. Trip Origin ........................................................................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 27. Trip Destination .............................................................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 28. Primary Reason for Transit Use ................................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 29. Frequency of Use ........................................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 30. Transfers ........................................................................................................................................................................... 50
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan iii
Figure 31. Travel Mode if Transit Service Were Unavailable ................................................................................................ 50
Figure 32. Fare Payment Method .................................................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 33. Perception of Fare Prices ............................................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 34. Ranking of Potential Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 35. Frequency versus Geographical Coverage ........................................................................................................... 52
Figure 36. Desired Destination Type for Increased Service ................................................................................................. 53
Figure 37. Age ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 38. Gender ............................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 39. Driver’s License ............................................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 40. Vehicle Access ................................................................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 41. Race..................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 42. Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 43. English Proficiency ........................................................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 44. Household Income .........................................................................................................................................................57
Figure 45. Primary Means of Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 46. Familiarity with GO Transit Services ........................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 47. GO Transit Frequency of Use .................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 48. Potential Reason for Transit Use .............................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 49. Potential Transit Destination(s) .................................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 50. Perception of Fare Prices ............................................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 51. Ranking of Potential Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 62
Figure 52. Frequency versus Geographical Coverage ........................................................................................................... 63
Figure 53. Desired Destination Type for Increased Service ................................................................................................. 63
Figure 54. Age ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 55. Gender ............................................................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 56. Driver’s License ............................................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 57. Vehicle Access ................................................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 58. Race .................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 59. Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 60. English Proficiency ......................................................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 61. Household Income......................................................................................................................................................... 66
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan iv
Figure 62. Steering Committee Meeting Content ................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 63. Successful Plan Outcome ............................................................................................................................................ 69
Figure 64. Mentimeter Trade-Off 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 65. Mentimeter Trade-Off 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 66. Mentimeter Trade-Off 3 ...............................................................................................................................................72
Figure 67. Locations for Added Service .......................................................................................................................................73
Figure 68. Transit Fare Strategies .................................................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 69. Microtransit Strategies ..................................................................................................................................................75
Figure 70. Route 2 Changes ............................................................................................................................................................. 81
Figure 71. Route 3 Changes ............................................................................................................................................................ 82
Figure 72. Route 4 Changes ........................................................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 73. Route 5 Changes ............................................................................................................................................................ 84
Figure 74. Route 7 Changes ............................................................................................................................................................ 85
Figure 75. Route 8 Changes ............................................................................................................................................................ 86
Figure 76. Recommended Future System (2024) .....................................................................................................................87
Figure 77. Current Transit-Supportive Area Coverage .......................................................................................................... 88
Figure 78. Future Transit-Supportive Area Coverage ........................................................................................................ 88
Figure 79. Proposed Fixed-Route Expansion ............................................................................................................................ 94
Figure 80. GBM On Demand Zone Map .....................................................................................................................................97
Figure 81. BCGo Service Area and Demographics ...................................................................................................................97
Figure 82. RideKC (and Ride LV) Service Area Zones ............................................................................................................ 98
Figure 83. UTA On Demand Service Zones ............................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 84. Microtransit Flex Zones .............................................................................................................................................. 100
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan v
List of Tables
Table 1. Fixed-Route Fares .................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2. Demand-Response Fares ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 3. Top 25 Stops by Average Daily Ridership, 2022 ...................................................................................................... 17
Table 4. Percent of Individuals Below the Federal Poverty Level ...................................................................................... 26
Table 5. Percent of Households without Vehicle Access .......................................................................................................27
Table 6. Percent of Individuals Aged 60 Years and Over ..................................................................................................... 28
Table 7. Percent of Individuals Under Age 18 ........................................................................................................................... 29
Table 8. Percent of Individuals Self-Identifying as BIPOC .................................................................................................... 30
Table 9. Percent Hispanic or Latino Individuals ........................................................................................................................ 31
Table 10. Percent of Households with One or More Individuals Experiencing Disability .......................................... 32
Table 11. Percent of Households with Limited English Proficiency .................................................................................... 33
Table 12. Summary of Demographic Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 34
Table 13. Performance Objectives and Performance Measures ......................................................................................... 35
Table 14. 2021 Operating Statistics – Wisconsin Peer Group .............................................................................................. 36
Table 15. 2021 Operating Statistics – National Peer Group ..................................................................................................37
Table 16. Operating Statistics – GO Transit 2017 – 2021 ........................................................................................................37
Table 17. Performance Measures – GO Transit 2017-2021 ................................................................................................... 38
Table 18. Wisconsin Peer Performance Measures Summary ............................................................................................... 39
Table 19. National Peer Performance Measures Summary .................................................................................................. 40
Table 20. Mentimeter: Question 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 69
Table 21. Mentimeter: Question 3..................................................................................................................................................70
Table 22. Summary of Route-Specific Changes ........................................................................................................................79
Table 23. Summary of Coverage Changes (within ¼ mile of proposed routes) ........................................................... 86
Table 24. Peer Agency Fare Profile .............................................................................................................................................. 90
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 1
Executive Summary
The 2024-2028 Transit Development Plan summarizes the current conditions of GO Transit, including the
existing bus services and unmet needs. Near-term recommendations include actionable route changes,
updates to the system’s fare structure, and other policy changes that GO Transit plans to implement in
August of 2024. Long-term recommendations will require further planning but will allow the agency to
provide substantial improvements for transit customers based on the stated priorities of both the agency and
the public.
Critical needs identified in this plan include the following:
• Provision of transit service during evening and weekend hours. This need is supported by
comments expressed in the rider and community surveys, as well as stakeholder engagement.
• Service area expansion. Agency staff, stakeholders, and community members have indicated a
need for additional geographic coverage to facilitate ridership growth and access to new
destinations. Both fixed-route and microtransit services are potential options to fulfill this need.
• Enhanced service frequency. Riders expressed that aside from extending the span of service,
increasing service frequency is their most desired system improvement. Engagement efforts revealed
that there may be a greater emphasis on enhancing existing service than providing new service.
By implementing the recommendations of this plan, GO Transit will continue to maximize the effectiveness of
existing resources invested in fixed-route transit. In the long term, planning for fixed-route and/or
microtransit service expansion will position the agency to attract and retain riders as the transportation
environment continues to evolve. Leveraging the stakeholder relationships developed as part of the 2024-
2028 Transit Development Plan, GO Transit will move forward to improve transit access for riders and the
community.
INTRODUCTION AND SERVICE OVERVIEW
PART I
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 3
Introduction
GO Transit
A service of the City of Oshkosh, Greater Oshkosh Transit (GO Transit) offers fixed route bus service and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit, GO Plus, within the City of Oshkosh. Fixed
route service is operated directly by the City, while GO Plus service is operated by Oshkosh City Cab
Company and Cabulance through a contract with the City. Additional paratransit services provided by the
City include Senior Dial-A-Ride and Access to Jobs (ATJ). GO Transit also provides GO Connect service, a new
Microtransit service linking Oshkosh and Neenah, operated by Oshkosh City Cab and Cabulance.
Project Purpose and Scope
In 2023, GO Transit embarked on its most recent Transit Development Plan, which will guide the agency’s
implementation of transit system improvements over the next five years. The 2024-2028 Transit
Development Plan process includes analysis of existing conditions, extensive stakeholder and community
outreach efforts, and recommendations for near-term and long-term improvements.
Project Team
A multi-organization, multi-disciplinary project team was established at the beginning of the project to guide
decision making and collaboratively shape the plan. The TDP Project Team was led by the East Central
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC) and the City of Oshkosh’s Transportation Director, with
added participation from other City of Oshkosh staff, including the Transit Operations Manager and the
Transit Management Analyst, among others. Staff from SRF Consulting, the final members of the TDP Project
Team, provided technical expertise and content creation at the direction of the rest of the Project Team.
Additionally, the TDP update was overseen by the City of Oshkosh Transportation Committee.
Transit System Overview
Fixed-Route Service
GO Transit operates nine fixed routes throughout the City of Oshkosh from 6:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday
through Saturday; there is currently no service on Sunday. All routes begin at their midpoint (the Downtown
Transit Center, North or West Transfer Point) and operate on 30-minute headways in a one-way loop. Each
route is described in detail in the following section and shown in Figure 1.
ROUTE 1
Route 1 serves the eastern side of Oshkosh primarily along Bowen and Hazel Streets. Key destinations served
by this route include Aurora Health Center/Doctor’s Court, the future Menominee School, and Menominee
Park. Route 1 offers transfers to Route 3 at New York Avenue and Bowen Street, Route 4 at Mallard Avenue
and Evans Street, and to other routes at the Downtown Transit Center.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 4
ROUTE 2
Route 2 serves the area north of downtown Oshkosh using primarily Main and Jackson Streets. The route
serves key destinations including Vel Phillips Middle School, Oaklawn Elementary School, and North High
School. Route 2 offers transfers to and from Route 4 at North High School and the Fair Acres Shopping
Center and to other routes at the Downtown Transit Center.
ROUTE 3
Route 3 operates as a loop, serving areas largely north and west of downtown Oshkosh via Campbell Road,
Sawyer Street, New York Avenue, and Bowen Street. Major destinations served include Fox Valley Technical
College, the Oshkosh Senior Center, UW-Oshkosh Titan Stadium, Oshkosh Public Museum, and several
primary and secondary schools. Route 3 offers transfers to routes on both sides of the Fox River, including
Routes 1, 2, 5, and 6, and to other routes at the Downtown Transit Center
ROUTE 4
Route 4 serves northern Oshkosh via primarily Murdock, Bowen, and Jackson Streets. Popular destinations
include Aurora Health Center/Doctor’s Court, Affinity Medical Group, North High School, and the St. Vincent
De Paul thrift store. While Route 4 does not travel to or from the Downtown Transit Center, it offers transfers
to and from Route 1 at the intersection of Mallard Avenue and Evans Street.
ROUTE 5
Route 5 serves Oshkosh’s northwest side, traveling along Algoma Boulevard, Omro Road, and High Avenue.
It provides access to UW-Oshkosh, and the Oshkosh Public Museum, among other destinations. Transfers to
and from Route 7 are available at the West Transfer Point, located on Westowne Avenue and to other routes
at the Downtown Transit center.
ROUTE 6
Route 6 serves Oshkosh‘s west side, traveling primarily along Witzel Avenue, Washburn Street, and 9th
Avenue. It serves FVTC, numerous primary and secondary schools, and several city parks. It offers transfers to
and from Routes 7 and 9 at Walmart and to Route 8 at 9th Avenue and Ohio Street and to other routes at the
Downtown Transit Center.
ROUTE 7
Route 7 serves retail and commercial destinations on Oshkosh’s west side. It travels primarily on Washburn
and Koeller Streets, which function as frontage roads parallel to INTERSTATE 41. It serves destinations
including Aurora Medical Center, Walmart, Affinity Healthcare, and the Oshkosh Center shopping area. While
it does not travel to or from the Downtown Transit Center, it offers transfers to and from Route 5 at the West
Transfer Point and Routes 6 and 7 at Walmart.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 5
ROUTE 8
Route 8 serves southwest Oshkosh via Oregon Street, 20th Avenue, and South Park Avenue. This route serves
destinations including primary and secondary schools, Wittman Regional Airport, the Oshkosh Center
shopping area, and several city parks. Transfers to Route 6 are available at 9th Avenue and Ohio Street, as
well as to other routes at the Downtown Transit Center.
ROUTE 9
Route 9 serves residential and commercial areas in southwest Oshkosh along Oakwood Road, Witzel Avenue,
Cumberland Trail, and Waukau Avenue. Key destinations along the route include the Outlet Shoppes, Mercy
Medical Center, the industrial park, and Walmart. While it does not travel to or from the Downtown Transit
Center, transfers to Routes 6 and 7 are available at Walmart. On demand service is available to the west side
YMCA.
Prior to April 1, 2023, GO Transit also operated Route 10, which provided service to and from Downtown
Neenah. This service was discontinued and replaced by the GO Connect on-demand service pilot, described
in the Demand Response Service section.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 6
Figure 1. Existing GO Transit Routes (2023)
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 7
Demand Response Service
GO Transit provides a variety of demand response services throughout its service area to customers meeting
specific eligibility requirements. The programs are funded by the City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, the
State of Wisconsin, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and user fares. These programs include the
following:
• GO Connect: On April 1, 2023, GO Transit replaced Route 10 with a new demand-response service
called GO Connect. Sponsored by Winnebago County, GO Connect offers service to and from the
Oshkosh Downtown Transit Center and the Neenah Transit Center with same-day reservations
available. GO Connect is operated by City Cab, a local taxi company, and Cabulance, which provides
ADA-accessible trips upon request. Trips are available Monday through Saturday between 6:15 AM
and 6:45 PM. Trips outside these hours can be made via City Cab at normal taxi rates.
• GO Plus ADA Paratransit: This ADA-required program (offered under the brand GO Plus) provides
demand response ramp-equipped van or sedan service within the City of Oshkosh to ambulatory
and non-ambulatory riders with disabilities. There is no limit to the number of rides taken and trips
cannot be denied based on trip purpose. Service is available for residents of the city within ¾-mile of
fixed routes during the same hours as the fixed-route service (24/7 service is available for an
additional fee).
• GO Plus Senior Dial-A-Ride: This program provides demand response transportation service within
the City of Oshkosh to riders age 60 and older (Dial-a-Ride). The service is currently provided with
sedans. Senior Dial-a-Ride service is part of the GO Plus family of programs and intended for use
only on trips when GO Transit fixed-route buses are not available. There is no limit to the number of
rides taken and there are no restrictions for trip purpose. This program is not required or regulated
by the ADA.
• Rural Over 60/Rural Under 60: GO Transit offers two programs to rural residents through a
partnership with Winnebago County. Rural residents age 60 and over have access to the Rural Over
60 program, which provides sedans and vans service for trips throughout the county, limited to 10
one-way rides per month. Rural residents with a qualifying disability are eligible for the Rural Under
60 program, which offers both sedan and lift-equipped van service for trips throughout the county,
also limited to 10 one-way rides per month.
• Access to Jobs (ATJ): In addition to the above programs for seniors and customers with disabilities,
GO Transit offers Access to Jobs (ATJ), a demand response cab service for use by low-income
individuals on trips to and from work. Eligible residents must live and work within the City of
Oshkosh, work at least 30 hours per week, and use GO Transit fixed-route buses for work trips when
possible. ATJ allows individuals who must travel outside regular fixed-route operating hours, or
whose home or work locations are inaccessible via bus, to utilize cab service for work purposes only.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 8
Fares
In addition to cash fares, GO Transit sells tokens, punch passes, and unlimited monthly and three-month
passes (Table 1). The current cash fare, monthly, and three-month pass prices reflect increases that the city
implemented effective January 2019, consistent with recommendations contained in the City of Oshkosh 2018
TDP. Discounted (half) fares on fixed-route buses are available for seniors, people with disabilities, and
veterans. The ADA paratransit fare is set at $3.00, double the regular fixed-route base fare (Table 2).
GO Transit provides fare-free rides to Fox Valley Technical College (FVTC) students per a revenue agreement
between FVTC and the City of Oshkosh. The University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh (UWO) purchases punch
passes for students in need at a current cost of approximately $19,000 per year. The Oshkosh Area School
District (OASD) has an agreement with the City of Oshkosh to share the cost of providing free rides to all
public school students.
Transit passes are available at a variety of community facilities, including GO Transit headquarters, City Hall,
Oshkosh Public Library, and several nonprofit organizations. Punch passes are sold on buses; all passes and
tokens are available at GO Transit’s headquarters facility.
In addition to cash fares, passes, and tokens, GO Transit also offers mobile fares through the Token Transit
smartphone app, which is available on both iOS and Android devices. To use Token Transit, riders simply
download the app, purchase the appropriate fare or pass, and show their device to the bus operator when
boarding.
Table 1. Fixed-Route Fares
Group Cash Punch Pass (20) Token (20 Pack) Monthly Pass 3-Month Pass
*Up to three children under 6 per fare paying rider are eligible for the free fare.
Table 2. Demand-Response Fares
Group During Regular Bus Hours After Hours Agency Fare
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 9
Facilities
GO Transit has two primary facilities: the Downtown Transit Center, located at 110 Pearl Ave and the
administrative and maintenance facility, located at 926 Dempsey Trail. The latter is where administrative and
operations staff are based, and where buses are stored and maintained. It includes two repair bays with bus
lifts, parts and tire storage rooms, and a bus wash.
Most GO Transit fixed routes serve the transit center, which features sheltered waiting areas, benches, maps
and route information. Constructed in 1989, the facility underwent a renovation in 2021 and 2022, which
included the addition of a separate driver break facility, supervisors’ office, and customer service window
adjacent to the bus loading area (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Downtown Transit Center
The administration and maintenance facility (Figure 3) was constructed in 1968 as the Oshkosh Municipal
Incinerator and entered into transit use in 1983. This facility houses GO Transit’s administrative, maintenance,
and bus storage functions as well as the City of Oshkosh’s Electrical and Signs Divisions.
Figure 3. Administration and Maintenance Facility
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART II
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 11
Existing Service Review
When studying any transit system, it is important to analyze and understand the underlying conditions
and performance of each element of the transit network. This not only provides a baseline to compare the
impact of changes to the network, but also helps determine what kinds of changes may be needed. The
purpose of this analysis of existing service is to document the strengths of the transit network, identify
weaknesses, and illustrate how transit services are performing in their respective contexts.
Systemwide Ridership
Total system ridership in 2022 averaged about 1,490 daily weekday boardings and 966 daily weekend
boardings over ten regular fixed routes and several trippers. Figure 4 shows the seasonal variation of system
ridership over the year for both weekday and weekend service. The most notable drop in general ridership
occurs in the summer, corresponding to the end of the academic year and a reduction in student riders. This
is more severe for weekday boardings than for weekend boardings.
Figure 4. System Boardings by Date and Schedule – 2022
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 12
Figure 5 shows the statistical distribution of system ridership by month and service schedule in the form of
boxplots representing quartiles of daily boarding data for that month. Among weekdays, the month of
December exhibited the strongest variation in boardings, with 50 percent of daily boardings ranging from
1,300 to just under 2,000. July represents the month with the least variation in weekday ridership, with about
50 percent of boardings ranging from 1,100 to 1,250. Weekend ridership is less varied, with 50 percent of all
months’ weekend boardings differing by no more than 250 riders.
Figure 5. Distribution of System Ridership by Month and Schedule – 2022
System ridership can also be understood spatially through the use of maps. To that end, Figure 6 and Figure
7 show average daily station activity (boardings plus alightings) by stop for weekday and weekend service,
respectively. Stops with the highest boardings include the Downtown Transit Center, Walmart, North High
School, and Evans St & Mallard Ave near multifamily housing. Results are similar between weekdays and
weekends with the exception of major decreases in station activity at schools and a general decrease in
ridership at non-major-generator stops.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 13
Figure 6. Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity
Figure 7. Average Weekend Bus Stop Activity
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 14
Ridership P atterns by R oute
Ridership is additionally assessed at the route level for all nine numbered routes and the North Tripper.
Figure 8 shows average daily boardings by route and schedule, in which Routes 1 and 2 represent the highest
daily figures at about 275-300 average weekday boardings, followed by Routes 6 and 8 at about 250 average
weekday boardings. Routes 1, 2, 6, and 8 all average about 175 average weekend boardings. Routes 3, 9, and
the North Tripper represented the routes with the lowest daily average ridership, falling below 100 daily
boardings for both weekday and weekend services.
Figure 8. Average Daily Boardings by Route and Schedule
Figure 9 shows the statistical distribution of transit ridership across routes and service schedules. Generally,
the routes with the highest average daily boardings (as shown in Figure 8) displayed the greatest variation in
overall boardings; Routes 1 and 2 both have 50 percent of their trips ranging from 225 to 350 boardings per
weekday, while Routes 6 and 8 have 50 percent of their trips from 225 to 275 daily boardings per weekday.
Weekend trips were observed to have similar variation across all routes.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 15
Figure 9. Distribution of Boardings by Route and Schedule
On -Time Performance
GO Transit regularly reviews on-time performance data that is generated from its automated vehicle locator
(AVL) system. In September 2022, GO Transit’s systemwide average on-time performance (excluding trippers)
was 79 percent, with 12 percent of stop events occurring early and 9 percent occurring late. Route 1 had the
highest on-time performance, at 89 percent; Route 3 had the lowest, at 58 percent (Figure 10).
The majority of routes had more trips occurring early than late, which could indicate that these routes have
more scheduled running time than is needed based on current traffic conditions. In the case of Route 3,
drivers indicated that the high degree of late trips is in fact an attempt by drivers to avoid being early at later
stops on the route. Because of excess running time in the schedule, drivers typically wait at the downtown
transit center, departing up to five minutes later than scheduled in order to avoid holding the bus at
timepoints later on the route.
In order to improve on-time performance, GO Transit could consider whether there are opportunities to
adjust schedules to better match current running times, or take advantage of excess running time to add
new destinations to current routes. These questions will be addressed in the recommendations portion of the
Transit Development Plan.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 16
Figure 10. On-Time Performance by Route, September 2022
Transit Needs Assessment
The following section is an analysis of community destinations that may drive transit demand, completed in
conjunction with a Census-based demographic analysis to identify areas where residents are most likely to
use transit. Cumulatively, this information is used to:
• Identify locations that can potentially generate the highest levels of transit use
• Identify areas to which transit services should be expanded or introduced
• Inform what type of transit service is best suited for an area
Coupled with the ridership and performance data analyzed in the previous section, this Transit Needs
Assessment can inform future planning decisions.
Major Ridership Generators
Major ridership generators in the GO Transit system include a variety of community destinations, including
major employment centers, schools and higher education facilities, retail and grocery stores, healthcare
facilities, social services, apartments, and civic organizations. Table 3 lists GO Transit’s top 25 stops by
ridership and notes the primary destination nearby (if known). Figure 11 through Figure 14 show community
destinations as reported by ECWRPC in relation to existing GO Transit bus routes.
74%
79%
71%
82%
73%
82%
58%
81%
89%
22%
14%
19%
13%
15%
12%
9%
9%
5%
3%
7%
10%
5%
12%
6%
33%
10%
6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Route 9 - Oakwood
Route 8 - 20th/South Park
Route 7 - Washburn/Koeller
Route 6 - Witzel/9th
Route 5 - UWO/Westowne
Route 4 - Murdock/Logan
Route 3 - FVTC/New York
Route 2 - Main/Jackson
Route 1 - Bowen/Hazel
On-Time Early Late
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 17
Table 3. Top 25 Stops by Average Daily Ridership, 2022
Stop Name Boardings Alightings Total Rank Destination
Downtown Transit Center 496.2 471.8 968.1 1 Downtown Transit Center
Walmart 122.9 122.4 245.3 2 Walmart
Mallard Ave. & Evans St. 109.3 89.8 199.1 3 North Transfer Point
West Transfer Point 44.5 44.6 89.1 4 West Transfer Point
North High School 46.1 41.8 87.8 5 North High School
Jackson St. & Gruenwald Ave. 34.0 38.5 72.5 6 Pick n Save/McDonald’s
20th Ave & Arizona St. 10.1 10.3 20.3 10
6.2 9.1 15.2 17 Monroe and Washington
th Ave. & Westfield St. 8.4 6.0 14.5 20 9th and Westfield
Eastman St. & Custer Ave. 8.1 6.2 14.3 21 Eastman and Custer Apartments
Main St. & Church Ave. 7.5 6.3 13.8 22 Rauf Place/Downtown
Court St. & Washington Ave. 4.8 7.3 12.1 23
9th Ave. & Minnesota St. 6.5 4.7 11.2 25
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 18
Figure 11. Community Destinations – Schools and Higher Education
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 19
Figure 12. Community Destinations – Retail Locations
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 20
Figure 13. Community Destinations – Healthcare and Social Services
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 21
Figure 14. Community Destinations – Civic Organizations
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 22
Transit-Supportive Areas
Several factors are often correlated with and suggest the need for public transit service. Among the most
important are employment and population density.
Figure 15 shows the density of jobs by census block in Oshkosh and surrounding areas of Winnebago County
based on data from the 2020 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) survey available from the
US Census Bureau.1
For the purposes of transit planning, employment density is considered transit-supportive if it exceeds five
jobs per acre. This map shows high employment density in downtown Oshkosh, as well as along the
Interstate 41 corridor and areas along North Main Street. One of these areas lies just to the north and east of
the existing Route 4, where approximately 2,000 jobs are present. Additionally, the map shows a
concentration of jobs in the industrial park in southeast Oshkosh near the airport. GO Transit does not
currently serve this area.
Figure 15. Employment Density (Jobs per Acre)
1 LEHD data typically represents the most complete publicly available information on employment for a given geography. One of the limitations of LEHD data is that an employee’s place of work is defined by the physical or mailing address reported by employers. Some employers may list employees from multiple job sites at a single headquarters location.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 23
Just as areas of high employment density attract commuters, including transit riders, areas of high
population or household density tend to produce greater numbers of transit trips. For transit planning
purposes, densities of at least four households per acre are considered to be supportive of fixed-route
transit.
Figure 16 shows the average household density by Census block group for Oshkosh and surrounding areas,
as reported in the American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 Five-Year Estimates. Transit-supportive
densities are seen primarily in the central part of the City of Oshkosh, north of downtown. Nearly all existing
areas of high household density are served by existing fixed-route buses.
Figure 16. Household Density (Households per Acre)
Figure 17 shows the location of transit-supportive areas (TSAs) in the City of Oshkosh in relation to GO
Transit fixed-route service. For the purposes of this study, TSAs are defined as locations with at least five jobs
and/or four households per acre. Based on this methodology, 81 percent of TSAs within the City of Oshkosh
are within a quarter mile of an existing bus route.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 24
Figure 17. Transit-Supportive Areas in Oshkosh
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 25
Demographics
In addition to density measures, several demographic factors are often correlated with transit demand,
including income, vehicle ownership, and age. People with lower incomes are more likely to ride public
transit, as are those whose households do not own a vehicle. Children and older adults may also benefit from
access to transit.
Additionally, it is critical to consider racial equity in the allocation of transit service. Looking at the spatial
distribution of BIPOC populations 2 and Hispanic or Latino populations in relationship to existing transit
routes can identify potential equity gaps in service.
Other relevant considerations include the spatial distribution of individuals experiencing disability and limited
English proficient (LEP) households 3. Identifying these populations in relationship to transit service can inform
planning and resource allocation.
The following pages include maps displaying spatial distribution of the following groups in the GO Transit
service area:
• Low-income individuals4
• Households without a vehicle
• Adults age 60 and over 5
• Children under 18
• BIPOC populations
• Hispanic or Latino populations
• Households with at least one resident experiencing disability
• LEP households
Block groups with the highest concentrations of poverty, zero-vehicle households, and Hispanic or Latino
residents are in central parts of the city currently well-served by transit. However, residents aged 60 or
greater and LEP households both tend to be concentrated in areas outside the central city, where existing
fixed-route transit does still exist, but there are fewer routes available. BIPOC and youth populations, though
they are both present at above-average concentrations in central Oshkosh, tend to be more scattered
throughout the GO Transit service area and have varying levels of service availability.
Figures 18 through 25 show the demographic characteristics of populations in and near the GO Transit
service area, while Tables 4 through 11 compare the demographic characteristics of the GO Transit service
area to the City of Oshkosh and entirety of Winnebago County. All demographic data were gathered at the
Census Block Group level from the 2017-2021 ACS Five-Year Estimates.
2 Defined here as individuals who reported any non-White race, regardless of ethnicity.
3 Defined here as households in which all members 14 years and over have at least some difficulty with English.
4 Defined here as individuals with incomes below the federal poverty level (FPL). In 2021, the FPL was $12,880 for an individual.
5 Though age 65 is generally the lower bound when studying demographics related to transit demand, this analysis maintained consistency with GO Plus eligibility requirements.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 26
LOW -INCOME INDIVIDUALS
Low-income populations (Figure 18) in the GO Transit service area tend to be concentrated in central parts of
Oshkosh currently served by transit, with several block groups having at least a 35 percent poverty rate.
Generally, as the distance from the central city increases, the poverty rate decreases. Areas not served by
fixed-route transit have relatively low poverty rates.
Figure 18. Percent of Individuals Below the Federal Poverty Level
Table 4. Percent of Individuals Below the Federal Poverty Level
Winnebago County City of Oshkosh ¼ Mile of GO Transit Routes
Federal Poverty 10.8% 17.3% 18.3%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 27
ZERO -VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS
Households without vehicle access (Figure 19) are relatively uniformly distributed across Oshkosh, though a
few block groups within the City have rates of zero-vehicle households at or above 20 percent. These areas
tend to be well-served by transit, with block groups not served by transit having the lowest occurrence of
zero-vehicle households.
Figure 19. Percent of Households without Vehicle Access
Table 5. Percent of Households without Vehicle Access
Winnebago County City of Oshkosh ¼ Mile of GO Transit Routes
5.4% 8.4% 9.1%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 28
AGE
Individuals aged 60 or over (Figure 20) are not generally located in the most central block groups of
Oshkosh, with many block groups’ populations in the area consisting of less than 15 percent of this age
group. Populations of individuals aged 60 and over tend to be concentrated around Interstate 41 and
northern Oshkosh. Additional areas of concentration include the airport and rural areas southwest of the city,
though these block groups are lower in total population. The current GO Transit system provides coverage to
most of the concentrations within city limits, but some areas in neighboring jurisdictions may lack access to
transit.
Figure 20. Percent of Individuals Aged 60 Years and Over
Table 6. Percent of Individuals Aged 60 Years and Over
Winnebago County City of Oshkosh ¼ Mile of GO Transit Routes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 29
Generally, Oshkosh’s population under 18 (Figure 21) is concentrated in the neighborhoods immediately
south of the Fox River, with additional clusters of youth populations in the suburban and rural areas
surrounding Lake Butte des Morts. Areas in central Oshkosh surrounding the University and the Downtown
Transit Center tend to have populations comprised of less than 15 percent of individuals under 18. Most
concentrations of youth populations within the City of Oshkosh are well-served by transit.
Figure 21. Percent of Individuals Under Age 18
Table 7. Percent of Individuals Under Age 18
Winnebago County City of Oshkosh ¼ Mile of GO Transit Routes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 30
RACE AND ETHNICITY
BIPOC populations (Figure 22) tend to be highly concentrated in pockets throughout the GO Transit service
area, often in contrast with neighboring block groups, and seemingly having no correlation with distance
from the city center. Several block groups have BIPOC populations of over 30 percent and are neighbored by
other block groups that are at least 95 percent white. However, in central Oshkosh near the Downtown
Transit Center, most block groups are comprised of at least 20 percent BIPOC individuals. Generally, these
populations live in proximity to existing transit service.
Figure 22. Percent of Individuals Self-Identifying as BIPOC
Table 8. Percent of Individuals Self-Identifying as BIPOC
Winnebago County City of Oshkosh ¼ Mile of GO Transit Routes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 31
Hispanic or Latino populations (Figure 23) are most highly concentrated in the areas closest to the Fox River
and Lake Winnebago. Block groups nearest to central Oshkosh and the Downtown Transit Center tend to be
between 10 and 15 percent Hispanic or Latino, with some in the Menominee Park area exceeding 15 percent.
Multiple bus routes are accessible in these neighborhoods.
Figure 23. Percent Hispanic or Latino Individuals
Table 9. Percent Hispanic or Latino Individuals
Winnebago County City of Oshkosh ¼ Mile of GO Transit Routes
4.4% 4.2% 4.3%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 32
DISABILITY STATUS
Individuals experiencing disability reside all around the GO Transit service area, seemingly without any
significant pattern or trend—some block groups along Interstate 41 and in the areas of Oshkosh north of the
Fox River have a rate of over 40 percent of households with at least one resident experiencing some form of
disability, while this rate in most of the city hovers between 10 and 20 percent. However, much of the central
Oshkosh area nearest to the Downtown Transit Center has rates between 30 and 40 percent. Areas with the
highest concentrations (over 40 percent) are well-served by existing transit routes, as shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24. Percent of Households with One or More Individuals Experiencing Disability
Table 10. Percent of Households with One or More Individuals Experiencing Disability
Winnebago County City of Oshkosh ¼ Mile of GO Transit Routes
Households 23.3% 25.8% 26.4%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 33
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) households generally comprise less than 1 percent of all households in most
block groups, though higher concentrations over 3 percent are scattered in block groups around the GO
Transit service area, as shown in Figure 25. As with other demographic measures, concentrations of LEP
households are above average in the central Oshkosh area near the Downtown Transit Center.
Figure 25. Percent of Households with Limited English Proficiency
Table 11. Percent of Households with Limited English Proficiency
Winnebago County City of Oshkosh ¼ Mile of GO Transit Routes
0.9% 0.8% 0.9%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 34
Taken together, the demographic characteristics shown in the preceding pages illustrate the similarities and
differences between Winnebago County, the City of Oshkosh, and the GO Transit service area. These
statistics are summarized in Table 12 below.
Generally, populations in the City of Oshkosh and GO Transit service area tend to have lower incomes, less
access to vehicles, and higher rates of disability. They are more likely to be of working age than residents
elsewhere in the county, with lower shares of individuals 60 and over or under 18. Residents of the City of
Oshkosh and GO Transit service area are more likely to be identified as BIPOC populations, though the rates
of Hispanic or Latino populations and limited-English proficiency are similar.
The GO Transit service area covers the majority of the City of Oshkosh, and generally reflects the income
levels, age, and disability rates of the city. However, the existing transit routes cover populations that are 11.6
percent BIPOC, compared to the citywide rate of 13.3 percent. As the Transit Development Plan advances,
these demographic and equity factors will inform the design of new or revised transit routes and services,
with the goal of prioritizing populations that rely most on transit.
Table 12. Summary of Demographic Characteristics
Demographic
Measure (Percent) Winnebago County City of Oshkosh ¼ Mile of GO Transit Routes
Low-Income
Individuals 10.8% 17.3% 18.3%
5.4% 8.4% 9.1%
60 Plus 22.4%20.4%20.1%
Under 18 20.6%17.4%17.7%
BIPOC Populations 10.2%13.3%11.6%
Hispanic or Latino 4.4%4.2%4.3%
Percent Household Disability 23.3% 25.8% 26.4%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 35
Peer Performance Analysis
This section analyses, quantitatively, GO Transit’s performance over the last several years by comparing the
performance of a system to the average values of a peer group of systems. The following peer analysis
compares GO Transit’s fixed-route bus performance to a Wisconsin peer group and a national peer group in
five categories using eight specific measures (Table 13).
Table 13. Performance Objectives and Performance Measures
Performance Objective Performance Measure
Market Penetration
Passenger Revenue Effectiveness
This peer performance analysis excludes data from demand response or other modes; GO Transit’s fixed-
route bus data alone allows for a more direct comparison with peer transit systems in Wisconsin and around
the Midwest.
Each measure in Table 13 is used to assess GO Transit’s fixed-route performance in two ways:
• Single Year: Comparison to peer average for the most current year. Year 2021 National Transit
Database (NTD) data are used. This is the most recent year for which NTD data were available for all
peer systems at the time of analysis. Performance is considered “satisfactory” within one standard
deviation of the peer average. The system’s performance is considered “outside the satisfactory
range” (unsatisfactory) if it fails more than one standard deviation from the peer average.
• Multi-Year Trend Analysis: Comparison to peer average for annual rate of change. NTD data from
2017 to 2021 are used. The annual rate of change from 2017-2021 is calculated as follows:
Annual rate of change = (Value2021/Value2017) ¼-1
For the trend analysis, the system’s annual rate of change is compared to that of the average of the peer
group. Again, the system’s trend performance is considered “satisfactory” within one standard deviation of
the peer group average. Beyond one standard deviation from the peer group average, the system’s trend
performance is considered “outside the satisfactory range.”
Along with the existing service review and transit needs assessment, this section of the report helps to form a
more complete picture of potential opportunities for improvement within the GO Transit system. This
section will serve as a foundation for subsequent stakeholder engagement activities and the development of
future recommendations.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 36
Peer Groups
The selection of the peer groups for GO Transit was based on a review of small urban bus systems in NTD.
NTD was used because its data are readily available and consistently reported. Two peer groups were
selected for comparison: a Wisconsin peer group and a national peer group ( Table 12 and Table 15).
Systems’ fixed-route bus data (excluding any other modes operated) were used in the selection of peers and
the subsequent analyses.
Table 12 contains 2021 operating statistics for GO Transit and the selected Wisconsin peer systems. This
review recognizes the limitations of using other Wisconsin bus systems for peer comparison. Each system
operates in a different environment, serves different markets, and has a unique management structure.
However, Wisconsin peer systems also provide context for operating conditions within the state. Because it is
customary in this review to compare medium bus systems to others in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin peer
comparison is included in this review.
Table 14. 2021 Operating Statistics – Wisconsin Peer Group
System Name City
Eau Claire Transit Eau Claire 47,998 432,019 $4,460,345 $708,731 77,027
Metro Transit Green Bay 50,285 495,371 $5,328,903 $558,115 176,664
Janesville Transit System Janesville 28,927 280,299 $3,589,978 $338,438 65,615
Municipal Transit Utility La Crosse 62,356 510,235 $5,408,836 $251,832 79,727
RYDE Racine Racine 73,734 463,652 $7,005,130 $583,832 112,100
Shoreline Metro Sheboygan 35,867 420,503 $3,185,731 $237,113 59,490
Metro Ride Wausau 25,465 284,378 $3,125,098 $110,562 216,154
Average 45,241 419,883 $4,482,872 $393,165 106,699
Source: National Transit Database, 2021.
In the development of the national peer group, an attempt was made to select peer systems in cold-weather
states in the Midwest; specifically, those with relatively similar service area and transit service mix provided.
The Urban Integrated National Transit Database (Urban iNTD) was used to develop an initial list of national
peers.6 This initial list was filtered to include only the most applicable peers, based on the criteria listed above
and previous MPR peer analyses.
The national peer group includes systems in Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. Table 15
contains 2021 operating statistics for MTU and the selected national peer systems.
6 Urban iNTD is a tool developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), based on Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) research. http://www.ftis.org/urban_iNTD.aspx.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 37
Table 15. 2021 Operating Statistics – National Peer Group
System Name City
Altoona Metro Transit Altoona, PA 45,165 314,830 $5,446,974 $523,399 69,608
Battle Creek Transit Battle Creek, MI 28,122 231,766 $3,047,174 $190,369 87,735
42,088 284,306 $4,309,351 $293,043 110,323
The Jule Dubuque, IA 27,424 278,457 $2,684,119 $345 70,085
Jackson Area Transportation Authority Jackson, MI 23,784 261,108 $2,520,737 $280,106 158,308
Lawton, OK 23,793 164,757 $2,001,983 $85,570 93,714
Waterloo, IA 29,507 152,992 $3,799,132 $137,466 108,519
GO Transit Oshkosh, WI 37,294 472,607 $3,758,957 $356,697 66,816
GO Transit as a Percent of the Average 112% 159% 105% 138% 68%
Source: National Transit Database, 2021
Performance Measures: Results
This section summarizes GO Transit’s service relative to peer groups over the five-year period, as well as the
results of the single-year (2021) and multi-year (2017-2021) analyses for each of the eight performance
measures listed in Table 13.
GO TRANSIT FIVE -Y EAR S UMMARY
Table 16 and Table 17 show GO Transit’s operating statistics and performance measures, respectively, for
2017 through 2021. The average annual rate of change for the five-year period is calculated for each statistic
and measure.
Table 16. Operating Statistics – GO Transit 2017 – 2021
Operating Statistic 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Rate of
Revenue Hours 37,514 37,600 37,858 36,959 37,294 -0.1%
Passenger Trips 901,710 867,598 751,484 424,372 472,607 -14.9%
Operating Expenses $3,438,057 $3,425,117 $3,551,709 $3,638,283 $3,758,957 2.3%
Passenger Revenue $476,005 $483,223 $595,054 $407,027 $356,697 -7.0%
Service Area Population - - - - 66,816 -
Source: National Transit Database, 2017-2021
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 38
Table 17. Performance Measures – GO Transit 2017-2021
Performance Measure 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Rate of
Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $3.81 $3.95 $4.73 $8.57 $7.95 20.18%
$91.65 $91.09 $93.82 $98.44 $100.79 2.41%
23.04 23.07 19.85 11.48 12.67 -14.8%
- - - - 7.07 -
$0.53 $0.56 $0.79 $0.96 $0.75 9.3%
$328 $339 $393 $761 $720 21.7%
Source: National Transit Database, 2017 – 2021
PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO WISCONSIN PEERS
Table 18 shows GO Transit performance measures for 2021 compared with those of the selected Wisconsin
peers as well as a comparison in five-year trends between GO Transit and its Wisconsin peers.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 39
Table 18. Wisconsin Peer Performance Measures Summary
Janesville $12.81 $124.10 9.69 4.27 0.44 $1.21 9.43% $11.60
La Crosse $10.60 $86.74 8.18 6.40 0.78 $0.49 4.66% $10.11
GO Transit Oshkosh $7.95 $100.79 12.67 7.07 0.56 $0.75 9.49% $7.20
Average Annual Rate of Change 18.79% 2.89% -13.18% -14.80% -1.82% 2.23% -13.96% 20.81%
24.85% 5.34% -17.61% -19.46% -5.38% -9.92% -22.88% 27.04%
GO Transit Performance Compared to WI
Peers: 2021
Better Than
Average
Better Than
Average
Better Than
Average
Better
Than
Average
Better Than
Average
Within
Satisfactory
Range
Better
Than
Average
Better
Than
Average
GO Transit Performance Compared to WI
Peers: Five-Year Trend
Within
Satisfactory Range
Better Than
Average
Within
Satisfactory Range
Within
Satisfactory Range
Better Than
Average
Better
Than Average
Better
Than Average
Within
Satisfactory Range
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 40
Table 19. National Peer Performance Measures Summary
Battle Creek Transit $13.15
Jackson, MI $9.65
Lawton, OK $12.15
Waterloo, IA $24.83
GO Transit Oshkosh $7.95 $100.79 12.67 7.07 0.56 $0.75 9.49% $7.20
Acceptable Range $18.23 $118.31 6.37 1.59 0.22 $0.43 3.35% $17.24
St. Dev. Rate of Change 4.31% 3.95% 3.93% 3.72% 4.98% 27.51% 23.06% 8.92%
Change 24.24% 8.11% -17.01% -18.76% -7.11% -34.08% -22.88% -22.88%
GO Transit Performance Compared to
National Peers: 2021
Better Than
Average
Better Than
Average
Better Than
Average
Better
Than
Average
Better Than
Average
Within
Satisfactory
Range
Better
Than
Average
Better
Than
Average
National Peers: Five-Year Trend
Within Satisfactory Range
Better Than
Average
Within Satisfactory Range
Better Than Average
Better Than
Average
Better Than Average
Better Than Average
Better Than Average
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 41
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Overall, GO Transit performs just as well or better than it’s peers in all measures included in this analysis,
which is a positive indicator for GO Transit’s performance. The results also yielded a few themes and trends:
Similar Post-COVID Recovery with Wisconsin Peer Group – For the most part its five-year trends more
closely follow its WI peers, especially after 2019. At that time, most WI peers saw a slight recovery after a
sharp decline in most measurements due to disruptions from the COVID 19 pandemic. This was not the same
for national peers which saw a less dramatic decline in 2020, but, on average, continued to decline in 2021.
Average Fare per Passenger Trip was the only measure that GO Transit did not perform “Better than
Average” among WI and national peers – GO Transit’s average fare was slightly lower than both peer
group averages, but close enough that it’s still within the satisfactory range. However, this result may not
warrant a change like a fare increase to bring the average up, though it may be worth evaluating how GO
Transit structures its fares and which modes and fare types are most utilized compared to peers.
Performance was less than “Better than Average” for trends that factored passenger trips among WI
peers – for five year performance trends GO Transit was at or just below the peer average for measures that
included passenger trips. This could indicate that most operating measurements are doing well except
passenger trips. GO Transit could explore methods for increasing trips in the post-COVID era.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTPART III
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 43
Public Engagement Overview
To support the TDP effort, SRF, GO Transit, the City of Oshkosh, and ECWRPC staff conducted a variety of
public engagement activities. This Public Engagement Summary document outlines strategies that have been
used to share information with and gather input from the community. These strategies include:
• Staff meetings
• Bus operator meetings
• Business survey
• Rider survey
• Community survey
• Paratransit rider survey
• Steering committee meetings
• Pop-up engagement events
• Formal public hearings
These public engagement efforts were conducted to achieve the following goals:
• Informing stakeholders about the TDP process and opportunities to contribute;
• Soliciting feedback on customer satisfaction and desired transit improvements;
• Building partnerships among government, nonprofit organizations, and private sector employers
whose constituents or stakeholders could benefit from transit;
• Advertising the proposed future fare and service changes to build awareness of the plan; and
• Enabling riders, stakeholders, and Steering Committee members to shape the project from start to
finish.
Draft and final recommendations were presented to the City of Oshkosh Transportation Committee in
February and March 2024, respectively. The latter presentation also served as a public hearing for the
recommendations outlined in the TDP. Recommendations were modified in response to public comment and
were unanimously recommended by the Transportation Committee on March 12, 2024.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 44
Staff Meetings
In June and August of 2023, SRF met with GO Transit staff to discuss route-level challenges and initial
suggestions, as well as system-wide topics such as scheduling, operations, partnerships, contracting, and
policy.
Findings
Ridership challenges were discussed, such as students walking to corners for faster bus access on Route 2,
occupancy capping, and bike-riding employees competing for limited bus space near a work release facility
on the last run of the day.
Schedule issues highlighted the need for recovery time and concerns about safety with 30-minute service
intervals, as operators may want to take shortcuts to make up time. Timepoints and midpoints were
discussed for route adjustments, as these points are not always aligned with schedules. Interlining,
particularly for routes 3, 5, and 7, was also mentioned.
Concerns about operator schedules were raised, emphasizing the complexity and messiness of the current
system. Schedule bids every two months may cause repetitive runs for some drivers. Additionally, Routes 4
and 9 operate as independent loops with no opportunity for drivers to go downtown for breaks. Suggestions
included starting operators at the transit center in the morning for better scheduling and consistency
throughout the week.
Routes and stops were also reviewed, with potential improvements identified for Routes 5 and 7 and the
importance of serving specific destinations, like the county jail, Soda Creek (after the discontinuation of
Route 10 service), Aurora Medical Center, and the DMV. There was a general desire to stretch service further
north. Route 3 was also identified for restructuring, as it currently does not utilize its full running time and
often departs late from the transit center to avoid running ahead on all its stops.
Additional comments addressed the need for transit utilization, system efficiency, and the impending
redevelopment of the Pioneer Park area. The impact of the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh's withdrawal
from the Route 10 operations agreement was discussed, also leading to the suggestion to restructure Route
3 to better serve students.
Paratransit challenges were outlined, including issues with service delivery via the existing contract. Operating
paratransit service 24/7 goes above and beyond the federally-mandated service requirements and is a
practice exclusive to GO Transit in the region, though this presents additional challenges related to capacity
and cost. GO Transit is interested in exploring options to internalize some of these functions, such as
dispatch or scheduling; however, taking full control of paratransit may be impractical. Concerns about drug
screening costs and high turnover in paratransit contractors were discussed, with GO Transit considering
possible changes in the next request for proposals. Microtransit was considered as a potential solution, with a
need for further exploration of operational aspects and software requirements.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 45
Operator Meetings
During the first on-site visit in June 2023, SRF hosted two dedicated meetings with GO Transit drivers to
gather feedback on existing route structure and performance. In total, nine operators provided input. Topics
for engagement included on-time performance bottlenecks, areas of frequent customer service requests,
barriers to pedestrian access or ADA accommodation, and potential route or schedule restructuring ideas.
These meetings were scheduled to coincide with shift times to allow for high attendance and participant
convenience. Driver feedback was then reported to the Steering Committee at its second meeting and used
to develop TDP recommendations. Drivers were subsequently engaged in the development of draft
recommendations.
Findings
GO Transit operators offered input on both positive aspects and challenges within the transit system.
Operators highlighted the success of Route 6, which experiences high demand for trips to Walmart, and
Route 2, especially for passengers heading to Pick 'n Save. However, challenges were noted on both routes
due to school runs, leading to occasional schedule delays. On the downside, operators expressed concerns
about worsening customer behavior since the start of the pandemic, with passengers frequently challenging
rules. Additionally, reports of disrespectful behavior from students were noted, raising safety concerns for
students, other passengers, operators.
Operators provided insights into areas not currently served but desired by the community. Popular
destinations mentioned include:
• Department of Motor Vehicles (2301 Omro Rd.)
• Family Dollar (935 N Main St.)
• Soda Creek Apartments (4400 Jackson St.)
• Winnebago County Jail (4311 Jackson St.)
• Bemis Performance Packaging / Amcor Flexibles (3550 Moser St.)
• Kobussen Buses, Ltd. (3034 Omro Rd.)
• Cimarron Court Apartments (101-110 Cimarron Ct.)
• Oshkosh Corp. / Oshkosh Truck (Multiple locations)
• The Wit Apartments (2609-2671 Witzel Ave.)
Discussion also touched upon underused segments and areas where service could be enhanced. For
instance, serving Aurora Medical Center was noted as difficult due to congestion, and suggestions were
made for optimizing stops and transfer points for increased efficiency. Additionally, Route 8 near downtown
Oshkosh was identified; at Marion Road there is only one rider, and upcoming changes to Jackson Street
may make route modification necessary. The Jackson Street drawbridge also causes traffic backups for Route
8.
Schedule challenges were acknowledged across Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8, while Route 9 was identified as
less affected by traffic, trains, bridges, or detours. Difficulties in maintaining 30-minute schedules were
discussed, leading to interest in transitioning to hourly schedules for better flexibility and driver breaks.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 46
Proposed service changes included the elimination of punch passes and transfers due to storage issues and
fare structure confusion. Operators expressed interest in introducing day passes to accommodate longer
routes, with an emphasis on facilitating downtown transit center layovers. Additionally, there was a
suggestion to implement contactless fares and add a fare vending machine at the transit center. For ADA
accessibility, operators advocated for automated stop announcements and internal signs indicating the next
stop to address distractions on the bus.
Business Survey
ECWRPC and the consultant team led a survey of area businesses to gauge the perspective of employers on
transportation needs. Key questions included the following:
• Do transit routes adequately serve the region’s major employment location(s)?
• Do transit schedules match employer shift times?
• Would employers be willing to contribute to transit that more directly meets their needs, either
through microtransit or employer-supported routes?
• How can GO Transit better make employers and employees aware of available transit options?
ECWRPC and the consultant team identified businesses to include in the survey to aid in the development of
TDP recommendations. Distribution was conducted with assistance from the Greater Oshkosh Economic
Development Corporation (GO EDC) in August and September of 2023. Responses were collected online via
SurveyMonkey.
Findings
The business survey garnered seven responses, most of which indicated a need for transit service beyond
existing scheduled trip times and service area boundaries. Awareness of the existing Access to Jobs (ATJ)
program is limited, so improving marketing or upgrading this service could offer opportunities to meet more
employee transit needs. Additionally, employers requested service to industrial parks beyond the current
reach of fixed routes. Service to these destinations can be difficult to provide efficiently using all-day routes,
so these areas may be better served by flexible demand-response options like microtransit, as discussed in
the Microtransit Service Expansion Options section of the report.
Rider Survey
One of the most prominent tools used to collect input was a survey for existing transit riders, drafted by SRF,
GO Transit, and ECWRPC staff. The survey was distributed online using SurveyMonkey, and paper copies
were distributed on buses and at the downtown Transit Center by GO Transit staff. Riders were invited to
respond from July to September 2023.
Findings
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 47
In total, there were 91 responses to the rider survey. Questions generally sought to understand transit users’
current travel habits and decisions and gather information about their needs and preferences. Riders offered
information about their most desired improvements to the system.
TRIP PURPOSE
Transit riders were asked for information about both the origin and destination of their trip. Figure 26 shows
that nearly half of all transit trips began at home (48.3 percent), followed by work (20.7 percent) and stores
or restaurants (10.3 percent). Daycares, places of worship, educational institutions, social services, and
medical facilities were the least popular response options. Figure 27 shows that among all destinations, work
(26.4 percent), home (24.1 percent), and stores or restaurants (20.7 percent) were again the most common
responses, while places of worship, educational institutions, and social service agencies ranked lowest.
Figure 26. Rider Survey: Trip Origin
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
5.8%
6.9%
10.3%
20.7%
48.3%
Day Care
Place of Worship
School (K-12)
College/Technical School
Medical Appointment
Government or Social Service Agency
Other (please specify)
Personal/Recreational/Social Activity
Shopping/Restaurant
Work
Home
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 48
Figure 27. Rider Survey: Trip Destination
The survey also gathered information about transit users’ primary reason for riding as opposed to using
another mode of transportation (Figure 28) and how often they use GO Transit’s services (Figure 29). The
survey indicates that the majority of respondents can’t drive for various reasons: some do not have a vehicle
or valid license (47.1 percent), while others are unable (14.9 percent). Some respondents answered that the
bus is more convenient (14.9 percent) or that they prefer not to drive (9.2 percent). Most survey respondents
are daily riders of the GO Transit system, with 52.9 percent reporting that they ride 5 or more days per week.
In total, over 80 percent of survey respondents reported riding at least two days per week. This indicates that
there is a large cohort of regular transit users who responded to the survey.
0.0%
1.2%
2.3%
3.5%
5.8%
8.1%
8.1%
20.7%
24.1%
26.4%
Place of Worship
School (K-12)
Government or Social Service Agency
College/Technical School
Personal/Recreational/Social Activity
Medical Appointment
Other (please specify)
Shopping/Restaurant
Home
Work
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 49
Figure 28. Rider Survey: Primary Reason for Transit Use
Figure 29. Rider Survey: Frequency of Use
TRAVEL MODE AND TRANSFERS
Survey respondents were asked to provide their initial mode of access to the bus (first-mile) and to their final
destination after exiting the bus (last-mile) from a comprehensive list of options. 94 percent of respondents
indicated that they walked to the bus, while 4 percent said they biked and 1 percent said they used a
0.0%
1.2%
2.3%
3.5%
6.9%
9.2%
14.9%
14.9%
47.1%
Parking is Too Difficult/Expensive
Better for the Environment
Live or Work Near Transit
Bus is More Economical
Other (please specify)
Prefer Not to Drive
Bus is More Convenient
Unable to Drive
No Access to a Vehicle/ No Valid License
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
1.2%
0.0%
2.3%
2.3%
6.9%
6.9%
27.6%
52.9%
This is the First Time I've Used GO Transit
Once a Year
Several Times a Year
Once a Month
2 to 3 Times a Month
Once a Week
2 to 4 Days a Week
5 or More Days a Week
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 50
wheelchair or mobility aid. Last-mile modes included walking (85 percent), biking (5 percent), wheelchair or
mobility aid (1 percent), and taxi (1 percent).
Survey respondents were also asked to report whether or not their current trip included a transfer, with
results shown in Figure 30. Over half of the survey respondents indicated that their trip involved at least two
bus routes.
Figure 30. Rider Survey: Transfers
Riders were asked to report the mode of transportation they would have used to complete their current trip
if GO Transit were unavailable, shown in Figure 31. The most common response was walking (27.9 percent),
followed by taking a taxi (17.7 percent) and getting a ride from someone else (16.5 percent). Notably, only 8.9
percent said they would have driven alone in a personal vehicle, indicating that many of the respondents
cannot drive themselves as an alternative. Approximately 5 percent would not make the trip at all.
Figure 31. Rider Survey: Travel Mode if Transit Service Were Unavailable
58.3%
41.7%
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
5.1%
8.9%
8.9%
13.9%
16.5%
17.7%
27.9%
Other (please specify)
Carpool
E-Scooter
Would not Make Trip
Drive Alone in a Personal Vehicle
Ride Hailing Service (Uber, Lyft, etc.)
Personal Bike
Driven by Someone Else
Taxi
Walk
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 51
FARE PAYMENT
Survey respondents were asked questions about their fare payment method (Figure 32) and their opinion of
GO Transit’s current fare prices (Figure 33). Approximately one-third of survey respondents each (32.9
percent) indicated that they paid for their current trip with cash or with a monthly pass. The Token Transit
App and punch pass options were relatively less used. Most respondents (66.2 percent) indicated that the
current $1.50 fare is average, with an equal number of respondents indicating that the fare was either too
high or too low (16.9 percent each).
Figure 32. Fare Payment Method
Figure 33. Rider Survey: Perception of Fare Prices
7.6%
0.0%
12.7%
13.9%
32.9%
32.9%
Other (please specify)
Day Pass
Punch Pass
Token Transit App
Cash
Month Pass
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
0.0%
16.9%
66.2%
14.3%
2.6%
Much Too High
High
Average
Low
Much Too Low
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 52
IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES
Several survey questions sought to understand current GO Transit riders’ priorities for making improvements
to the transit system. Figure 34 shows the results of a question where respondents were asked to rank five
potential improvements that would cause them to use GO Transit’s services more often, with “1” being their
top priority and “5” being their lowest priority. Generally, respondents indicated that evening service and
increased service frequency were their first and second priorities, respectively, followed in descending order
by increased weekend service, faster service, and expanded service area. Among current riders who
responded to the survey, there is not as much strong desire to expand the system’s geographical coverage,
and emphasis is instead placed on improving service in existing areas.
Figure 34. Rider Survey: Ranking of Potential Improvements
Figure 35 echoes the results from the previous figure, showing that survey respondents prefer frequent
service to expanded geographical coverage. Because this engagement effort reached only those who were
using transit at the time of receipt of the survey, it was more likely to document the views of those who do
not need additional geographical coverage to access the system.
Figure 35. Rider Survey: Frequency versus Geographical Coverage
24%
11%
36%
17%
12%
24%
18%
24%
24%
9%
17%
20%
14%
21%
29%
20%
26%
15%
27%
12%
15%
26%
11%
11%
38%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Shorter wait times between buses (more frequent)
Faster service
More service in the evening
More service on weekends
Expand service area
38.6%
61.4%
Expanding the service area
Maintaining frequent service
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 53
Figure 36 details the top destination type that survey respondents would most prefer to have increased
service. The top answers included work (22.4 percent), personal, recreational, or social activities (20.9
percent) and stores and restaurants (17.9 percent). Among survey respondents, there was relatively less
demand for increased access to social services or educational institutions.
Figure 36. Rider Survey: Desired Destination Type for Increased Service
13.4%
0.0%
1.5%
3.0%
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
7.5%
17.9%
20.9%
22.4%
Other (please specify)
Day Care
School (K-12)
College/Technical School
Government or Social Service Agency
Place of Worship
Medical Appointment
Home
Shopping/Restaurant
Personal/Recreational/Social Activity
Work
0%5%10%15%20%25%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 54
RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographics of survey respondents provide additional context into their preferences and needs. Figure
Figure 37 shows that there are responses from every age group, with almost half (46 percent) between the
ages of 35 and 54. Figure 38 shows an even distribution of responses by gender.
Figure 37. Rider Survey: Age
Figure 38. Rider Survey: Gender
Survey respondents’ travel decisions are impacted by their ability to drive and by their vehicle access. Figure
39 shows that about two-thirds of respondents (66.2 percent) did not report having a driver’s license. Of
those with a driver’s license, Figure 40 shows that over three-quarters (76.2 percent) did not report having
access to a vehicle. Both response sets show that transit riders who responded to the survey generally cannot
rely on driving as an alternative.
8.1%8.1%
13.5%
23.0%23.0%
12.2%12.2%
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
46.7%46.7%
6.7%
0.0%
Male Female Non-Binary or Non-
Conforming
Other (please specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 55
Figure 39. Rider Survey: Driver’s License
Figure 40. Rider Survey: Vehicle Access
Figure 41 and Figure 42 show respondents’ self-reported race and ethnicity, respectively. Respondents were
able to select multiple racial classifications as necessary, so results total to over 100 percent. Most
respondents identified themselves as White and non-Hispanic or Latino, though 7.9 percent of respondents
were Black or African American and 9.1 percent were Hispanic or Latino. Figure 43 shows that all survey
respondents stated that they speak English “well” or “very well.”
33.8%
66.2%
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
23.8%
76.2%
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 56
Figure 41. Rider Survey: Race
Figure 42. Rider Survey: Ethnicity
Figure 43. Rider Survey: English Proficiency
9.2%
0.0%
1.3%
2.6%
7.9%
81.6%
Other (please specify)
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Asian or Asian American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
White
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
9.1%
90.9%
Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
93.3%
Not at All
Less than Well
Well
Very Well
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 57
Respondents were asked to report their household income incomes in 2022, shown in Figure 44. Almost 60
percent reported incomes under $30,000 per year, while only 11.1 percent reported household incomes over
$50,000.
Figure 44. Rider Survey: Household Income
Community Survey
In addition to the survey targeting existing transit riders, SRF also developed a survey to be administered to
the community at large. This survey was distributed online using Polco through the City of Oshkosh.
Community members responded from August to September 2023.
Findings
In total, there were 201 responses to the community survey. Community members offered information about
characteristics of their current travel habits and provided their opinions on what improvements would
encourage them to use GO Transit’s services more frequently.
TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS AND GO TRANSIT USE
The community survey gathered responses across all transportation modes, including GO Transit buses.
Shown in Figure 45, respondents reported driving or carpooling as their primary mode of transportation.
“Other” responses not listed included electronic bikes and scooters.
0.0%
1.6%
1.6%
7.9%
19.1%
23.8%
46.0%
Over $150,000
Between $100,000 and $150,000
Between $75,000 and $99,999
Between $50,000 and $74,999
Between $30,000 and $49,999
Between $15,000 and $29,999
Under $15,000
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 58
Figure 45. Community Survey: Primary Means of Transportation
Though 8 percent of respondents reported that the bus is their primary transportation mode, the survey
indicates that greater percentage of the community is aware of GO Transit’s services. Figure 46 shows that
over three-quarters of respondents (78 percent) are at least somewhat familiar with GO Transit bus service,
and almost half (44 percent) are familiar with GO Connect. Fewer respondents reported any familiarity with
GO Plus paratransit service or Access to Jobs.
Figure 46. Community Survey: Familiarity with GO Transit Services
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 59
As such, many community survey respondents indicated that they have used GO Transit’s services before,
even while most respondents primarily drive. Figure 47 shows that over 17 percent of respondents reported
using GO Transit’s Services at least monthly, and over half have used the system at least once in the past
year. The survey gathered responses from many transit users at varying levels of frequency, though just
under half have never used the system at all.
Figure 47. Community Survey: GO Transit Frequency of Use
Community members were asked to select the primary reason they would consider using the bus (Figure 48),
as well as any potential destination(s) they would consider using the bus to reach (Figure 49). Respondents
largely communicated that the bus is not their preferred option, indicating in their responses that lack of
vehicle access, lack of a valid driver’s license, or an inability to drive are their top reasons for potentially using
the bus. However, environmental benefits (14 percent) were the next highly ranked selection. Economic
benefits of bus use ranked lowest. “Other” responses indicated that some riders see using the bus as a fun
adventure (either alone or with their children), for event transportation to areas with limited parking, or as a
safer alternative to driving when consuming alcohol.
Respondents reported that destinations they may visit using transit include shopping and restaurants (61
percent), medical appointments (46 percent), recreational and social activities (44 percent), in addition to
home (45 percent) and work (42 percent) trips. Educational institutions, daycares, and places of worship
ranked lowest. “Other” responses reflect those in the previous question, with many saying that special event
locations with limited parking options are a potential transit destination, as well as bars or other destinations
where alcohol consumption may occur.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 60
Figure 48. Community Survey: Potential Reason for Transit Use
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 61
Figure 49. Community Survey: Potential Transit Destination(s)
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
Community survey respondents were asked about their perception of fare prices (Figure 50), with 72 percent
sharing that they think fares are average. Approximately 10 percent reported that fares are too low, while 17
percent reported that fares are too high.
Figure 50. Community Survey: Perception of Fare Prices
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 62
When asked to rank potential improvements that would encourage them to use GO Transit’s services from 1
(highest priority) to 5 (lowest priority), respondents’ top answer was to increase evening service (Figure 51).
Increasing weekend service and the network’s geographical spread were also popular responses, followed by
increasing frequency and increasing trip speed. However, Figure 52 contradicts these results slightly, with 55
percent of respondents indicating that they would prefer maintaining frequent service to expanding the
system’s geographical reach.
Figure 51. Community Survey: Ranking of Potential Improvements
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 63
Figure 52. Community Survey: Frequency versus Geographical Coverage
When asked for specific destinations that community members would be interested in reaching with
increased service, respondents slightly favored shops and restaurants (29 percent) and personal, recreational,
and social activities (15 percent), as shown in Figure 53. Work (15 percent) and medical appointments (11
percent) were also popular choices.
Figure 53. Community Survey: Desired Destination Type for Increased Service
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 64
DEMOGRAPHICS
The community survey reached a different sample of the population than the rider survey did, as evidenced
by demographic reporting. Figure 54 indicates that over half of respondents to the community survey (51
percent) were age 55 or older, with only 11 percent under age 35. Approximately 52 percent of survey
respondents were women, shown in Figure 55.
Figure 54. Community Survey: Age
Figure 55. Community Survey: Gender
In contrast with the rider survey, 92 percent of community survey respondents reported that they have a
driver’s license (Figure 56), with 92 percent also having access to a vehicle (Figure 57). This community
sample is relatively less likely than respondents to the rider survey to be dependent on GO Transit’s services.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 65
Figure 56. Community Survey: Driver’s License
Figure 57. Community Survey: Vehicle Access
Approximately 95 percent of respondents self-reported their race as white (Figure 58), and 98 percent
reported their ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino (Figure 59).
Figure 58. Community Survey: Race
Figure 59. Community Survey: Ethnicity
Figure 60 shows that 99 percent of respondents speak English at least “well,” though one person reported
that they do not speak English.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 66
Figure 60. Community Survey: English Proficiency
Household incomes in 2022 of community survey respondents were generally higher than those of rider
survey respondents, with 56 percent reporting incomes of at least $75,000. Only 13 percent reported incomes
below $30,000.
Figure 61. Community Survey: Household Income
Survey Results Comparison
Frequent transit users and community members who may not use transit as often, if at all, may have differing
opinions about the effectiveness of transit service. Riders and potential riders alike can agree on certain
aspects of transit service that should be prioritized for improvements, but contrasting preferences across
these groups can provide agencies with varied input on how to focus resources.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 67
Key differences between the rider and community survey responses include the following:
• Vehicle Access: Frequent transit users are significantly less likely to have access to a personal vehicle
and more likely to use transit for a variety of purposes.
• Income: A much higher proportion of transit riders have moderate or low incomes, with 46 percent
making under $15,000 per year, compared to five percent of community survey respondents.
• Trip Purpose: The highest priority for transit riders is increased service to work destinations; non-
riders are more likely to desire transit for shopping or recreational purposes.
Despite the variation in demographics and transit use, rider and community survey respondents agree on
major priorities for future transit service. These shared priorities include the following:
• Maintaining service frequency: Both riders and community survey respondents agree that
maintaining current frequency (every 30 minutes) should be prioritized over expanding the
geographic footprint of the service area.
• More evening and weekend service: Both riders and community survey respondents listed evening
and weekend service among their top priorities for service improvements.
These priorities inform the near-term and long-term recommendations included in the TDP.
Paratransit Rider Survey
In addition to the general rider and community surveys, GO Transit conducted a survey of paratransit riders
in fall 2023. Paratransit riders were surveyed regarding their use of fixed routes and ADA complementary
paratransit (GO Plus), as well as to determine any transportation needs that are currently unmet.
Findings
The paratransit survey yielded a total of 45 responses. Of these, 43 respondents indicated that they use GO
Plus services multiple times per month, and over half of all respondents reported using GO Plus services
multiple times per week. In addition to being registered for GO Plus services, approximately 18 percent of
respondents reported using GO Transit fixed routes.
Over half of all respondents indicated that they have been using GO Plus services for at least four years. Over
77 percent of survey respondents reported being at least 55 years of age, and over 67 percent did not have a
driver’s license. Over 76 percent did not own or have access to a vehicle. Generally, survey respondents were
frequent, long-term users of the service who did not have regularly available transportation alternatives
outside of being driven by family or friends.
Riders primarily reported using the service to access either medical appointments or employment locations.
They generally expressed overall satisfaction with the services offered, expressing that their experiences
undergoing the application process to use GO Plus services were positive. Respondents largely indicated that
GO Transit is easy to use, moderately affordable, and provides convenient and timely access to the desired
destinations.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 68
Steering Committee Meetings
The Steering Committee consisted of GO Transit stakeholders and funding partners. SRF worked with
ECWRPC and GO Transit staff to identify committee members and conducted five site visits to facilitate in-
person Steering Committee meetings throughout the project. Participants represented a variety of local and
regional stakeholders, including local government, healthcare and social service organizations, schools and
higher education institutions, and individuals with disabilities. Stakeholders were identified at the outset of
the project and were invited to attend and provide interactive feedback at all five meetings.
The topics of each meeting varied, with the Steering Committee sharing their perspectives and participating
in discussion of meeting content throughout, as shown in Figure 62. Meeting 4 afforded participants with the
opportunity to comment directly on draft recommendations, and their feedback was considered in the
development of the final recommendations presented in this plan. The final Steering Committee meeting
consisted of the presentation of these recommendations in their present form.
Figure 62. Steering Committee Meeting Content
Stakeholder Priorities
At the third Steering Committee meeting on October 19th, the Project Team provided themes from operator
engagement sessions, the business survey, and the rider and community surveys. The Steering Committee
then participated in an activity to share priorities and establish items to be addressed in the TDP. The latter
half of the meeting utilized an interactive polling program called Mentimeter to poll stakeholders and gain a
more comprehensive understanding of the Steering Committee members’ priorities for the project and
system overall. The questions were sorted into three categories: GO Transit’s Outlook, Transit Trade-Offs, and
What’s Next for GO Transit. Results are described in the following sections.
GO TRANSIT’S OUTLOOK
Steering Committee members were asked about what they would consider to be a successful outcome of the
TDP, with results shown in Figure 63. Stakeholders tended to favor providing more service for transit-
dependent populations.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 69
Figure 63. Successful Plan Outcome
The second and third questions in this category asked committee members “What Aspects of GO Transit
work well today?” and “Where are there opportunities to improve the transportation system?”. Responses are
listed below in Table 20 and Table 21, with duplicates and near-duplicates grouped together. Respondents
also had the opportunity to vote in support of posted answers, and those votes are included as well.
As far as what works well, responses were fairly spread out. Many of the responses and votes indicated
favorability with the customer service with drivers and the 30-minute frequency as strengths. There were also
many responses that indicated coverage and service in the city core as a strength. As far as areas of
improvement go, there were many different responses but two of them had the most votes or were
submitted most frequently they were longer service hours and more coverage. Several members also
responded with specific locations or areas where service should be expanded.
Table 20. Mentimeter: Question 2
“What Aspects of GO Transit work well today?”
Response Votes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 70
“What Aspects of GO Transit work well today?”
Table 21. Mentimeter: Question 3
“Where are there opportunities to improve the transportation system?”
Response Votes
TRANSIT TRADE OFFS
Three question formats were used to address committee members’ service priorities. These trade-off
questions were intended to make respondents think critically about which strategies for improving service
they support the most even if they wanted to support all of them.
The first question asked if members would prioritize adding new types of service or improving existing
service, assuming only one is possible. As shown below in Figure 64, about two thirds responses that they’d
prioritize the latter.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 71
Figure 64. Mentimeter Trade-Off 1
The second question listed six potential needs that transit can address and asked members to rank them. The
full responses are below in Figure 65 Overall, support was generally highest for access to jobs and medical
services and for serving low-income and high-need neighborhoods. These responses indicate that transit is
viewed as a critical service for the community.
Figure 65. Mentimeter Trade-Off 2
For the third and final question of the section, members were given a hypothetical 100 point “budget” to
allocate across five potential investments for GO Transit. The full responses are below in Figure 66. 41 percent
of the points in each member’s budget were allocated toward expanding the service area and 21 percent for
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 72
extending more evening service. These responses matched those in the previous section when member were
asked about what they would improve about GO Transit service.
Figure 66. Mentimeter Trade-Off 3
WHAT’S NEXT FOR GO TRANSIT
The final section of the polling questions had committee members look ahead and think more about specific
priorities and service area scenarios.
The first question presented members with a map (Figure 67) and asked to place a marker on the map where
they would add more service (respondents could only choose one spot). Most locations were on the west
side of the river either near retail and services off I-41, the DMV, and the industrial park south of the city.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 73
Figure 67. Locations for Added Service
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 74
Questions two and three presented alternatives for addressing issues that had previously been identified and
asked members to assess their level of agreement with each potential strategy for addressing the issues on a
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The first question revolved around transit fares, as
shown in Figure 68. Members generally agreed or were neutral with each of the strategies. Most supported
introducing daily passes and adding mobile fare options.
Figure 68. Transit Fare Strategies
The second question addressed needs that potential microtransit service could be used to address. As shown
in Figure 69 below, most members supported using microtransit to expand service to new locations (which
was also a high priority in the trade-off section). Responses were split but generally supportive for using
microtransit to add service hours and dedicate service for employers, and responses were most polarized for
using microtransit to add Sunday service.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 75
Figure 69. Microtransit Strategies
Finally, the polling section of the presentation was wrapped up with a question that asked members what
questions they would like the study to answer. The open-ended responses are listed below. There were no
votes on these open-ended questions.
• How Microtransit could be used to expand service area?
• How can we meet current need and prepare for future transit changes?
• Where are there deficiencies in our current normal daily procedures that could be changed?
• How can we more sustainably fund transit into the future?
• How to expand service area and minimize transfers?
• How to implement renewable bus passes (tap cards)?
• What are potential funding opportunities with public and private collaborators?
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 76
Summary of Engagement Feedback
The engagement opportunities throughout the development of the TDP accomplished the stated project
goals of gathering ideas and contributions from stakeholders, riders, and the community, as well as
advertising and communicating proposed changes. These groups’ input shaped the project and assisted the
project team in developing improvements to the GO Transit system.
Combining all outreach activities undertaken as part of the TDP, several key themes emerge that set the
stage for future transit system recommendations.
Core Customers
Survey data indicates that there is a stable base of long-time users that make up a large segment of the
community’s transit ridership. By and large, these riders report using the system regularly to meet their needs
on a daily or weekly basis, and customer satisfaction is high. There is undoubtedly a culture of transit use for
at least some of the community. Along with this customer base, GO Transit has a strong core of high-
ridership routes that fulfill their intended functions and facilitate the operation of a transit system that runs
smoothly and consistently.
Service Improvement Priorities
While all stakeholder groups have similar ideas of which system improvements should be implemented in an
ideal scenario without resource constraints, priorities vary across stakeholder groups. Existing GO Transit
users tend to request augmentation of existing service, perhaps influenced by practicality in their daily lives.
Changes such as span of service or frequency improvements are most favorable for those who regularly use
transit already. In contrast, the broader community consists of more non-transit users or choice riders who
may wish for added destinations to increase the appeal of the system. The Steering Committee echoes this
sentiment but with an added emphasis on ADA accessibility and employment-related trips to facilitate
improved mobility and economic prosperity for the groups they represent.
Fare Modernization
Engagement with both GO Transit staff and key stakeholder groups revealed a need to reconsider GO
Transit’s existing fare structure, which does not currently include a day pass, and relies on some outdated
fare media such as tokens and punch passes. There are opportunities to minimize operators’ functions as
cashiers while updating the available fare media to help address operational inefficiencies. Additionally, riders
and community members very seldom expressed concerns about the current one-way fare price, as it is
relatively low compared to similar nearby agencies. This indicates a potential for a fare increase to reach the
“market rate” of a one-way trip in 2024 in tandem with equity measures to lessen such an increase’s burden
on the most transit-dependent segments of the existing ridership base and of the population as a whole.
RECOMMENDATIONSPART IV
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 78
Scenario Framework
Service recommendations were developed in response to GO Transit goals and objectives, partner and public
engagement, existing service review, and transit needs assessment. Service recommendations in this section
are organized by route or service theme, and assigned one of two implementation scenarios:
• Near-Term Scenario: Recommendations which can be implemented relatively quickly (1-2 years),
either without the need for significantly more resources or requiring additional investment in
operating funding and/or significant capital purchases, such as vehicles.
• Long-Term Scenario: Recommendations which would require the hiring of several additional drivers
and supervisors, significant investment in operating and/or capital investment, and/or expand the
scale and scope of GO Transit. It is likely that outside funding would be necessary to advance these
recommendations in place of the short-term options.
Some of the service recommendations can be made independently, while others require changes be made in
coordination with those to other routes. Cost estimates are provided for illustrative purposes to inform
implementation and prioritization by Oshkosh policymakers and the Transit Commission.
Assumptions
OPERATING COSTS
Annual operating expense estimates for existing and proposed services were developed based on a fully
allocated cost per revenue hour drawn from 2021 NTD Data, the most recently available data set at the time
of the plan’s commencement. This cost per revenue hour is $100.79.
ANNUAL SERVICE DAYS
All annual operating cost estimates are based on an assumed annual service calendar, shown below.
Day Type Number of Days per Year
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 79
Near -Term Scenario
Recommendations to be implemented in the near-term include changes to the structures of specific routes,
as well as policy updates such as changes to GO Transit’s fare structure. The report also discusses the GO
Connect service in more detail, highlighting opportunities for continued assessment of service performance
in the short-term.
Route -Specific Changes
Changes to GO Transit’s daily route operations are to be undertaken to increase the overall productivity of
the system using only existing resources. Wherever possible, proposed changes were predicated on
maintaining all existing service with no net loss in coverage, while simultaneously searching for new
efficiencies within the system. The following goals were held in mind:
• New destinations: Realign routes to serve destinations near existing routes that are currently
underserved.
• Running time optimization: Adjust schedules to better match current performance and enable
greater reliability.
• Interlining changes: Change which routes are “paired” to minimize transfers, including routes which
transfer either at the downtown Oshkosh Transit Center or at outlying transfer points. Minimize the
number of standalone or non-interlined routes.
Each route experiencing any form of adjustment is shown and elaborated upon individually on the following
pages, with changes to each route’s configuration and interlining summarized in Table 22 below.
Table 22. Summary of Route-Specific Changes
Route Alignment / Stop Changes
1
• On outbound trip, travel east to Evans on Irving instead of Parkway, covering section previously served by Route 3
• Move North Transfer Point from Mallard/Evans to Routes 1/2 Routes 1/4
•
3
• Reverse direction.
• Tighten loop to primarily operate on the northeast side
of the Fox River.
• Add service on 6th Ave to serve new ThedaCare hospital
None (Standalone route) None (Standalone route)
4 •
• Move North Transfer Point from Mallard/Evans to None (Standalone route) Routes 1/4
5 • Replace current Route 3 alignment west of the river.
Move West Transfer Point to Robin Ave. Routes 5/7 Routes 5/7
•
7 • Add route deviation to DMV on Omro Rd.
Move West Transfer Point to Robin Ave. Routes 5/7 Routes 5/7
•
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 80
9 • No alignment changes. None (Standalone route)Routes 6/9
ROUTE 1
The most productive and reliable GO Transit route in terms of ridership and on-time performance,
respectively, Route 1 needs only minimal adjustment – there are a couple opportunities to enable it to
operate even more effectively within the broader system.
One such tweak involves modifying the outbound portion of the route for a better fit with changes to other
routes. By making a right turn onto Irving Avenue rather than continuing its current alignment by making a
right turn onto Parkway Avenue, the route can both utilize a slightly wider road and continue serving a block
that will be removed from Route 3, as shown later in this section.
Additionally, the North Transfer Point with Route 4 will also be moved. This transfer point is currently located
at Mallard Ave. and Evans St. and will be moved to Murdock Ave. and Bowen St. (one block southwest) in
front of Edenbrook. Route 1 will also be interlined with Route 4 in conjunction with this change.
Figure 70. Route 1 Changes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 81
ROUTE 2
Route 2 is generally high-performing but experiences some issues with schedule adherence on the outbound
portion of the route. Drivers have reported difficulties with the left turn after leaving the transit center from
Waugoo Avenue to northbound Main Street, and there are also opportunities to simplify the route by
establishing a clearer north-south orientation on Main Street.
To address these needs, the project team recommends redirecting the initial northbound movement to
Division Street before moving to Main Street north of Irving Avenue. Additionally, eliminating the portion of
the route traveling along Eastman St, a residential road, and instead allowing the route to continue
northbound through the Main Street commercial area will eliminate extraneous runtime from the front end
of the route while providing direct access to new destinations on Main Street.
These changes can be made while retaining all existing coverage of major locations such as Pick & Save and
North High School, with replacement service on the eastern end of the old alignment carried out by the
realigned Route 3, explained later in the section.
Route 2 is to be interlined with Route 8 (instead of Route 1) to facilitate a one-seat ride between northern
Oshkosh and southern Oshkosh.
Figure 71. Route 2 Changes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 82
ROUTE 3
At the outset of the planning process, GO Transit staff identified Route 3 as an opportunity for service
improvement. The current alignment intersects with several other routes, but due to the travel direction and
the pulse schedule, these intersections are not particularly useful in terms of allowing for transfers.
Additionally, the route serves limited destinations while intended to act as a central city circulator.
On-time performance data indicates that Route 3 runs late more often than other routes; however, operators
have indicated that there is enough excess runtime in the schedule to justify intentionally running late to the
route’s stops rather than being excessively early and potentially missing passengers arriving to the stop on-
time. This suggests that there is room for the route to add runtime.
The adjusted Route 3 will reverse its direction from clockwise to counterclockwise and to cover a tighter loop
via Mt. Vernon St., Grand St., High St., and 6th Ave. By moving most of the route to the north and east of the
Fox River, the loop can provide more utility to riders aiming to get around that specific area. The new portion
to the south and west of the Fox River will serve a new ThedaCare micro-hospital, while the Campbell Rd.
service lost because of these changes will be replaced with adjustments to Route 5. The lost eastern portion
of the route is currently served adequately by Route 1.
Figure 72. Route 3 Changes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 83
ROUTE 4
Route 4 presents opportunities for geographic expansion. The northern end of Oshkosh is generally
underserved by the current GO Transit fixed-route system, as the April 2023 suspension of the Route 10
connecting Oshkosh to Neenah has left a gap in fixed-route service. Additionally, development patterns in
northern Oshkosh are inconsistent, and in some areas, land uses are not as conducive to fixed-route transit
as those in other areas of the city. Nevertheless, there are thousands of jobs in this area that are not currently
transit-accessible, and Route 4 presents an opportunity to remedy this access issue, as it is underperforming
in the broader context of the GO Transit system.
The recommended two changes to Route 4 are shown in Figure 72. First, a new loop at the northern end of
the route using Main St., Snell Rd., Moser St., and Fernau Ave. (circled) will serve an industrial park with major
employers such as Amcor and UPS. This area of Oshkosh was designated as a Transit-Supportive Area in the
Needs Assessment section of this document.
The second change to Route 4 is the location of the North Transfer Point, as outlined earlier in the
description of Route 1 changes.
Figure 73. Route 4 Changes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 84
ROUTE 5
Changes to Route 5 are intended to complement changes to Route 3. The future outbound Route 5
alignment was developed to replace the segment of the current Route 3 alignment that will be removed, so
the Route 5 will now serve Oshkosh Seniors Center, Fox Valley Technical College, and West High School. In
addition, moving Route 5 away from its current alignment on High Ave. to the east of the Fox River does not
result in any substantial loss in service due to the future Route 3 now using that segment.
Included with these changes is the relocation of the West Transfer Point to Robin Avenue east of I-41, where
transfers with Route 7 will be available. Moving the transfer point will enable Route 5 to serve more of the
city east of I-41 without being short for time. These two routes will be interlined.
On the inbound portion of the trip, the future Route 5 will take a slightly less direct route back to the Transit
Center; rather than using Pearl Ave., the route will turn onto Marion Rd. to complete the trip. This change
was made to alleviate pressure on Route 8, explained later in this section.
Figure 74. Route 5 Changes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 85
ROUTE 7
Route 7 performs moderately well, so no significant changes are planned outside of the relocation of the
West Transfer Point and interlining with Route 5. However, serving the DMV on Omro Rd. was highlighted as
a priority for the TDP. As this is not a regular day-to-day destination for riders, GO Transit is able to provide
access to the facility upon request. Passengers will be able to ask drivers to deviate from the regular fixed
route to access this destination directly (on-site rather than at a stop on Omro Rd.).
Figure 75. Route 7 Changes
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 86
ROUTE 8
Changes to Route 8 are also minor, as the route performs well. However, there are slight issues with on-time
performance on the inbound portion of the trip near downtown Oshkosh, where the route alignment turns
off Pearl Ave. and onto Marion Rd. to serve one additional stop. This segment will be reassigned to Route 5,
which has slightly more schedule slack at this point in the run, to ensure that Route 8 can arrive to the Transit
Center in a timely manner.
Figure 76. Route 8 Changes
.
SUMMARY OF ROUTE CHANGES
Figure 76 shows the proposed future system for implementation in 2024. The proposed route network
maintains coverage of key population groups, while expanding service to new destinations, as shown in
Table 23. Figure 77 and Figure 78 compare the changes in geographic coverage, including coverage of
transit-supportive areas in Oshkosh.
Table 23. Summary of Coverage Changes (within 1/4 mile of proposed routes)
Coverage Maintained Coverage Expanded
Zero-Car Households (5% of all residents served)
Low-Income Population (10% of all residents served)
BIPOC / Minority Population (10% of residents served)
Existing Ridership (100% of existing ridership covered)
Total Employment (+2,000 new jobs served)
Transit-Supportive Areas (>80% now served)
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 87
Figure 77. Recommended Future System (2024)
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 88
Figure 78. Current Transit-Supportive Area Coverage
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 89
Figure 79. Future Transit-Supportive Area Coverage
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 90
Policy Recommendations
FARE POLICY
Passenger fares are a significant portion of any transit agency’s operating budget, including GO Transit’s.
Fare policy, fare levels, and fare collection technology are important to consider when determining a
strategic direction for a transit agency.
For decades, GO Transit has maintained a low-fare system, consistently offering more affordable rides than
peer agencies. Despite a one-way fare increase to $1.50 in the last TDP (implemented in 2019), GO Transit’s
fares at each level are still relatively low compared to agencies of similar sizes throughout Wisconsin,
particularly those of its closest neighbors: Fond du Lac Area Transit to the south and Valley Transit to the
north. Table 23 lists these peer agencies’ fares in ascending order by one-way fare, with neighboring
agencies highlighted. This data sample indicates that GO Transit continues to undercharge for fixed-route
service relative to peers, and to keep up with increasing costs of providing service, it is justifiable to
implement a fare increase.
Table 24. Peer Agency Fare Profile
Agency Location One-Way Fare Day Pass Monthly Pass
Peer Average $1.81 $3.96 $49.10
*Fare does not include a free transfer.
In accordance with approval from the project Steering Committee, the City of Oshkosh Transportation
Committee, and a public hearing, GO Transit has elected to make the following changes to various fare
payment options:
• One-Way Fare: Increase from $1.50 to $2.00
• Day Pass: Introduce new payment option at $4.00, two times the one-way fare
• Monthly Pass: Increase from $35 to $40
• Quarterly Pass: Offer three monthly passes for a discounted rate of $105
Other changes to the fare payment system are as follows:
• Punch Cards: Eliminate and replace with the day pass
• Tokens: Switch from tokens to paper vouchers for healthcare or social service agency fares
• Transfers: Retain free transfers for one-day trips
• Fare Capping: Explore as part of ongoing fare system procurement process
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 91
CONSIDERATIONS
It is generally understood that changes to fare levels affect ridership, and those changes are most acutely felt
by those individuals for whom transit fares are a significant financial burden. In other words, a fare increase
can be associated with a decline in ridership, whereas a fare decrease can increase ridership. An industry
general guideline is that transit ridership will often increase by 0.3 percent for every 1.0 percent decrease in
fares over their previous level (and vice versa). For planning level estimates this is acceptable; however, when
looking at specific user groups, it is important to be mindful of the following outcomes of transit fare
changes:
• Rider groups that are least sensitive to fare changes tend to be “traditional” commuters traveling to
core areas of cities.
• Demand is most sensitive to price at off-peak times, for short trips, in relatively affluent markets, and
places without much traffic congestion.
• Ridership loss due to fare increases affects travel behaviors of people with lower incomes more so
than more affluent passengers.
• The quality of transit service and the cost of automobile travel and ownership is a much more
significant factor when determining transit ridership in comparison to fare changes.
To continue to facilitate the provision of service for low-income riders or those who may be
disproportionately burdened by the fare increases, GO Transit has taken several measures (both
independently and in response to public feedback) to minimize the financial disruption caused by this policy
change.
The new fare structure is set up to reduce the cost burden of transit on regular riders who may rely on GO
Transit’s services by offering significant quantity discounts. These discounts incentivize frequent transit usage
and help make it more affordable for riders to rely on GO Transit as their primary means of transportation.
Key quantity discounts include the following:
• Day Pass: The introduction of a day pass will enable riders to make multiple trips throughout the
day at a price equivalent to two single-ride tickets. Under the this policy, any ride beyond the second
per day is effectively free, allowing customers to use transit for more types of trips without additional
cost. The day pass is priced at $4.00, which is the average rate among peer agencies.
• Monthly Pass: Monthly pass rates receive as smaller fare increase than single-ride tickets. one-way
fare will increase 33%, the one-month pass is set to increase only 14%. The cost of a monthly pass
relative to single-ride tickets will decrease, with the monthly pass serving as the most affordable
option for any customer making at least 20 monthly trips (down from 24). This quantity discount is
even more pronounced with the $15.00 discount for the purchase of three one-month passes (a
quarterly pass). The quarterly pass discount will be maintained by GO Transit in response to public
input.
• Add 3 Month Pass paragrah - $15 discount over buying 3 individual monthly passes
Future fare technology improvements will enable more flexible fare discount options, including the following:
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 92
• Fare Capping: Fare capping uses technology to ensure that a rider does not pay more than the
minimum amount required under the fare structure to complete their rides over a given time period.
This may be especially useful in instances where an individual may wish to use GO Transit
throughout the month but is not willing or able to pay $40 as a lump sum – fare capping would
prevent this individual from exceeding $40 of fare payments in the span of the month. Currently, GO
Transit does not currently have access to the technology necessary to make this possible system-
wide, though it will be explored as part of the ongoing fare system procurement process.
GO CONNECT
Winnebago County and GO Transit have renewed the GO Connect pilot program contract, extending its
operation to at least the end of March 2025. While the service maintains the primary purpose of the former
Route 10 in connecting Oshkosh with Neenah, ridership on GO Connect service to Neenah has been low.
Additionally, the discontinuation of Route 10 has left a gap in service to destinations between the two cities,
especially to the Winnebago County Correctional Center, County Jail, and Wisconsin Resource Center, as well
as other county facilities. GO Transit should continue to work with Winnebago County to evaluate service
performance and explore adding more destinations.
Other improvements can also be evaluated relating to operations, technology, and coordination with other
services in the region. Coordination and resource-sharing with other services such as paratransit and
potential future Microtransit service will help to leverage efficiencies in dispatch and fleet management.
Riders can be directed to the service that best suits their needs.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 93
Long -Term Scenario
The near-term recommendations described above are meant to address needs that GO Transit may wish or
need to address immediately. Based on the findings of this study, these needs may evolve in the future and
create a need for expanded services. This section outlines strategies to address potential expanded service
needs through fixed-route service expansion and by adding a microtransit program.
Fixed-Route Service Options
Using fixed-route service, GO Transit could enhance services to meet growing or changing needs in one of
three ways: expanding geographic coverage by adding a line, expanding service hours in the evening, or by
increasing frequency of service on the system’s most productive routes. This section describes each option in
further detail including a rough estimate of resources needed to achieve them.
EXPAND GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE (NEW FIXED ROUTE)
The first fixed-route enhancement option for GO Transit is the expansion of coverage with the introduction
of a new route. The new Route 11, shown in Figure 79, would extend fixed-route service southward, providing
access to the industrial parks situated near Wittman Regional Airport, reaching as far south as 35th Avenue.
This route alternative would provide primarily bidirectional service, traveling most of its extent on Oregon
Street, before completing a small loop using Waukau Avenue, Medalist Drive, and 34th Avenue. This
extension would replace the existing Route 8 service on Main Street beyond South Park Avenue. This change
would allow Route 8 to be rerouted onto South Park Avenue, which has been identified as an area that
would benefit from added service. The revised route for Route 8 would then proceed from South Park
Avenue to 24th Avenue via Ohio Street. The new Route 11 schedules could be tailored to accommodate shift
times effectively, enhancing accessibility and convenience for commuters to and from the industrial park.
Adding one additional all-day route would cost 1 additional bus and 12 additional revenue hours per day.
Annual resource requirements are as follows:
On average there are 255 service days (non-holiday weekdays)
255 service days * 12 additional revenue hours/day = 3,060 additional revenue hours per year
GO Transit’s 2021 operating expense per revenue hour was $100.79
Operating expense per revenue hour * additional hours/year = $100.79 * 9,180 = $308,417
Added annual operating cost = $308,417
Cost of an additional bus ($500,000) *1 bus = $500,000
One-time capital cost = $500,000
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 94
Figure 80. Proposed Fixed-Route Expansion
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 95
EXTEND SPAN (EVENING SERVICE)
The second fixed-route long-term service enhancement option is to expand the span of the service schedule
later in the evening on weekdays. Currently, fixed-route service ends at 6:45p.m. Extending service hours was
one of the top-ranked potential improvements in the community survey. In the rider survey, it was ranked as
the #1 priority over all the listed improvement options. Service hours could be extended on any or all routes
for as many hours as is feasible. A cost estimation is provided below for a scenario in which all nine routes
are extended four hours to 10:45p.m. on weekdays. The scenario assumes no change in frequency for these
hours.
Adding four hours of additional service on each route would cost 0 additional buses and 36 additional
revenue hours per day. Annual resource requirements are as follows:
255 service days * 36 additional revenue hours/day = 9,180 additional revenue hours per year
GO Transit’s 2021 operating expense per revenue hour was $100.79
Operating expense per revenue hour * additional hour/year = $100.79 * 9,180 = $925,252
Added annual operating cost = $925,252
The cost for expanding service hour span could be more modest if pursued strategically. If GO Transit were
to provide evening service on routes that are more likely to have evening ridership (routes that serve UW-
Oshkosh, employers known to operate evening shifts, or popular leisure destinations, for example), the cost
of providing four hours of evening service per route would be approximately $102,806.
SERVICE FREQUENCY
The third strategy for enhancing fixed-route service in the long-term is to increase service frequency on
existing routes. Increased service frequency was ranked the number one priority for improvements the
second most times in the rider survey (after evening service). Like service hour extensions, frequency
increases could be applied to all or some of the most productive routes. The cost estimation below is for a
scenario where the four most productive routes (1, 2, 6, and 8) are increased to 15-minute headways.
Doubling frequency on four routes would cost four additional buses and 48 revenue hours per day. Annual
resource requirements are as follows:
255 service days * 48 additional revenue hours/day = 12,240 additional revenue hours per year
Operating expense per revenue hour * additional hours/year = $100.79 * 12,240 $1,233,670
Added annual operating cost = $1,233,670
Cost of an additional bus ($500,000) *4 buses = $2,000,000
One-time capital cost = $2,000,000
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 96
Microtransit Service Expansion Options
GO Transit can also pursue long-term service expansion and service improvements by implementing
microtransit service. GO Transit has historically provided only fixed-route service to the general public (and
Go Connect as a replacement for Route 10 service), and this mode has been the primary focus of the TDP.
However, many transit agencies have taken advantage of technological advances to pilot a new generation
of demand-response service for the general public known as microtransit or flex zone service. Microtransit
uses smaller vehicles to circulate throughout a defined geographical zone, doing pickups and drop-offs at
more locations than fixed-route service can serve.
BACKGROUND
Microtransit passengers typically book trips via a dedicated smartphone application or by calling a customer
service line as needed. At the time of booking, a dynamic routing system matches riders traveling in similar
directions and assigns them to a shared vehicle, with the goal of offering a truly on-demand experience (no
advance reservations needed). Upon reserving a trip, the smartphone application would provide the
customer with an estimated pickup and drop-off time. The pickup and/or drop-off locations may include a
short walk to ensure an efficient routing for all passengers onboard the vehicle. A smartphone or tablet
device onboard each microtransit vehicle would provide turn-by-turn directions for the driver, as well as real-
time location information viewable by passengers as the vehicle approaches.
Microtransit services typically operate within a dedicated service area, with transfers to fixed bus routes
available at specific locations within the zone. These transfer points enable microtransit to function as an
extension of the fixed-route transit network, offering passengers the ability to use microtransit for first- and
last-mile trips. Microtransit is typically offered in addition to traditional ADA paratransit, which remains
available for advance reservations by eligible customers within the service area.
Like any mode of public transportation, services and software can be purchased or operated internally based
on the agency’s needs. There are four typical partnership models:
Software Only - Agency provides staff. Private sector partner provides software for scheduling to be
used by riders and operators. Works well when agency has existing access to vehicles and staff
Provide Vehicles and Software - Agency hires and manages operators and administrative staff.
Private partner provides vehicles and software. Works well when agency has access to operators but
not Microtransit vehicles.
Provide Operators and Software Agency owns or purchases vehicles separately. Private partner
provides operating staff and software and data management. Works well if agency has access to
vehicles but not enough operating staff.
Turnkey - Private partner provides all staff, vehicles, and software and operates within parameters
agreed upon with the local agency/government. Works best if agency has not invested in shared use
mobility yet.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 97
MICROTRANSIT EXAMPLES IN THE UNITED STATES
Microtransit, or technologically sophisticated demand-response service for the general public, has been
piloted by many transit agencies in the United States. This service uses smaller vehicles to circulate through a
defined zone, doing on-demand pickups and dropoffs at more locations than fixed-route service can serve.
A typical microtransit system serves one to three passengers per hour, with some serving up to five per hour.
From a planning perspective, the advantage of demand-response service is that vehicles travel only where
they are needed, when they are needed. From a rider’s perspective, the benefits include flexibility in timing
and, potentially, a more direct route from origin to destination. The disadvantage is that both the agency and
its customers need to understand this new mode, which differs in significant ways from fixed route.
GBM ON DEMAND (GREEN BAY, WI)
Green Bay Metro (GBM) On Demand service facilitates
travel both within and between zones, (shown in )
improving connectivity throughout to major
destinations and transfer points within the transit
network. The system’s software is provided and
maintained by Via – a microtransit technology and
service vendor using a mix between a “Software Only”
and “Provide Vehicles and Software” model. Via also
manages GBM’s paratransit service, using a shared
fleet model between microtransit and paratransit for
resource utilization and service coverage.
Source: Green Bay Metro
BCGO (BATTLE CREEK, MI)
BCGo microtransit service in Battle Creek, MI, was
an initiative catalyzed by a comprehensive study
that identified inadequacies of existing services in
meeting the county-wide demand for transit.
Battle Creek Transit partnered with collaborating
agencies, and LiftandGo software, to pilot a
microtransit program called BCGo that could
serve all of Calhoun County (Figure 81). Initially
launched as a 12-month pilot in 2021, the
program’s success prompted an extension and
continuous expansion, marking its ongoing
growth. BCGo’s evolution demonstrates the role
microtransit service can play in enhancing
accessibility and filling critical gaps for transit systems.
Source: Battle Creek Transit
Figure 81. GBM On Demand Zone Map
Figure 82. BCGo Service Area and Demographics
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 98
RIDEKC
RideKC microtransit service in Kansas City serves microtransit zones across Johnson and Wynadotte Counties
in Kansas. Between 2016 and 2017, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) partnered with
microtransit vendor Bridj to pioneer a microtransit pilot program called RideKC. The program was
discontinued due to underperformance. In 2019, KCATA revamped its approach, partnering with TransLoc,
(another vendor) to launch a revised initiative that prioritized extensive public outreach and embraced a
more flexible model, departing from fixed routes microtransit service and introducing zones for riders' travel
flexibility. Presently, the RideKC service spans Microtransit zones across Johnson and Wyandotte counties,
utilizing TransLoc's software, while the City of Leavenworth (RideLV) benefits from local operation supported
by KCATA Figure 82). This multi-county and city collaboration demonstrates that appropriate service can take
refinement and input from stakeholders.
Source: KCATA
UTA ON DEMAND
UTA On Demand microtransit service in Salt Lake City, UT, began
as a pilot program launched by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
aimed at improving transit accessibility specifically south of the
city, (Figure 83). Their service model blends elements of first/last-
mile connectivity and coverage-based transport solutions.
Embracing a user-centric approach, the system facilitates shared
trips to optimize resources and enhance efficiency for passengers.
Like GBM On Demand, UTA On Demand uses Via as a vendor but
only as a provider of microtransit software. UTA On Demand
spans across multiple counties, serving as an example of
microtransit’s ability to be used to serve a broader regional
population and diverse transportation needs.
Figure 83. RideKC (and Ride LV) Service Area Zones
Figure 84. UTA On Demand Service Zones
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 99
GO TRANSIT MICROTRANSIT OPTIONS
Three possible microtransit zones are shown in Figure 84. The blue, red, and yellow shaded areas indicate a
zone in which trips would need to start and end. The zones would include transfer locations with existing
routes. The use of these zones effectively extends GO Transit’s existing service that’s not served by fixed-
route. This scenario assumes the use of one vehicle per zone.
The Blue Zone would cover the Northern industrial park. It would include a transfer at North Transfer Point
and have an associated cost of one vehicle operating 12 hours per day. The Red Zone would cover southwest
industrial parks and have a transfer at Target and/or Walmart to Route 6. It would also cost an additional
vehicle operating for about 12 hours per day. The Yellow Zone would cover southeastern industrial parks and
include a transfer point to Route 8. As the area it would cover has been identified as a priority for service
expansion, this could serve as an initial test zone for a Microtransit pilot program that GO Transit implement
for a year before officially launching a multi-zone program.
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 100
Figure 85. Microtransit Flex Zones
CONCLUSIONPART V
GO Transit – Transit Development Plan 102
Conclusion
The 2024-2028 Transit Development Plan summarizes the current conditions of GO Transit, including the
existing bus services and unmet needs. Near-term recommendations include actionable route changes,
updates to the system’s fare structure, and other policy changes that GO Transit plans to implement in
August of 2024. Long-term recommendations will require further planning but will allow the agency to
provide substantial improvements for transit customers based on the stated priorities of both the agency and
the public.
The top improvement priorities identified in this plan as a result of the conducted data analysis, public and
stakeholder engagement, and range of service planning activities include the following:
• Provision of transit service during evening and weekend hours. This need is supported by
comments expressed in the rider and community surveys, as well as stakeholder engagement.
• Service area expansion. Agency staff, stakeholders, and community members have indicated a
need for additional geographic coverage to facilitate ridership growth and access to new
destinations. Both fixed-route and microtransit services are potential options to fulfill this need.
• Enhanced service frequency. Riders expressed that aside from extending the span of service,
increasing service frequency is their most desired system improvement. Engagement efforts revealed
that there may be a greater emphasis on enhancing existing service than providing new service.
By implementing the recommendations of this plan, GO Transit will continue to maximize the effectiveness of
existing resources invested in fixed-route transit. In the long term, planning for fixed-route and/or
microtransit service expansion will position the agency to attract and retain riders as the transportation
environment continues to evolve. Leveraging the stakeholder relationships developed as part of the 2024-
2028 Transit Development Plan, GO Transit will move forward to improve transit access for riders and the
community.