USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Bay County transit development plan 2003-2007 : executive summary


Material Information

Bay County transit development plan 2003-2007 : executive summary
Physical Description:
Bay County (Fla.)
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Panama City (Fla.)
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Bus lines--Florida--Bay County- Planning   ( lcsh )
Local transit--Florida--Bay County-- Planning   ( lcsh )
letter   ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 50919099
usfldc doi - C01-00043
usfldc handle - c1.43
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00043
(OCoLC) 50919099
2 110
Bay County (Fla.)
0 245
Bay County transit development plan 2003-2007 : executive summary
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 2002 September
Bus lines--Florida--Bay County- Planning
Local transit--Florida--Bay County-- Planning
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Panama City (Fla.)
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856




Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3435 North 12'" Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32503 {850) 595-8910 or 1-soo-226-8914 Fax (850) 595-8967 Project Staff: Mary Bo Robinson Gary Mackey Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E-Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, Rorida 33620-5375 (813) 974-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Project Staff: Bill Morris Victoria Perk Chandra Foreman Holly Carapella NilgUn Kamp Martin Catala Kristine Bezdecny


This is a blank page


TABLE OF CONTENTS liST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ... ..... ... .... .... ..... ..... .. ............ ... ... ... ... .......................... ii PREFACE ... ... .. ................... .... .......... ... .. .. .... ........... ...... ...................... .. ......... iii INTRODUcnON . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ... ES-1 CHAPTER ONE: ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY AND CUSTOMER TRANSIT NEEDS ........ .. .... ... .... ............. .. ...................................... ES-2 Summary of Demographic Analysis .... ..... .......... .. ........ .... ........... ............. ......... E5-3 Summary of Interviews with Community Leaders ... .... .......... ... ... .... ....... ... ..... .... E5-4 Summary of Bay Town Trolley Ridecheck .... ... ... .. .. .... .. .... ............... ............... ..... ES7 Summary of Bay Town Trolley On-Board Survey ....................................... ... ..... ES-8 Demographic Information ............ .................. ............. .......... ........ ES-8 Travel Behavior and Fare Usage ............... .......................... ............. ..... ... ES-8 Customer Satisfaction.............................................................................. ES-9 CHAPTER Two: ANALYSIS OF EXIsnNG SERVICES ......... ... ..... ..... .. . .. ..... ..... .... E5-9 Performance Evaluatio n o f Existing BTT Service .. ....... ... ... .. ... .. .... .. .. .... .. .... .. E5-10 Evaluation of Existing BCT Paratransit Services... ... ...... ...... ............... .. ........... .... ES-14 CHAPTER THREE: GOALS AND INITlATIVES .... ... ... . .. ... ...... . ...... .......... .. ......... ES-15 Goal 1: Continue to Strengthen the Coordinated System ................ .. ................... ES-15 Goal 2: Expand and Enhance Fixed-Route Transit Services... .. ...... .... ... ..... ....... ES-16 Goal 3: Broaden Community Support for and Usage of Fixed-Route Service... ... ... ES-16 Goal4 : Continue to Focus on Customer Service and CUstomer Satisfaction .... ...... ES-16 Goal 5: Continue to Add Value to the Community .. .. ......... .......... .... ........ .. ....... ES-17 Goal 6: Transition Federal Grantee Status and Responsibility for Transportation Services to Local Control in Bay County .... ... .... ... E5-17 CHAPTER FOUR: DEMAND EsnMATION AND NEEDS/0PPORTUNmES .... .... ES-17 Public Transportation Demand Estimates ....................... ... .................. .... ES-17 Needs and Opportunities .......................................... ... .. ............... ........ ..... ES-18 CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING PLAN .. ... .. ........ ............... ...... ..... .. .................. .. ... .... .. .... ... .. ............. ES-19 Future Direction for Public Transportation in Bay County. ...... ....... ..... ..... ES-20 Rve-Year Transit Services Plan ... ..... .... ... ...... .............. .. ... .. .......... ...... ... ES-20 Phased Implementation of Redesigned Route Networt<.. ... .. ..... ... .. .. ..... ... ES-21 Vehide Requirements-BCT and BTT .................. .. .............. ..... ... ..... .. .... ES-28 Recommendations and Strategic Initiatives ... .... . ....... .... ... . ... ... ....... ...... ES-29 Paratransit Serv-ices ................................. ................... ................... ... .... ES..29 Fixed-Route Services............. ...... .............. ......................................... ES29 tapital and Operating Plan ............... .. .... .. ....... ... ................................... ..... ES-35 Table of Cbntents


LIST OF TABLES AND fiGURES Table ES-1 Regional Population Growth 1990-2000, Florida's Emerald Coast ... ........ .. ES-3 Table ES-2 BTT Performance Strengths and Areas for Improvement, Axed-Route Peer Review Analysis . ..... ..... .... .... ..... .. ..... ...... .......... ... ... .. ...... ...... .... ESlO Table ES-3 BTT's Performance Compared to Goals, FY 2000 -FY 2001.. .................. E5-11 Table ES-4 SUmmary of Selected Operating Statistics, BTT ...... .. ............... ....... ES-13 Table ES-S BCf Paratranslt Performance Strengths and Areas for Improvement Trend Anal-ysis ..... ... ................................................ .... ......... ........ .. .... ES-14 Table E5-6 Projected FIXed-Route Ridership for BTT-Base and Enhanced Service (based on existing ridership trends) .............................. .. ........... ............ E5-18 Table ES7 Estimated TO Population, TO Demand, and TD SupplyBay County ....... .. ES-18 Table ES-8 Operational and Cost Characteristics-BTT Route Network, FY 2002 ..... ES-25 Table ES9 Operational and Cost Characteristics-BTT Route Network, FY 2003 ........ ES-25 Table ES-10 Operational and Cost Characteristics-BTT Route Network, FY 2004 ........ ES-26 Table ES-11 Operational and Cost Characteristics-BTT Route Network, FY 2005 ...... E5-26 Table ES-12 Operational and Cost Characteristics-BTT Route Network, FY 2006 ..... E5-27 Table ES-13 Operational and Cost Characteristics-BTT Route Network, FY 2007 ..... ES-27 Table ES-14 Bay County Vehide Inventory ....... ...................... ... ............. ES-28 Table ES-15 BTT Performance Goals, FY 2002-2007 ..................................... Es-32 Table ES-16 Bay County Capital and Operating Plan, FY 2003-2007 .................... ES-34 Table ES-17 Bay County Capital and Operating Rnancial Summary ...... ........... ES-36 Figure ES-1 Bay Town Trolley Recommended Route Network (1999 TOP) ......... ES-23 if Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007


PREFACE The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has produced a five-year Transit Development Plan (TOP) for the Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Each transit property in Flor ida that receives State Transit Block Grant funding is required to prepare a TOP. This requirement is intended to ensure that the provision of p ublic t ransportation service Is consistent with the trave l needs and mobility goals of the community. In establishing a strategic context for transit planning, the TOP can serve as a guide in the future development of the transit system. Five chapters were developed for this TOP. Chapter One explores the demographic and economic conditions within Bay County and also indudes information gathered from an on board customer survey, an MPO Citizens Advisory Committee workshop, and interviews with several key local officials and community leaders. Chapter Two provides a performance review of Bay Town Trolley (BTT) fixed-route service, including a trend analysis and a peer comparison. The second chapter also contains a trend analysis of Bay Coordinated Transportation's (BCT) paratransit service. Chapter Three outlines goals and initiatives for public transportation in Bay County and demonstrates their connection with goals specified in other planning documents. Chapter Four presents ridership and demand projections for public transportation service (fixed-route and paratransit) in Bay County for the five-year period, and an assessment of mobility needs and opportunities for the system. Finally, Chapter Five proposes recommended strategic initiatives for public transportation in Bay County and provides a five-year capital and operating plan. Table of Contents IIi


This is a blank page Bay County Transit Oevelopment Plan, 2003 2007


BAY COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2003-2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Center fo r Urban Transportat io n Research (CtJTR) has prepared a five year Transit Development Plan (TOP) for the Panama C ity Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organizat ion (MPO) in Bay COunty, Florida. Each public transportation agency in F l orida that receives State Transit Block Grant funding is required by the F l orida Department of Transportat ion (FOOT) to fonmuiate a TOP. This requirement i s intend e d to ensur e that the provision of public transportation serv ice is consistent with the travel needs and mobility goals of the local community. By establishing a strategic context for t r ans i t p lann in g the TOP can serve as a guide i n the future deve l opment of a transit system. FOOT's intention i n requirin g TOPs i s to encoura g e the consideration of strategic issues, mo b ility needs within the context of overall planning and development efforts, and prioritization of needs in the form of a staged imp l ementation plan. Relevant plan features include an emphasis on transit's role at the c ommunity l eve l and explicit consideration of external factors affecting the viab ili ty of the transit system. Several concepts of strategic p l anning (vision, external ori entation, and future focus) a r e a p plicab l e in the p r eparation of a TOP Bay COunty has a long history of p u b lic transportat i on including fixed-route transi t and paratransit. Rxed-route trans i t was o perated by the City of Panama City within its city limits from after World War II until May 1982. The service was discontinued partially due to a continuing decline in public participation and a trend of dec r easing r i dership. 1n the final full fiscal year (1980/1981) the system p rovide d 94,008 passenger trips The Bay Town Trolley (BTT), a young dev i ated fixed route system in the urbanized area of Bay County, began operat ing i n December 1995 The trolley service Is operate d by the Bay County Council on Aging. The MPO initially approved a three-yea r t ri al p erio d beginning in December 1995 and service has cont i nue d to the p r esent. Operation of the Trolley service continues to e xpand today, as the system is becoming more established in Bay County. Paratrans i t service has been coordinated by the Bay Cou nty Coundl on Agi ng, Inc., since 1983 when it was s e lected as the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Bay County. BTT is a rubberiz e d trolley serv ice prov i ding dev i ated fixed-route serv ice. As of this TOP, BIT prov ides service on five fixed routes. The routes presently include : Route 1 (Panama City Executive SUmmaty


Lynn Haven), Route 2 (East), Route 4A (West), Route 4 (West Downtow n ) and Route 5 (Beadles). The routes extend as fa r north as Lynn Haven, as fa r west as the intersection of Front Beach (Alt. 98) and Bad< Beach (U.S. 98) roads on Panama City Beach, as far east as Star Avenue, and as far south as D o wntown Panama City. The frequency of BIT routes varies depending on the route Routes 1 and 4 provide hourly service Routes 2, 4A and 5 p r ovide service every two to three hours. Currently, service is provided Monday through Friday, between 6:00a.m. and 6:30 p m. There is no service on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays. Five chapters were developed for this TOP. Chapte r One summarizes demograph i c and economic conditions within Bay County us i ng available data from the U.S. Census and other local sources. The first chapter also contains summaries of pub l ic involvement activities inclu d ing the results of an onboard survey of BIT riders conducted by ClfTR, a summary of resu l ts from a survey of Bay Coordinated Transportation (BCT) riders conducted by the MPO, the results o f interviews with local officials and community l eaders, and a workshop with members of the MPO Citizens Advisory Committee Chapter Two p r esents a performance analysis of ex i sting public transportation services in Bay County includ ing trend anal yses of BTT and BCT which examine historical operating and financial data, and a peer review of BTT that compares the system with similar fixed route systems. Goals and Initiatives are outlined in Chapter Three, and Chapter Four contains ridership and demand estimations as well as an assessment of mobility needs in Bay County The last chapter, Chapter Five, proposes recommendat i ons for public transportation services in Bay County. The following sections of this executive summary emphasize the most pertinent findings from each of these dlapters of the TOP. CHAPTE R ONE: AssE SSMENT OF COMMUNITY A N D C UST OMER TRANSIT N EEDS Much of this chapter is devoted to a close examination of person and household-leve l demograph i c and economic data for Bay County using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. To the extent possible, the most recent Informati o n was uti l ized for each of the demographic dlaracteristics presented herein. In most cases, data obtained through the 2000 Census were utilized if available. For this TOP, not all of the data typically analyzed are availab l e at the census tract leve l. Specifically, income, vehicle availability, and journey-to-work data for 2000 are not available and so are not included in this TOP. Additional data sources used in this dlapter were the 2001 Florida Statistical Abstract and offidal Bay C o unty and Panama City websites. In addition to popu l ation characteristics, other demographic dlaracteristics related to transit use are also analyzed, as well as information from surveys of BCT and BTT riders, interviews with local officials and community l eaders, and a workshop with a local advisory group. ES Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007


Summary of Demographic Analysis In the 1990 Census, Bay County's population was estimated at 126,994. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2000 population for Bay County is 148,217, which represents an increase of 16.7 percent from 1990. Popul ation in the state of Florida as a whole grew nearly 24 per cent between 1990 and 2000. The most recent data available show that, for 2001, Bay County's population is approximately 150,287, an increase of 1.4 percent Between 2000 and 2010, the population is projected to grow 13 percent to 1671000. Between 2000 and 20201 Bay County may experience a 38 percent increase in population to 204,600. Population densities were also examined, since higher densities are generally more conducive to transit use. Bay County's 2000 population density of approximately 194 persons per square mile is somewhat less than the state's population density of 257 persons per square mile. However, it should be noted that Bay County's populat ion density has increased m ore than eight percent since 1996 data were reported in the previous major TOP update (179.29 in 1996; 194.08 in 2000) The Emerald Coast of Aorida extends from Escambia County (Pensacol a) to Bay County (Panama Oty) to the east, with Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties in between. As part of this study, an examinat ion of regional popu lat ion trends i s presented in terms of population and population density growth between 1990 and 2000. Table ES1 shows the popu lati o n growth for the Emerald Coast region Overall, the growth rate for the five-county region was 20 percent and very close to the 23.5 percent growth for Florida as a whole. Between 1990 and 2000, the region grew by 128,900 persons from 642,600 to 771,500, with Santa Rosa and Walton Counties expe ri endng the greatest percentage growth. l!.egl ona Popu ation Gro 1990-2000Florida's Emera R I I I Table ES-1 wth ld 1990 2000 Popu .. tion Area Growth Population Population l19902000) Escambia County 262,798 294,410 31 612 santa Rosa County 81,608 117,743 36 ,135 Oka l oosa County 143,776 170, 498 26,722 Walton County 27,760 40,601 12,841 Bay County 126,694 148,217 21,523 REGlON 642,636 n1,469 128,1133 Florida 12,937,926 15,982,378 3,044,452 source. u.s. Census Bureau Executive SUmmary Coast %Change (1990-2000) 12.0% 44 .3% 18.6% 46.3% 17.0% 20.0% 23.5% ES


Based on population d i stributions, the largest population group in the county consists of persons under the age of 18 Persons older than 65 years comprise more than 13 percent of the county's population, according to 2000 Census data. According to 2000 Census data, the median age in Bay County is 37.4, which reflects a nearly 13 percent increase from the 1990 Census, when the median age was calculated to be 33. 2 years. The aging population within Bay County should be a conside r ation in the strategi c p l anning and continuing development of public transportation in the region. Typically, households with annual Incomes below $15,000 are considered when analyzing potent i al population segments for transit use. The Bay County Chamber of Commerce reports a 1999 per-capita income of $22,719 for Bay County This compares to a 1999 per-capita i ncome of $27,781 for Ao r ida as a whole. Whil e detailed income data are not yet available from the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau has produced 1997 estimates of median household income and persons under the age of 18 living in poverty. According to this source, the median household income for Bay County In 1997 was $32,047, compa r ed to $32,877 for the state of Aorlda. In addition, 22.4 percent of Bay County's 1997 estimated popu l ation of persons under age 18 was living in poverty, compared to 21.8 percent of Flo r ida's tota l population under age 18 As for employment, the total labor force In 2000 for Bay County is 64 938 persons Of this labo r force, 94.2 percent, or 61,153 are employed. Bay County's unemployment rate was found to be somewhat higher than that for the state of Florida as a whole, and that the unemployment r ate In Panama City is higher than the rate for the entire county. S umm ary of I nterv i e w s with Com mun ity Leaders Interviews with key local offidals and community leaders are recognized as a critical component of the trans i t development planning process. It is often these individuals who are directly responsib l e for p r oposing and funding transit policy. In an effort to gain insight regarding the Interview participants' opinions rega r ding BTT, BCT, and public transit In general, and at the recommendation of the TOP Review Committee, interviews were scheduled with each of the Bay County Commissioners, as well as area mayors and other city offidals Representatives of the local business community as well as Gulf Coast Community College were a l so interviewed. A total of 17 interviews were conducted during the course of this TOP with a total of 21 individuals. To summarize, while a standard discussion guide formed the basis of the individual interviews, each interview evolved in a unique pattern, allowing the subject to offer his or her honest discourse on public transit in the county and the extent to which it affects (or does not affect) eS-4 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007


those persons or organizations he or she represents. The results of these interviews were similar in many ways to the results of the interviews conducted for the last major TOP update in 1998 In 1998, while there were positive discussions about the Trolley service and the hope that it would continue to grow, there were n egative perceptions stemming from the low level of service provided and the low ridership. At that time, some noted that, while many in the community seemed to be in favor of the idea of public transit, very few, if any, were willing to pay for it using local dollars. These themes have also been detected in the interviews conducted for this TOP update. The diversity of backgrounds found among the interviewees resulted in a wide range of opinions and perspectives regarding the role of public transit in Bay County. However, those interviewed can essentially be divided into two categories: those who are ambivalent about the idea of public transportation and believe that it will never quite work in Bay County, and those who see the slow, yet steady growth of the current Trolley system as a sign of the future and believe the T rolley can truly become part of the identity of Bay County None of the interv iewees in either category are particularly opti m istic about the securement of any local funding for the system (which is vital to its future), although some in the latter category expressed ideas regarding the funding issue. Overall, perceptions of the Trolley system seem to be getting more positive over time. The Trolley staff has done much to increase awareness in the community through various media coverage. A major strength mentioned by nearly all the Interview participants was the Trolley staffs responsiveness to the community's needs, especially given its limited funding, and its willingness to "go above and beyond" to adjust its routes and schedules according to need. Other strengths include its flexibility, good advertising, friendly drivers, and efficiencies reaped due to merged operations with Bay Coordinated Transportation, which was also praised during the interviews, although it is perceived as a less flexible system due to the need for 24-hour advance reservations. It is clear that much will be happening in Bay County over the next five to ten years and beyond. In addition to planned new residential and commercial developments, several employers in the area are adding jobs, including Tra ne, Nextel, Allied, and Tyndall Air Force Base. With all the changes occurring in Bay County, those interviewed were asked h ow public transportation, specifically the Bay Town Trolley, would fit in with the vision of Bay County's future. They were asked what the goals of a public transportation system In Bay County should be, and what i t should be trying to achieve over the coming years. As expected, results were varied but Included some common themes. While some believe that public transportation should strive to reduce traffic congestion in the future, others believe it should focus on Executive Summary cS-S


providing mobility for those who need it most. As expressed by one of those interviewed, the goals for public transportation In Bay County will be different than those in other, larger areas. Most expect the Bay Town Trolley to continue to increase ridership and to slow l y expand services as funding becomes availab le, so that all communities can be well-covered by the route network Goals should also include continuing to meet the needs of the public, paying attention to where new deve l opment is occurring, increasing awareness and mar k eting of the system, continuing to monitor ridership numbers closely, and securing a local source of revenue. The goal of providing transportation for jobs was an item that was discussed often in the Interviews. The area has a relatively high unemployment rate, yet there are a number of service jobs always available on the beaches. Many believe that the Trolley can act as an economic stimu lus to connect people with those jobs, in particu l ar, bringing workers from Panama C ity to the beaches. The Trolley in Its current form makes this difficult with Its limited schedule and lack of service on the weekends. However, those interviewed believe that the system should strive to provide the service needed so people can use it for their jobs. While some are ambivalent about the existence of the Trolley, many others are more optimistic about the Tro ll ey and hoped that the system's growth in the future would be secured. The necessary steps for the future were typically shared in the form of improvements that could be made to attract riders and give the system more support among the public and loca l officials. The most commonly suggested improvements are to: increase service frequency; increase service hours; and provide weekend service Other suggested service i mprovements indude: an "attraction-o ri ented" beach service with park-and ride lots; alternate, later evening services on the beach only, which would encourage greater use by service workers and visitors; the provision of services to civic organizations, the Lion's C l ub, and churches; the creation of additiona l ma r keting p r omotions and Incentives; the imp l ementation of passenger amenities such as bus shelters; and more frequent service to the city center to help with revitalization of Downtown Panama Oty. Given that the system will need to p r ioritize improvements, partidpants were asked to indicate the one improvement they would like to see, i.e., if fund ing allowed, what would be the first thing the T r o ll ey should do to improve its service? Increased service frequency and later ES-6 Bay County Transft Development Plan, 2003-2007


evening service were the most common responses to this inquiry. Concerned with transporting low-income service workers to and from jobs, even ing service system-wide is the priority for many Later evening service would ensure that workers would have a way to get home after their shifts ended and would therefore enable more of these individuals to use the economical service. Summary of Bay Town Trolley Ridecheck To assist BTT staff in making route modifications for the TOP update, CUTR conducted a ridecheck of all Bay Town Trolley routes. A ridecheck consists of p l acing an individual on board to count passenger ons and offs by stop throughout for each bus trip. By taking such a count, boardings and alightings by stop can provide useful data to show productive versus unproductive segments of a route. A ridecheck can also help BIT target locations for passenger ameni ties at trolley stops As part of the on-board survey discussed below, a ridecheck was done for every route for the entire service day with the exception of Route 4A, which was samp led for half of its service day Below is a discussion of each route. Route 1Lvnn Haven to Downtown Panama CityThe most productive segments of this route for boardings (ons) and alightings (offs) are along Highway 77 in Lynn Haven, Target at 23'd and Martin l uther King, and the stop at Harrison and Government In Downtown Panama City. Route 2 East Route -This route has productive boardings and alightings along Martin Luther King from Target to 11"' Street, but shows no activity south of 11"' Street Due to the drcuitous routing of this route, there I s some sporadic activ ity along the route. This route will be eliminated and segments incorporated into two new routes scheduled for implementation in summe r 2002. Route 4 West/Downtown -This route generated significant ons and offs in the Downtown Panama City area along Harrison Street and along U.S. 98 (15"' Street), and Gulf Coast Community College. Route 4a-West-This route was only surveyed for half of a service day, but the majority of board ings are at Target and a majority of alightings are along 18"' Street west of Michigan Avenue and at Gulf COast COmmunity College. Route 5-BeachesAs expected, Route 5 has a majority of its on/off activity at Target and along Front Beach Road. Executive Summary ES7


Summary of Bay Town T rolley On-Board Survey The purpose of this survey, conducted February 19 21, 2002, was to obtain data about rider demographics, travel behavior, and satisfaction with specific aspects of BTT trolley service. The findings a r e presented In three major categories These categories are demographics, travel behavior, and user satisfact i on. The information gathered as part of the onboard survey has many uses including planning or enhan c ing bus schedules, aid i ng in the location of new bus stops, and planning focused marketing campaigns A number of interesting findings were identified from the survey r esults. Demographic Information Fortyfive percent of the survey respondents a r e between the ages 19 and 44, which is considered working age. This result is basically identical to the results of the 1998 survey, which included approximately 46 percent of riders in this age group. Systemwide, more women use BTT service than men. Fifty-three percent of sample respondents are women This is an anticipated survey result, as most transit systems have a h i gher percentage of. women riders than men. Approximate l y 71 percent of survey respondents are White The percentage of Black survey respondents decreased since 1998 from 37 percent to 22 percent. Seven per cent of survey respondents identified themselves as Hispanic, Native American, or "Other." Approx i mately 47 percent of samp l e respondents report an annual income lower than $10,000, compared to 60 percent of respondents in the 1998 survey Additionally, 22 percent report an i ncome between $10,000 and $19,999 However, 21 percent of survey respondents reported having incomes greater than $30,000. While over two-thirds of riders indicate that there is at least one licensed driver in their househo ld, 56 percent indicate no wo r king vehicles in the househo l d. Additionally, over 80 percent of those surveyed reported not having access to a car or personal vehicle for their trip. These resu lts are similar to those reported during the 1998 project and are a lso typ ical of many conventional bus transit markets Travel Behavior and Fare Usage Most survey respondents reported thei r trips as homeor workbased, i.e., having home or wor k as the origin or destination. For this survey, 59 percent of the respondents reported that their trip either began at home, and 32 percent indicated that their trip ended at home. Twenty-six percent re p orted their destination as shopping/errands. ESB Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007


The most common means (combined average of 73 percent) of access/egress is a short walk (less than 3 blocks). Systemwide, the predominant fare category is the regular base fare (51 percent). Approximately 14 percent of respondents use the student fare and 13 percent use the special fare for disabled riders A significant number of riders (12.5 percent) use the trolley pass. Approximately 57 percent of the current BIT riders are regular users (more than four days per week). This is a sizeable increase from the 1998 survey where 42 percent of riders were considered regular users. About 72 percent of the BTf riders either do not drive or do not have a car available to them F ifty-three percent of the respondents ind icate d they would ride with someone else or they would not make the trip if BIT were not available. Spedfically, 24 percent indicated that they would not make the trip if the trolley were not available. For this group of riders, BIT provides the only means of mobility Customer Satisfaction Based on average satisfaction ratings, BIT riders are most satisfied with the value of the fare, followed by safety/security on the Trolley, the drivers' ability to operate the Trolley and the drivers' courtesy, and the cleanliness of the Trolleys and stops. The average satisfaction ratings indicate that BTf riders are least satisfied with the frequency of service, followed by the time the latest Trolleys run, the number of transfers needed to travel, and the ease of transferring. The average mean score for all performance aspects rated on the survey was 4.16 on a scale of 1 f'very unsatisfied") to 5 f'very satisfied"}. BIT's overall service received very favorable ratings, with 83 percent of riders surveyed indicating a combined "very satisfied" and "somewhat satisfied." CHAPTER Two: ANALYSIS OF EXISnNG SERVICES Chapter Two s ummarize s the results of the performance evaluation of Bay County's fixed-route and paratransit services, as provided by the Bay County Council on Aging. The performance evaluation of the deviated fixed-route service, BIT, was conducted using two distinct analyses. Executive Summary ES-9


The first method, a trend analysis, involves the examination of BTT's perfo r mance from its first full fisca l year of ope r ations (FY 1997) to FY 2001. The second method of analysis is the peer review This particu l ar type of analys i s compares the performance of BTT with that of other se l ected Rorida and non-Florida peer transit systems that are similar in size, characteristics, and operating env ironment. The performance evaluatio n of the par atransft services provide d by BCT was conducted using on l y a historica l trend analysis from FY 1996 to FY 2001. P erformance Evaluation of E x isting BTT Service Tab l e ES2 summarizes BTT's apparent strengths and areas for improvement based on the fixed-ro ute peer review analysis of transit systems that operate between one and nine veh icles in maximum service. For this exercise, an area where BTT is mo r e than 10 pe r cent better than the peer average is considered to be a perfor m ance str ength, whe r eas an area that is mo r e than 10 percent worse than the peer average is defined as an area for improvement. P erformance areas that are w i th in 10 pe r cent of the peer average are considered neither strengths nor weaknesses. The intent of this effort I s not to suggest the extent of a strength or area for improvement, but to identify those a reas wherein BTT appears to perform, on average, better o r worse than the peer systems defined for this study. T ab l e ES-2 BTT P erfor m a n ce Stren gths and Areas for Improvement, F i xed-Route Peer R eview An alysis Performance Strengths Areas for I mprovement Quality of Service (service interrupbons) Service Suppl y Cost Efficiency Service Consumption Average Fare per Passenger Trip Farebox Recovery Ratio Labor Productivity (revenue hours per employee FTE) Labor Productivity (passenger trips per employee FTE) As shown In Table E$-2 above, the peer review analysis resulted i n four perfo r mance strengths (quality of service as measu r ed by revenue miles between service I nterruptions, cost effidency, average fare, and revenue hours per emp l oyee full time equivalent [FTE]} and four areas for improvement (service supp l y and consumption, farebox recovery ratio, and l abor productivity as measured by passenge r trips per employee FTE}. In the 1999 major TOP update performance goals were spedfically set in terms of service consumption and cost efficiency Previ o usly, Table ES showed service consumption to be a weakness compared to the peer systems an d cost efficiency to be a strength Table ES3 below ESJO Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007


demonstrates how well BIT has done in achieVing the benchmarks identified in the 1999 TOP, which were based on data from peer system s. It should be noted that the pee r group has changed somewhat since 1999. The current peer g r oup indudes Indian River County, Key West, SunTran (Ocala/Marion MPO), Terrebonne Parish Consolldated Government (Houma, Louisiana), San Angelo (Texas), Tusca loosa (Alabama), Johnson City Trans i t System (Tennessee), and Port Arthur Transit (Texas) The performance goals were set with the assumpt i on that a ll recomm ended route changes from the 1 999 TOP wou l d be Implemented by FY 2000. Although not all changes have occurred, Tab l e E5-3 indicates that, in FY 2000, BIT exceeded each of the goals by approximately one third. In FY 2001, BIT exceeded the goals set for trips per revenue hour and expense per trip by 9 percent and 29 percen t respectively. In 2001, BIT was on l y four percent below the goal for trips per revenue mile. ReVised goa l s are addressed in the recommendations of this TOP. Tabl e E5-3 BIT's PerfMmance Compared to Goals, FY 2000FY 2001 Measures Passeng

route seJVices. It was found that, on average, the peer systems cover approximately 19 percent of their operating expenses with general revenues from their local governments. Overall, the peers cover, on average, more than 26 percent of operating expenses with local assistance, induding genera l revenues. These systems were shown in this peer review to outperform BTT in the level of service provided as well as the level of ridership generated. A simple condusion here is that systems with monetary support from their local governments can afford to provide better seNices and, therefore, realize higher levels of ridership. Table ES-4 on the following page summarizes select BTT statistics as presented i n the trend ana lysis. ES 12 Bay County Tri1nsit Oevelopment Pli1n, 2003-2007


Table ES-4 SUmmary of Selected Operating Statistics, BTT General Peffonnance lnclk.ators FY 1997 FY1t91 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY lGOl Passenget Trtps 38,052 48,694 61,479 66,482 74,787 96.S% Passetlget Miles 117,936 134,03<1: 153,511 166,205 191,979 62.8% Vehlde Hiles 155,988 1$3,863 163,691 t6S,n3 190,180 21.9% Rewnue Miles 151;452 1 5 1 ,353 153,511 158, 158 175,531 15.9 % Vehicle Hotrs 8,568 9,287 9,86? 9 432 11,565 35. 0 % Revenue HOtM'S 8,316 9,036 9,361 10,537 26.7% ,.....,..., 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 111.1.0 11.3% Total Operbtiflo $203,259 $231,522 $206,093 $225,434 $255..610 25 .9% Total Maintenance Expeflse $18,995 $ 17,508 $19,830 $l3,766 $18,316 .6 % Passenger Fare Revenue $15 ,700 $16,652 $20,536 $20,546 $16,292 67 .<4% Tota l Employees (FTEs} 7.4 7.3 6.1 6 .2 8.7 18.0% Vchide$ Available fOI' Ma:xlmum $eM(e 4 3 3 6 6 "'"" < VehiCle$ in Maximum SeMCXI 3 3 3 3 4 33.3% Total Gallons or Fuel consumed 23,569 26,136 30,855 26,464 26,690 13.2% Erfecdvenet.S Measures Vefllde Miles Ptt t.aPita 1.27 1.25 1.33 1.33 1.55 21.9% Tr%>s Per C.plta 0.31 0.40 0.54 0.61 ....... Pa:sscnoer Tfil:>$ Ptt Revet'lue Mile 0 .25 0.32 0.40 0.42 0.43 Passcr.ger Trips Per Revcr-.,c l'blr 4.58 5.39 6.57 7.36 7.10 55.1% Average Age cf F leet (years) 2.00 l.OO 2.50 3.50 4 .50 125.0% Revenue Miles Between VehiCle Failures 2,'18 3 16,817 25,595 11,297 10,325 Effic:itnc:y MNsura Operating Expense Per Capita $ 1.65 $1 .88 sus $1.83 $2.08 25.9% Operaijng Elq)enst Pet Pb$$el"'ger Tri p $5.34 $4.75 $3.33 $3.39 $3.42 -36.0% Operating &:pense Pet R.eveooe Hie $1 .34 $ 1.5 3 $1.34 $ 1.43 $1.-46 9.0% 0perJ:til'l9 Revenve HO\W $24.44 $25.62 $22.02 $24.95 $24.28 .0.7% Maintenance ecpense Per Revenue Mile $0.13 $0.12 $0.13 $0.21 $0.10 .8% Rec:xwtry Ratso 7 .7% 7.2% 10.0% 9.1% 10.3% 33.0% Average Fore $0.41 $0.34 $0.34 $0.31 $0.35 4.8% R.eve:twe Hours Pe r emplOyee FTE 1,124 1,238 1.,.535 1,448 1,207 ?.4% Passenges-TripS Per Employee fTE 5,142 6,670 10,079 10,654 8 567 66.6% Reveooe Miles Per Total Vehldes 37,863 50,451 51,190 26,360 29,255 22.7% Vehlek Miles Pe r Gallon 6.62 5.89 5.31 6.23 7.13 7.7% SOURCE. BCCOAs I'm> reports for FYs 19971hrough 2001 Executive Summary I!S-13


Evaluation of Existing BCT Paratranslt Servioes A summary of BCT's performance strengths and areas for improvement as determ ined by a trend analysis Is provided in Table ES-5 (a peer review was not conducted for BCT). Similar to the fixed-route analysis, the intent of showing this information is simply to identify the areas where BCCOA's performance has improved or dedined from 1996 to 2001. With regard to the trend analysis, a p erformance strength is defined as any area that imp roved or was maintained during the trend period and an area fo r improvement is defined as a trend that declined over the time period of analysis. Table E5-5 BCT Paratransit Pelformance strengths and Areas for Improvement, Trend Analysis Perfonnance Strengths Areas for Improvement Vehicle Miles Accidents Paratranslt Trips pet Vehicle Mile Local Government Revenue Ratio Vehicle Miles Between Roadcalls Paratransit Trips per T O capita Operating Expense per Paratransit Trip Vehicle Miles per TO Coplta Operating Expense pet Vehicle Mile Operating Expense per TO Copita Revenue Miles per Vehick! Miles Th e results from the trend analysis show four performance strengths, including vehicle miles between acddents, local government revenue ratio, trips per TO capita, and vehlde miles per TO capita. It should be noted that the revenue used in calculating the local government revenue ratio is from local purchase of service agreements and not from local government s upport Areas for improvement include trips per vehicle mile, vehicle miles between roadcalls, cost efficiency (oper ating expense per paratransit trip, per vehicle mile, and per TO capita) and revenue m iles per vehicle miles. Trend analyses and peer reviews can be very useful tools for developing a better understanding of transit system performance and for identify ing target areas for additional attention and improvement. However, it is important to r emember that performance evaluation measures do not comprehensively cover all of the objectives of a transit system, nor do they necessarily consider the unique geographic, political, operating, and financial characteristics of a transit system. Many system goals and objectives cannot be measured with this mechanism and requ i re additional information or a more subjective evaluation. Nonetheles s, the results of the ES-14 88y County Transit Development Pk1n, 200:J2007


trend and peer review analyses provide a useful introduction to a full understanding of the performance of B1T and Bcr and complement the other components of this TOP. CHAPTER THREE: GOALS AND INITIATIV A TOP can be considered a blueprint for establishing the future of transit services in a community. As a strategic document, it must reflect the community's will as well as establish priorities based on input from community leaders and the public. The "transit experiment" that began in December 1995 has not lived up to the expectations of some; however, there is also a growing sense among people in the community that transit could be much more viable, meaningful, and contributory to residents and visitors in the county. According to many, the Bay Town Trolley has come quite far, especially in the past three years since the last major TOP update. Panama City MPO and Bay Town Trolley staffs have done their part to realign fixed-route services, increase ridership (up 54 percent and growing since 1999 when the last TOP was updated}, and increase levels of community awareness and support. All of the above accomplishments and successes must work in conjunction with each other to maintain the momentum that fixed-route services have achieved over the past three years. However, some common themes from the previous major TOP update persist. While the Bay T own T rolley is supported In concept at the MPO level, the fact remains that it is not supported with MPO funds or local funds at the jurisdictional levels, namely the incorporated cities and county government of Bay County. The goals and initiatives listed herein are designed to outline those factors that would make fixed-route transit more viable as well as challenge citizens and leaders of Bay County to achieve that viability. The initiatives and any associated costs of implementing them are discussed in further detail in the final chapter of the TOP and later in this executive summary. Goal 1: Continue to Strengthen the Coordinated System Initiatives Continue to replace paratransit vehicles as necessary and expand based on system groWth. Monitor more closely the variability and number of roadcalls fo r par atransit service. Improve coordination between paratranslt services and fixed-route services. Executive Summary E"5-JS


Goal 2: Expand and Enhance Fixed-Route Transit Services Initiatives Develop a cost-sharing model for local jurisdictions to participate in funding fixed-route services. Continue to implement fixed-route network recommended in the 1999 TOP. Improve frequency of transit services. Explore the feasibility of an improved span of service for transit services. Continue to seek partnerships to make transit improvements. Continue to acquire vehicles for the provision of fixed-route transit service. Continue to utilize market-driven approaches to increase ridership. Position BTT to expand fixed-route services as growth in new residential and commercial developments occur. Increase transit fares from a base price of $0.50 to $1.00. Goal 3: Broaden Community Support for and Usage of Fixed-Route Transit Services Initiatives Expand communications program. Continue to grow the Transit Alliance Program with community groups. Continue marketing efforts. Develop a mission and Vision statement. Establish an identity for transit services on the Beach. Goal 4: Continue to Focus on Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction Initiatives Create individual schedules and a new system map for the Bay Town Trolley. Explore the feasibility of Creating additional fare media and instruments. Expand Passenger Amenities Program. ES Bay County Transit DevelOpment Plan, 2003-2007


Goal 5: Continue to Add Value to the Community Initiatives As feasible, provide transportation services to community events. Continue to provide community serv ice. Goal 6: Transition Federal Grantee Status and Responsibility for Transportation Services to Local Control in Bay County Initiatives Begin discussions with Bay County and the Panama City MPO to transfer administrative functions for paratransit and fixed route systems to a local, public agency. Develop a transition plan for Bay County to assume Federal and State grantee status. CHAPTER fOUR: DEMAND ESTIMAnON AND NEEDS/0PPORTUNmES In developing a fiveyear TOP for Bay County, two important steps in the process include the p reparation of public transportation ridership demand estimates ove r the planning period and an assessment of mobility needs and opportunities in the county. This section summarizes the results of this effort. Public Transportation Demand Estimates Various methodologies for estimating the level of demand for public transportation service are presented and discussed In this chapter. These methods include trend analysis, peer review comparisons among similar transit systems, fare and service elast icities, survey resu lts, and results of interviews with local officials and community leaders The fixed-route demand estimates shown in Table ES-6, on the following page, are based on existing ridership trends. The first row of the table assumes constant levels of service, while the second row assumes a 10 percent annual increase in service. Since it is assumed that the system will grow somewhere between zero and 10 percent annually, it is that, by FY 2007, BIT can generate approximately 163,600 passenger trips (an average of the base and enhanced values for FY 2007). Executive Summary ESl7


Table E5-6 Projected Fixed Route Ridership for BTT-Base and Enhanced Service (based on existing ridership trends) Annual Ridership FY2001 FY 20023 FY2003 FY2004 FY 2005 FY2006 (octual) Base 74,787 90,000 99,300 109,100 119,300 130,100 (no service lncreases)1 Enhanced 74,787 I 90,000 I 104,800 I 121, 500 140,300 161,600 FY2007 H1,500 185,600 proJections assume a constant level or over the ume period (fares and other factors are also held constant). projections assume a 10 percent annual Increase i n the level o f service provided begmning i n FY 2003. 'FY 20021idershlp estimated using boU\ historic trends and monthly ridership data for FY 2002 to date. SOURCE: The data used In this stralght llne extrapolation were from BTT's NTO reports, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001. Also in this chapter, p rojections of the Potential TO Population and the TO Population for Bay County were developed using the method described in the 1993 report, Methodology Guidelines for Forecasting TD Transportation Demand at the County Level, prepared by CUTR fo r the Florida Commission for the Transportatio n Disadvantaged The model forecasts the TO populations using data f rom the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) and the U.S. Census Bureau. The forecasts for Potential TO Population and TO Population for FY 2002 through FY 2007 are shown in Table ES-7. Table ES7 Estimated TO Pop ulation, TO Demand, and TO SUpply Bay County Estim ates 2002 2003 2004 2005 Pot ential TO Population 54, 591 55,552 56 ,531 57,527 TO Population 15,646 15,918 16,198 16,480 Demane Counry Level and the 2002 Bay COUnty TronSI'Q1 the Weg. Fl011da Regional Planning Needs and Opportunities Chapter Four also includes a section discussing approaches to oontinue efforts to make public transit a more meaningful resource to the Bay County oommunity Opportunities exist for the Bay Town Trolley to take a more strategic approach in expanding services, im p rov ing its ima ge ES-18 Bay County Transit Development Plan 2003-2007


and meaning to the community, and expanding Its customer base and community support. Needs and opportunities addressed in this section of the TOP include : Continuing implementation of route network outlined in the 1999 TOP; Improving span of service; Providing weekend service; Insta lling passenger amenities such as shelters and benches; Improving coordination between the fixed-route and paratranslt systems; Maintaining data collection and analysis; Continuing community outreach; Sponsoring community events; Providing special event transportation services, as feasible; Providing community service; and Securing a local source of funding. CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING PLAN At this point in the TOP process, the focus shifts from a descriptiVe, analytical approach to a future-oriented perspective. The findings presented earlier are now brought together and used to develop alternatives for public transportation in Bay County and to make recommendations for improvements to existing services. To help achieve the public transportation system's proposed goals, the next section develops a series of recommendations and initiatives to be Imple mented over the next five years. The final section estimates the costs assodated with each recommendation. BTT has been operating for nearly seven years, which still classifies it as a relatively young system. Currently, it is operated by the Bay County Council on Aging (BCCOA), Inc., under the direction of the Panama City Urbanized Area MPO. The current deviated fixed-route network consists of four rubberized trolleys operating on five routes Ridership began at low levels, but has steadily grown; nearly doubling between FY 1997 and FY 2001, and is poised to reach approximately 90,000 trips for FY 2002, an increase of 20 percent over FY 2001. Grants from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) supported the Trolley during its initia l three-year demonstration period, and have continued support to the present time. As discussed in the two previous major TOP updates, it was expected that BTT's operator would begin exploring other funding sources immediately to supplement and/or match state and federal funds if the Trolley was deemed successful. Executive Summ81)' ES-19


Paratransit service has been coordinated by BCCOA since 1983 when It was selected as the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Bay County. In FY 1998, BCCOA provided or contracted for 147,960 trips. In FY 2001, the number of paratransit trips generated was 184,674, an increase of 25 percent from FY 1998. In the 1999 TOP update, the MPO adopted a plan for Bay Town Trolley to redesign its route network to six routes operated with seven vehicles. The estimated annual cost for the system was $615,000. Since that time, the MPO has made progress towand implementing the route network; however, there is still more to do in completing the effort. Future Direction for Public Transportation in Bay County The remaining questions that must be addressed regarding public transportation in Bay County over the next five years and beyond concern the future of the existing system. There are myriad issues to consider in determining this direction, most importantly how to allocate resources for fiXed-route services. Based on all of the information collected in the TOP process to this point, including the analysis of study area base data, interviews with key local officials and community leaders, surveys of BTT riders, development of system goals and initiatives, performance evaluations of existing services, estimates of public transportation demand, an assessment of mobility needs and opportunities In Bay County, and based on the previous major TOP update, the following t ran sit services plan is included in this TOP. Ave-Year Transit SeNices Plan In the 1999 major TDP update, the recommended alternative involved major changes to the fixed-route network. While not all of the recommended changes have been implemented up to this time, it is clear from recent ridership figures that the changes were successful and BTT has made significant progress toward the goals and initiatives outlined in the 1999 TOP. Throughout all of the tasks of this TOP process, it has been clear that the Trolley system has done its part to prove Itself as a viable young system, and those in the community are taking notice. As such, this TOP update calls for the MPO to continue the Implementation of the redesigned route network outlined in the 1999 TOP, moving toward a nine-bus system operating on six routes The objective of the new route network was to intensify ridership on corridors with the highest ridersh ip and to implement multiple transfer points with attractive facilities and ES-20 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007


timepoints. The redesigned system, fully imp lemented, would maximize travel options for those in the community and would minimize the travel time for those choosing to ride the Trolley. This update also focuses on local commitment to the Trolley system. '(he peer review analysis in Chapter Two found that, as of FY 2001, BIT is the only agency out of 26 State Block Grant rec ipients that does not receive any local funds. It was also discovered that, on average, otller small transit systems In Aor ida and the soutlleastem United States that are considered to be BTI's peers cover approximately 26 percent of their operating costs with local dollars. Hence, this alternative proposes tlle development of a local cost-sharing model for jurisdictions to participate in funding tlle fixed-route services. An additional facet of local commitment is to have the Federal grantee status and responsibility for transportation services under local control in Bay County. Currently, the Panama City MPO is the designated grantee; howeve r, the MPO staff is located in Pensacola. Clearly, local transit systems shou ld be under local control, and this alternative would provide a mechanism by which status and responsibility would be transferred from the MPO to a local eligible grant recipient. As designed, the route network has bi-directional travel, a maximum of one-hour headways, and shorter travel tim es that would attract additional riders. OVerall, schedules and user I nformation would be simp l er fo r riders and potential riders to understand. Also, by dedicating a portion of the route network exclusively to the beaches, BIT would be able to provide significantly Improved service to tllis area and would be well-positioned to attract additional marke t segments such as tourists, visitors, and service workers. There are advantages to local commitment, as well, Including local dollars that can help improve services, as well as safeguard against any future declines In state and federal dollars. Also, it is clearly advantageous to have tlle grant rec ip ient and responsibility in the local area as opposed to MPO staff managing transit from Pensacola. Phased Implementation of Redesigned Route Network (Goal 2, Initiative B) Over tlle past tllree years, significant progress has been made in achieving the stated goals and in itiatives from tlle 1999 1UP. Route changes that have been made so far have been well received by customers, and ridership continues to steadily grow. Members of the community have noticed the increasing visibility and usage of the system. It is recommended, tllen, tllat BTI continue tllis progress over the next five years. Executive Summary ES-21


Year One-2002 By the end of FY 2003, the East Route and Route 4A should be eliminated to create Routes 2 and 3 to serve the east side of the urban area, as recommended in the 1999 TOP. Both Routes will be interlined and served with one vehicle. In addition, the Beach route Is scheduled for implementation in this year w ith 6D-minute frequendes and one vehicle. Year Two 2003-2004 In this year, the only major change scheduled is to Route 5, serving Target to Panama City Beach. This route should gain one additiona l vehicle and 11.75 daily revenue hours to increase the frequency from 150 minutes to 75 minutes. Year Three-2004 During this year, Route 4, serving Downtown Panama City to Gulf Coast Community College via 11th and 15th Streets, should operate with one additional vehicle A l so, 12 daily revenue hours should be added to I ncrease the service frequency from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. Year Four 2005 2006 One additional vehicle should be added to Route 1, operating from Downtown Panama City to Lynn Haven. With 12 additional daily revenue hours, the frequency of this route will Increase from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. Year Five2006 No major service changes are scheduled for Implementation in this year, according to the recommended alternative. At this time, the system will operate with nine vehicles on six routes. Route 5 will have a frequency of 75 minutes Routes 2, 3, and 6 will have service frequencies of 60 minutes, and Routes 1 and 4 will have service frequencies of 30 minutes. Finally, this TOP update calls for frequency improvements to the most successful of the newly designed routes, including Route 5 (Target to the Beaches), Route 1 (Lynn Haven to Downtown), and Route 4 (Downtown to Gulf Coast Community COllege). Tables ES-8 through ES13 provide an outl ine of the current status and a detailed fiveyear plan. Figure ES1 displays a map of the full system route network Implementation as shown in the 1999 TOP update. ES Bay Q:Junty Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007


. . : : ': ';, --: ..... ) : -.............. ._: .... ........ ...... r . i:.: .... " --' < .... ;..,.. ----:, ... . .! . .. .. . . . . :s,.,_ ,,... .. .. ,.. I .. _.> -----' -.:..- : . -.. .;,...' } : : .: __ t;,.., .. . ; :r.. .. ---. < . ....... -"'" . ..... "- ,.:. .... + . .. l I I 0 } > l :; 0 --------_ ... . ------


This is a blank page


Table ES.a 0 d C ost .Jpera1tona an aractensties tsay own ro Y 1 oute C h 8 T T lie R N etw o rt< FY 2002 W koay S pan o r S.rvic. T ... l htimlteMn In $et'Yite lOr two yeaq O :OOAM 0:00PM .. I 3 G24 $69,G13 EHI Ro!M I n FY E3s1 Rout.e and N Route .. 7.14 1, 799 $41 4!15 4A v,. (1 b'-1$ oocqtii'!Q bot'l'l O :OOAM 8:00 P M Rollte u. route s ) 120 ... 3 .72 "" $21.5M Ro!Ae 4 Down t own City tct GCCC 11th .and 15th Route 4 oot echedU'.ecS f Ot MMee ....... Cha"EEC$1hi$ ywr. &OI)PM "' I 12 $.024 $69.673 Tuqet lo P an.a.IN Ctty s secves T:. rvet 1o Pan;ama City 8$ reoommende(llrom ttl$ '"9 8 :30AM 8!15 P M 100 I 11.75 2 ,961 $68,2:21 T otals 4 46. 6 1 1 1 ,746 $ 270, 6 2 1 Table E S-9 0 JP8ra1.ional and Cost Characteris ticsBav Tow n T r o Uev Route Network. FY 2003 Span of T ota l Esti m ted N w .. kday ....... 2003 A n n\UII Vel'llc.l& Revenu e .... c-R outt N.arn& ...... E n d fttQIIfi'ICY ,..,,. -.. (124.00/tlr.) 1 Downtown Pltlama nct$ervioo thi $ rool e City 10 L.y M lilvtn lnFY2003. 6:00PM .. I 1 2 3,024 $72.578 East Route By 1tle e-nd Of FY 2003 the Easl Ro1.11e a nd tl'lc Routo 4 A t o be by 8 !00M! 6!00PU "' 7 U 1.199 $43.18.J Rcut$8 2 and 3 10 serve lht east side ()f ltle IPbMI area. os tOOOmmctld< in 1999 TOP update "'' 0.& 3.72 937 $22.490 Routo 4 Downtown Panama C ity to G C C C via1tth and tlth ThO& lOUie wa 1\811& no eerviOe '18fl0&8 in ...... F Y 2003 6 : 00 AA1 1$:00 P M .. I , 3,024 $72.676 Rowe s Tarvot to Panama C IIY Tl'li$ rQVIo wlll!\;1111 no $$Me$ CI'IOIII9$$1n 8etel'l FY 2003 G:30 AAI G:45 ,._, 150 1 1 1 75 2 ,9&1 $ 7 1,064 Rolltt t Be.etl Rou\lt The; CO'*' k $Cl\00Uied lot lml)iemenl.etiOt'l in FY 2003 G;OOAM 6 :00PM .. 1 12 3.02-1 $72 .57$ Tota l s 5 58.61 1 4,no $354,473 Executive Summary cSZS


Table ES-10 ODerationaJ and Cost Charaetariaties Bay Town TtoUey Route Network, FY 2004 WHday Spa.n of S.I'Yic.o TOW w .. k24 $7!>,419 Routt 5 Taf9ft to Pname City Tnls i$ the ni0$1 $\looe$$1u l roow in the ...... system and 110ill hW\'9 Qnt b u$ and 11.75 aclditioro;ll hours 110 inerea$e in FY $:00PJio 6 :<1SPM 75 2 23. 5 S,l22 $147, 8 1 3 Rouf* 6 Buetl Route ThiS tOIM W.l n.rve no &tMoe <:hanoe' i n FY2004 6 : 00AM 6:00PM .. 1 12 ..... $75,479 Totals 7 83.5 21.042 $525,208 Table E5-11 Operational and Cost Characteristics Bay Town Trolley Routo Network., FY 2005 w .. Sc>ln of S.rvlu TOUI WMkdl)' Anr.ual 2005 Antl\ll.l Vl'lkloe Revnue ......... Cott Routo Namo Stltu& .... FrequMCy Rtqul,.rnent Hou" Hou" (SZS.Hihr.) R.outo 1 Downtown Panam. This I'DIM: wil t\;'v8; 1"1() in Cfty to Lynn Hawn FY200S &:OOMt &:OOP M .. 1 12 3,024 $78,498 Route 2 City H,llla Tyncr.)t ThiS wil hOY'IJ no HMoo <:hang.;, in &:OO.AM &:OOPM W l4dar1 and Parltor FY2006 .. 1 12 3,024 $78, 498 Routo 3 TafOt( to TyncSIJe Wal Thla tOUie w11 Nlve no Chaf19eS. n 8 :00 Mi &:00 PM MVt Yi a Eat FY2006 .. 1 12 3,024 S18.a Route Downtown Panama City to GCCC via t1th and 15th T hi$ route will have one ad:I1Uo.n81 bus and ....... 1 2 hour$ f1 FY 2005 8:00AM 6:00PM 30 2 ,. 6,048 $156,996 Rout. 5 Target to tty ThiS lOUie

Tablt ES-12 Operational and Coa.t Character istics Bay Town Trotlev Route Networt<, FY 2008 w .. kday Span ot Service .... Estitnattd F'i WMkdt:Y ...,..., ............ Vehlca. Rtvenu t Revenut Cot Narnt ...... Start ... F,.qunc:y Requlrtme n t Houn ...... {$26 ,ttlhr, ) Route t DowM&wn Panama Thi s route win tt;tve: one bU5 and City to Lyn.n HavMt 12 adcftiona l re-venue in 2006 6 : 00N.II 6;(1() PIA 30 2 2< .... $163 ,276 Rolltle 2 City Hall to Tyrtdale Tt.i& f'OUIWt YIMI h&ve roseMce Ch&f'IQ&i i'l 6 :00MI 6:00PM Wal-llbrt and Patkr FV2006 60 t 1 2 3 ,024 $8,1 ,$38 Routo 3 T&fgtl lO Wl ThS tOU'C v.a1 haV9 no wMce 6 :00AM 6 :00PM Mart via bJt 15th StrMt FV2006 60 t 12 3,024 $8\,63& Route 4 Downtown Panama C ity 6o GCCC v i a 11th and 1 kh Thl$ 11)\AG ha'.'e no seM:e Char'lges h -FV 2000 ti-:00 AM so 2 .. 6M6 $163,276 Roue $ Target to Panama Clty T hl$ lOUie w11 h :r.-e no $&l'\'icO d'l;a"ogflS i'l ..... FV 2000 6lll0 M4 &45PM 7S 2 23. 0 ..... $159,675 Routa'. Bhch Ro!.rtt ThG n:n,lle wfl ha\-. no sei'Ylce Ch8tlge$ In FVm<; 6 :00AM 6:00PM 1 t 2 3.024 $81,638 Total & 9 107.5 27 090 $731,342 Table ES-13 Qoerational and Co1-t Charaeterl$tiCS Bav Town TroJiey Route Network,. FY 2007 Wftokday Span of T""l FY W.-..:day Annual 2001 Annual Vehidt Rove n u t Re.,.nue ... 1 R

Vehide Requirements-Bay Coordinated Transportation and Bay Town Trolley To continue paratransit operations and to implement the five-year transit services plan for fixed-route services, a total of 27 vehicles will be replaced and 6 expansion vehicles purchased. A vehicle replacement and expansion plan for BCT and BTT (Goal 1, Initiative A; Goal 2, Initiative F) is outlined in Table ES-14 below. Table ES-14 Bay Count Vehicle Inventory Years 2002 Number of Model Manufacturer/ Inventory Year Model Tv De Veh icles FY2002 FY 2003 FY2004 FY 2005 FY2006 FY2007 1994 Goshen Min i bus 1 1 1 0 1995 Ford Minibus 2 2 2 0 1996 Ford Super Duty Mini bus 8 8 8 8 0 1997 Ford Mini bus 5 5 5 5 5 0 1996 Chev r o l et M i nivan 1 1 1 0 0 1998 Ford Sup r eme M i nibus 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 1999 Dodge Minivan 4 4 4 4 0 1999 Ford Supreme Min ibus 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2000 Chevrole t Minivan 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2000 Chrysle r Minivan 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2001 Chevrole l Sedan 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2001 Supreme Trolley 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2001 ElDorado Mini bus 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2002 Champion M i nibus 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 T rollev 1 1 1 1 1 1 2003 ExPansion Trol ley 2 2 2 2 2 2004 Expansion Trolley 2 2 2 2 2004 Replacemen t Minibus 1 1 1 1 2004 Replacement Minibus 2 2 2 2 2005 Expans iOn Trol ley 2 2 2 2005 Replacement Mini bus 8 8 8 2004 Replacement Mini van 1 1 1 1 2005 Replacement Minivan 4 4 4 2006 Replacement Mlnlbus 5 5 2007 Replacement Minibus 3 2007 Replacement Sedan 1 2007 Rnl I M i nivan 2 TOTAL 52 52 56 56 58 58 58 ES-28 Bay County Transit Oevelopment PliJn, 2003-2007


Recommendations and Strategic Initiatives Paratransit Services 1. Continue to replace paratransit vehicles as necessary and expand based on system growth (Goal 1, Initiative A). In Bay County, Federal and State funds for transportation have been used primarily for capital and operating needs for Bay Coordinated Transportation (BCT). It is recommended that, as vehicles are operated throughout their useful life, BCT should continue to replace vehicles and expand based on system growth. 2. Monitor more closely the variability and number of roadcal/s for paratransit service (Goal 1, Initiative 8 ). The number of vehicle miles between roadcalls has varied considerably over the trend period examined in this TOP (FY 1996 to FY 2001}. Vehicle miles have grown steadily from FY 1996 to FY 2001, and the variation in this measure is due p rimarily to annual fluctuations in the number of roadcalls. These variations should be monitored to determine whether the fluctuations are due to maintenance issues or reporting issues. 3. Improve coordination between paratransit services and fixed-route services (Goal 1, Initiative C). While the n umber of users of the paratransit system continues to grow, the resources to operate the system have not grown significantly. Due to the higher cost per trip associated with paratransit service, It is beneficial to ensure that those users of the paratransit system who could utilize the fixed-route Trolley service do so. In addition, improved coordination and alignment between the two modes will ensure that they operate In the most complementary and efficient manner. Rxed-Route Services 4. Develop a cost-sharing model for local jurisdictions to participate in funding fixed-route services (Goal 4 Initiative A}. Funding support at the local level is essential for the long -term viability of the Bay Town Trolley. As discussed in other sections of this TOP, It was discovered that, on average, Executive Summary ES-29


BlT's fixed-route peer systems cover approximately 19 percent of their operating expenses with general revenues from their local governments. Overall, the peers cover, on average, more than 26 percent of operating expenses with local assistance, induding general revenues. These systems were shown in this peer review to outperform BlT in the level of service provided as well as the leve l of ridership generated. It can be concluded, then, that systems with monetary support from their local governments can afford to provide better services and, therefore, realize higher leve ls of ridership. Out of 26 Rorida transit systems that receive State Block Grant funds, B1T is currently the only system that receives no local assistance at all. Possible sources of funding at the local level include General Revenue from the County, funds from local munidpalities that are served by BlT, property tax revenue, local-option gas tax revenue, and support from businesses and hotels along the Beach that can fund fixed-route services on the Beach. Several options exist for the development of a cost-sharing model to fund fixed-route transit services. Such a model could be determined on a per capita basis in each jurisdiction, or it could be based on the proportion of transit service hours or transit service coverage within each jurisdiction. For example, if Bay County and its jurisdictions wanted to help fund the system at a rate on average with its peers, it should strive to cover approximately 20 percent of BlT's operating expenses. For FY 2003, this would mean a contribution of approximately $71,000 (based on FY 2003 projected operating expenses of $354,473). In FY 2007, this contribution would grow to approximately $152,000 (based on FY 2007 operating expenses of $760,595). It should be noted that the 20 percent benchmark is simply the average of BITs peer transit systems, and local funding could be provided at a rate above or below this level, depending on resource availability. 5. Continue to implement fixed-route network recommended in the 1999 TDP (Goal 2, Initiatives 8 and C; Initiative ). ES-30 Since the 1999 TOP update, B1T has been making progress on the implementation of the proposed route network. Changes made thus far have been well-received by passengers, and rid ership continues to incre ase considerably In FY 2002. According to the phased implementation plan discussed previously in this section, changes would be made in each of the first four years of this five-year plan. In the fifth year, FY 2007, the Trolley service will operate on six routes with nine vehicles. Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007


6. Continue to acquire vehicles for the provision of fixed-route transit service, and replace as necessary (Goal 4 Initiatives 8, c; and F). According to the fixed-route peer review analysis conducted in Chapter Two, BTT is one of the smallest transit systems currently operating service. To implement ail aspects of the route network outlined in the 1999 IDP, and to ensure an adequate spare ratio, the system should continue to work toward fleet expansion. This expansion should occur based on available funding from Federal, State, and local sources. 7. Establish partnerships with at least one major community resource to fr.Jnd transit improvements (Goal2, Initiative E). Potential partners include the jurisdictions, the Bay County School Board, and the hospitality industry on the beaches. This initiative is important to building relationships In the community that can make transit more viable in the long run. The Gulf Coast Women's Club approaching BTT regarding the sponsorship of a passenger shelter at Panama City's City Hail is an example of this. While various segments of the community need to be brought together to produce the desired result, this approach serves as a good model for the formation of such partnerships. 8. Continue to monitor Trolley system performance according to service standards {Goal 2, Initiative H). As the fixed-route network continues to undergo changes, It is expected that the perfonmance of the system will also change As designed, the redesigned route network should continue to attract additional riders as well as additional usage from exlsting riders Although increased ridership is expected, it is also necessary to continue to allow for the maturation of the new services over time. In the 1999 IDP, service standards were established for the Trolley system covering FY 2000 to FY 2004. It was shown in Table ES-3 that BTT has thus far been meeting o r exceeding these goals. Given the fact that BTT has been meeting or exceeding the service standards, and given the current status of the route network implementation, the service standards were updated based on the most recent peer system information. Table ES-15 outlines the performance measures for the five -year period as weU as the most recent fiscal year, FY 2002. Executive Summary ES-31


Table ES-15 BTT Performance Goa l s FY 2002 -2 007 BTT Performance Goa l s Performa n ce FY 2000 Measure Peer Mean FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 200 5 FY 2 006 FY200 7 Passenger T ri p s per 11.43 6.86 8.57 8 5 7 9.1 4 11. 43 11.4 3 Revenue Hour Passenger Trips Per 0.76 0 .46 0.57 0.5 7 0.61 0.76 0 7 6 Revenue Mile O p Expense per $3.82 $3.44 $3.58 $3 72 $3.87 $4 02 $4.18 Passenger Trip NOTE. llS In the 1999 TDP, FY 2002 gool s are baSed on 60% of tile peer average for trips per rewnue hour and revenue mile For these two measures, the gool i s 75% or tile peer average in FYs 2003 and 2004, 80% of tile peer average In FY 2005, and 1 00% o r the peet average i n FYs 2006 and 2007. The g oal for expense per tri p is set at 10% below the peer average for FYs 2 002 to 2006 and 15% be l ow the peer average i n FY 2007 (th i s goal a l so i n creases four percen t each yea r to account for inflaticn). 9 Increase transit fares from a base ptice of $0.50 to $1.00 ( Goal2, Inmative J). The peer r eview analysis conducted for Chapter Two of th i s TOP showed that BTT has one of the lowest base fares among other similar small t r ansit systems. Since the demand for transit ridersh i p is consi dered to be rel ative l y inelastlc w ith respect to the f are, raising the fare w ill r e sult in increased revenues fo r the system 10. Continue contract with marketing firm to increase marketing and communications activities (Goal2, Initiative G; Initiatives A and C). Funds for marketing should be i n c reased to conduct mar keting and communications activities contemplated un der this TOP. 11. Conduct at least 12 Community Outreach activities per year Initiative A } Including speaking engagements and booths at commun ity events, BTT shou l d target at l east one opportunity per month to engage i n community outreach. 12. Sponsor at least three community events per year Initiative A). ES-32 To continue to gain exposure and v i s i bility for t r ansit, BTT sho uld ta r ge t th ree community events per year to p rovide some leve l of sponsorship, w hether through transportation services or paid sponsorship. 88y County Transit Develcpment Plan, 2003 2007


13. Conduct rider promotions as new Trolley services continue to be Implemented (Goal 2, Initiative G; Goal 3, Initiatives A and C). Future rider promotions should be centered around the implementation of n ew Trolley routes as set forth in the im plementation section outlined previously. Generating a sense of excitement, free gift giveaways, and celebrations of new services should be the focus of these promotions. 14. Conduct focus groups with GCCC students (Goal3, Initiative A}. Focus groups should continue to be held with GCCC students to determine the current level of appeal of the Trolley system as well as enhancements that would make the system more appealing to college students. 15. Conduct promotions for GCCC students at least twice annually {Gail! 2, Initiative G; Goal 3, Initiatives A and C). One of these promotions should focus on the Fall semester with incoming freshman and other students. BTT should maintain a presence on campus dur i ng the first week of classes and provide schedules, system maps, and oth e r promotional items. In the Spring, another promotion should be conducted. 16. Continue to create transit alliances {Goil/3, Initiative 8). BTT staff has worked closely with Bay High School over the past three years. In addition, the MPO created a portable display that staff can take to various events. In the past the league of Women has taken an offidal position supporting transit. The challenge for BTT staff continues to be to locate other community groups who have an interest In transportation. Natural alliances include the Bicycle/Pedestrian committee of the MPO and the TO local Coordinating Board. Potential alliances could include Gulf Coast Community College, the Bay County School Board, and the Tourist Development Council. 17. Develop a mission and/or vision statement {Goil/3, Initiative 0). BTT would benefit from developing a mission and/or vision statement that will help the system focus on its goals, its purpose, and its role in the community. A mission and Executive Summary


vision statement, while seemingly simple, will help the system set priorities and guide the system as It gradually grows and expands. The statement should become a part of the system's identity and be included on route maps and schedules, etc., and also assists community leaders in communicating with their constituencies. 18. Create Individual schedules and a new system map for the Bay Town Trolley (Goal 4, Initiative A) As services are redesigned, BTT should create new schedules and a system map. In addition, BTT should keep apprised of ongoing research regarding the design of system route maps and information (spedfically, a study being conducted by CtrTR) and Incorporate any lessons learned into the design of their maps and schedules. 19. Expand the Passenger Amenities Program {Goal 4, Initiative C). Since the 1999 lDP update, jurisdiCtions serving on the MPO agreed to permit and allow the installat ion of passenger shelters. Locations would be major stops and transfer locations induding the system transfer point at Target, GCCC, Wai-Mart on Tyndall Parkway, and the proposed Downtown Panama City City H all location. In addition to shelters, passenger amenities should indude information kiosks at Trolley stops, street furniture, trash cans, lighting, etc 20. Provide community service to senio/'5, GCCC students_ school students, and/or other groups a t least 12 times per year (Goals; Initiatives A and 8). BTT should strive to provide community service when opportunities arise In addition, as resources allow, BTT should provide transportation to community events. 21. Upgrade radio system to Bay County's new 800 MHZ technology {Goal 1, Initiative C; Goal-? Initiative I; and Goals; Initiative B). ES-J4 The radio system currently being operated by BCCOA does not adequately cover the county. There are far reaches of the county wherein the system cannot establish any contact. Bay COunty recently installed a new 800 MHZ radio system that provides excellent coverage. The COunty has indicated that there Is sufficient space on the system and that BCCOA would be considered approved users. The system has capabilities beyond the basic two-way system, and has advantages including the Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007


sharing of information in emergency situations among local county, dty, and law enforcement personnel who are all using the system. 22. Begin discussions with Bay County and the Panama City MPO to transfer administrative functions for paratransit and fixed-route services to a public agency (Goal 6, Initiative A). The primary advantage of this Init i ative for Bay County is that there is a local, established and longstan ding transportation provider in the region that can assume a vast majo rity of the operational and admi nistrative responsibilities. Therefore, the County would be taking on a program that does have a significant revenue stream including Federal, State, Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, and funds from local sponsors of paratransit service to cover system expenses. The County would also be able to use Federal grants to fund a position to oversee grants administration and t ransportation services. 23. Develop a transition plan to Bay County to assume Federal and State grantee status (Goa/6, Initiative 8). In keeping with its planning responsibility, the MPO should develop a detailed transition pian for the County in order to have the smoothest possible transition with minima l impact on the public. This plan shou ld address all responsibilities of Federal and state grantee status, ere responsibilities, and a 12-month implementation plan that could be executed at any time. capital and Operating Plan Table E5-16 on the following pages provides the five-year capital and operating improvement program to implement the fixed-route and paratransit service plan. Follow ing Table ES-16, Table ES-17 provides a summary of capital and operating expenses and revenues, and shows funded and unfunded projects for the five-year period Executive Summary ES-35


Ql l;: Q "

I I .;] 1(1 \:: PROJECT ITEM 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 1 PROJECT DI'SCRIPTION Shelters and Passngr AmenltiH Market in g and Communle atlont Schedu les and SysMm Map: OnJgn Schedules and System Mop : Prin 6ng Fows Groups Base PO&E $150,000 Land Acqui$ition1Construcllon IS1 375 000 Bay County 800 MHZ Radio Syotem TOIII: Total: Totlt: T-: Total: Tote! : Table '5-16 continued Capital a nd Operating Pbon FY :1M3 FY 200-1 FY >00< $20 000 $20,000 $20,000 $87, 500 $87,500 187,500 $1 0 000 $25,000 $ 25,000 $25 ,000 $8 ,500 $150,000 $1,375,000 FlVEYEAR FUND .. _fY 2007 -$20,000 $20,000 $ 100,000 FTASO

Table ES1 7 Bay County Operati n g a nd capital Finan dal Sum m ary ITEM FY2003 FY 2 00 4 F Y 2005 FY 2006 FY2007 Operati ng & Revenuea Expenses Fbc&d-Route Operatirtg Cosr $379,473 $55$,708 $649, 715 $756,342 $ 7 85,595 Othe r transportation setvi:ces $ 1 878,616 $1.9$3 76 1 $2. 03 1 ,9 1 2 $2.113 188 $2. 1 97,7 1 6 Total O petating Expenses $2,2 5 8 089 $ 2 881,627 $2,869 530 $2,9 8 3 3 1 1 Revenues FT A Func1in 9 $401 000 $401 000 $401 000 $401 000 $401 00 0 FOOT BIOCI< Gran! $330. 759 $329.867 $329 ,867 $341,278 $354 284 Fixed-Rou! e Farebox Reven u e $40, 000 $65.000 $76, 00 0 $83, 000 $99, 000 FOOT Corridor $85.000 $ 165. 000 $ 165. 000 $165 000 $165, 000 Local Funds (Pur c hase of Sei'Vk:e) $ 1 .469 1 2 8 $1,527 ,893 $1, 589. 009 $ 1 ,652 .569 $ 1 .7 1 8.672 Total R evenues $2,325,887 $2,488,760 $2, 560,876 $2,642 647 $2 ,737,956 Current Unfun<*t O.,.ratlng -$67 797 $ 23 709 $120,751 $ 226 ,883 $2 45 ,355 C a pital Expenses&. RevenuN Expt:nses T r o lleys S300 000 $300.000 $300,000 $0 $0 S edan s so $0 $0 $0 $20. 000 M iniv ans so 535.000 $140 000 $0 $70, 0 00 Minibuses so $165,000 $440,000 $ 2 75,000 $ 1 65 000 She lters & Passenger Amenities S20,0 0 0 $20,000 $20,000 $20. 000 $20, 0 0 0 Morl