USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Lee County transit development plan 1995-1999 : final report

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Lee County transit development plan 1995-1999 : final report
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Lee County Transit (LEETRAN)
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation--Florida --Lee County--Planning   ( lcsh )
Local transit--Florida--Lee County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
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:
usfldc doi - C01-00109
usfldc handle - c1.109
System ID:
SFS0032222:00001


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 C01-00109
040
FHM
049
FHmm
2 110
Lee County Transit (LEETRAN)
0 245
Lee County transit development plan 1995-1999 : final report
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1994 April
650
Transportation--Florida --Lee County--Planning
Local transit--Florida--Lee County
710
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.109



PAGE 1

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1995-1999 FINAL REPORT Pre p ared for: Lee County Transit Fort Myers, Florida By: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South F l orida Tampa F l or ida August 1994

PAGE 2

Director: LeeTran 10715 Airport Road Fort Myers, Florida 33907 (813) 277-5012 Fax (813) 277-5011 James I. Fetzer Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 Director: Project Manager: Project Staff: (813) 974-3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Gary L. Brosch Danie l K Boyle Victoria Perk Dennis Hinebaugh Joe i Rey Suzanne D i eringer Slielly Happel Rebecca Rahimi David Gillett NilgOn Kamp Terry Agee

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v i i Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x i Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x iii Chapter One: Demographic Data, Surveys Focus Groups, and Interviews . . . . 1 I ntroduct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Lee County D emog r a p hics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Populat i o n and Popula tion Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Pop ul ation Age Characteris tics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 T ransportation D i sadva n taged Population . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Income C h aracte ri s t ics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 V e h ic l e Availab i lity per H ouseho l d . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 E mp l oyment Characterist ics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Travel t o Wo r k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Travel Tim e to W o rk . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Means of Travel to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Demograph i c Sum m ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Other Lee County Char a cteris t ics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 V isitorsfTourists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 Land U s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Park i ng Poli cies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 Roadway Defi cien c ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Lee T ra n On-Board Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 OnBoard Survey Met hodol ogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 On-Boa rd Survey Analy s is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 L eeTran System Profile D emograp hi c Informa t i on . . . . . . . . . . 39 L eeTran S y stem Profil e Trave l Behav i o r . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 LeeTran S y s tem Pro file-Fares and R i ders hi p Patterns ...... ...... ... 4 7 Comments/Sugge s tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Lee T ra n Operator S u rvey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1

PAGE 4

LEE COUIITY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Focus Groups with Non-Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Suggest i ons .......... ............. ......... . . . . . . . 57 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Interviews with Key Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Percept i ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Policy Issues of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Chapter Two: Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Lee Tran Goa l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Chapter Three: Performance Evaluation of Existing Transit Service . . . . . . 69 II Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 The Purpose of Performance Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Performance Review Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Overview of System ............................... ......... . . 7 4 Fixed-Route Trend Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Ridership and Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Expenses and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Employees and Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Service Supply, Service Consumption and Quality of Service . . . . . . 86 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Labor Productivity and Fare Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Fixed-Route Peer Review Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Population Ridership. and Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Expenses and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Employees and Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 00 Service Supply, Service Consumption, and Quality of Service . . . . . 100

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Cost Efficiency and Fare box Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Labor Productiv ity and Fare Structure . . . . . . . . . . 104 Application to Lee Tran Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Condusions . ........... . ........ . . ......... ..... ... 110 Chapter Four : Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . 113 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Current and Future Deman d for Transit Serv i ce . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Fixed-Route Demand Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Ridership Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Peer Group Comparison ................ .......... . . 115 Fare and Serv i ce Elasticities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Census Tract Analys i s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Int erview, Focus Group, and Survey Results . . . . . . . . . 1 27 Demand-Respons i ve Service R idership Estimates . . . . . . . . 127 Americans with Disabimies Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9 Fixed Route Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Evening Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Imp roved Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Sunday Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Express Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Service to Major Employment Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Multimoda l LinkagesfTransit Center . . . . . . . . . 131 Improved Corridor Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Improved Service Coverage in Transit -Depe ndent Tracts . . . . . . 131 Mobility Needs and Transit Demand: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Chapter Five: Transit Alternatives and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 135 Introduct io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Expand the Transit System to Unserved and Underserved Areas of the County 136 Concentrate Transit INhere It is Most Needed and Used . . . . . . . . . 137 Respond to Growth in Lee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Future Directions for LeeTran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Le eTran Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 iii

PAGE 6

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Five-Year Transit Development Plan: Findings and Recommendations . . . . . 140 Actions to be Initiated I mmediately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Actions to be Initiated over the Next One-to-Two Years . . . . . . . . . 145 Act i ons to be Init i ated over the Next Three-to-Five Years . . . . . . . . 146 Five-Year Transit Development Plan: Financial Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 i v Appendix A: Lee County Census Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix B: Survey Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 Append i x C : Focus Group Discussion Outline and Interview Questions . . . . C-1 Appendix D : Transit-Related Goals in the Lee County Comprehensive Plan . . . D-1 Appendix E: List of Definitions : Selected Performance I ndicators and Measures . E-1 Appendix F : Inventory of Transit Providers in Lee County . . . . . . . . . F-1 Appendix G: Complete Trend Data Tab l es : LeeTran 19 88-1993 ........ . .... G-1 Appendix H: Com plete Peer Review Data Ta b les: LeeTran 1993 . . . . . . H1 Appendix 1: Lee County Census Tracts : Distributi ons and Scores .............. 1-1 Appendix J: LeeTran Veh i cle I nventory and Proposed Re p lacement Schedule . J-1

PAGE 7

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 F igure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 F i gure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 F igure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 LisT OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES Population Density: Lee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Population Under Age 1 8: Lee County ... .... . . ...... ... . . 7 Populat io n Over Age 60: Lee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Percent of Households with Annual Income Under $10 000 : Lee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Percent of Households with No Vehicles Available: Lee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Percent of Worl
PAGE 8

LEE COUNTY TR.ANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Figure 29 Fi gure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Fig ure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Fi gure 37 Fi gure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41 Fi gure 42 Fi gu re 43 Figure 44 Fi gu re 45 Figure 46 Fi gure 47 Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50 Figure 51 Figure 52 Figure 53 Fi gure 54 Figure 55 Fi gure 56 Figure 57 vi Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Operating Expense per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip . . . . . . . . . . 89 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Revenue Hours per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Passenger Trips per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Service Area Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Maintenance Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Operating Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Vehicles Availab l e for Maximum Serv i ce . . . . . . . . . . 99 Vehicles Operating in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . 99 Vehicle Miles per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Passenger Trips per ......... ..... ............ . 101 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . 101 Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Operating Expense per . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Operat in g Expense per Passenger Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 03 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Revenue Hours per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Passenger Tri p p e r Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Lee County Bus Routes and Tracts . . . . . . 125

PAGE 9

Ta bl e 1 T ab l e 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 T a ble 9 Table 1 0 Table 11 Tab l e 1 2 Table 13 Tab l e 14 T ab l e 15 Table 16 Tab l e 17 Tab l e 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES Population and Popu l ation Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Tract Populat i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Tract Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Population Age Characteristics for Lee County and F l orida . . . . . . 5 Popu l ation Age Characterist i cs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1994 T r ansportation Disadvantaged Population by Group . . . . . . 11 Household Income Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Income Characteristics for Lee County . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Vehic l e Availability per Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Veh i c l e Availability per Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Employment Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Work Commuting Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Work Commuting Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Travel Time to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Travel Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Means of Travel to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Means of Travel to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Vis i tors to Lee County 1993, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Lee County Roadway Deficiencies. 1993: Existing and Forecasted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Demographic Comparison of LeeTran Riders with Lee County Population LeeTran On-Board Survey . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Convenience of Bus StopLeeTran On Board Survey . . . . . . . 47 Positive Comments LeeTran On-Board Survey . . . . . . . . . 50 Negative Comments Lee Tran On Board Survey . . . . . . . . . 50 Most Frequent Passenger Complaints about LeeTran Identified by Bus Operators LeeTran On-Board Survey . . . . . 52 Improvement Areas for LeeTran Identified by Bus OperatorsLeeTran Operator Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Lee Tran Safety Problems Identified by Bus Operators Lee Tran Operator Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Routes with Schedule Problems Identified by Bus Operators LeeTran Operator Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Lee Tran Routes to Modify Ident i fied by Bus Operators LeeTran Operator Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 vii

PAGE 10

LEE COUNTY TRANSTT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48 T able 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52 Table 53 T able 54 Table 55 viii Response to Questions 7 and 8 L eeTran Operato r Survey . . . . . 54 Proposed LeeTran Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Se l ected Perfonnance Review In dicators and Measures : Fixed-Route Transit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Overview ofLeeTran FYs 1992 and 1993 ...... . .... ...... ..... 77 Lee Tran R i dership and Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 LeeTran Expenses a nd Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 LeeTran Employees and Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 LeeTran Service Supply Serv i ce Consumption, and Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 LeeTran Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery . . . . . . . . . 88 Lee Tran Labor Productivity and Fare Structure . . . . . . . . . 90 Lee Tran's Peer Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Peer Analysis Population, R id ership, and Level of Service, FY 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Peer Analysis E xpenses and Revenues FY 1993 . . . . . . . . 96 Peer Analysis Employees and Vehicles, FY 1993 . . . . . . . . . 98 Peer Analysis Service Supply Service Consumption, and Quality of Service, FY 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 oo Peer Ana l ysis Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery FY 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Pee r Analysis Labor Productivity and Fa r e Structure. FY 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Lee Tran Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 07 Perfonnance Measures Applied to LeeTran Goals ............... : 108 Status of Goal 1: Ensure Availability of Transit Service to Lee County Residents and Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Status of Goal 2: Provide Quality Passenger Amenities to Enhance Bus Service and Attract Discretionary Riders . . . . . 109 Status of Goal 4: Promote System Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . 109 LeeTran Perfonnance Strengths and Weaknesses Trend Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 LeeTran Perfonnance Strengths and Weaknesses, Pee r Review Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 0 Projected F ixed-Route Ridership for L eeTran . . . . . . . . . . 115 Per Group Comparisons with LeeTran . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Peer Subset Comparisons with LeeTran . . . . . . . . . . . 117

PAGE 11

Tab le 56 Table 57 Table 58 Table 59 T abl e 60 Table 61 Table 62 Table 63 Table A-1 Table A-2 Table A-3 Table A-4 Table A-5 Table A43 Table A 7 Table D-1 Table G-1 Table G 2 Table G-3 Table H-1 Tab l e H-2 Table H-3 Table 1 1 Table J 1 LIST OF LeeTran Projections Based on Per Capita Averages i n Peer Groups ............................................ .. 1 1 7 Impacts of Fare and Service Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Base and Enhanced Fixed-Route R i dersh i p Projections for LeeTran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Transit-Dependent Census Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . 123 ADA-Eligible Person and Trip Projections . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Projected Base Five-Year Budget for LeeTran . . . . . . . . . . 148 Estimated Cost of Recommendation s . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Projected LeeTran Budget, Including Recommendations . . . . . . 1 so Population and Popu lation Density Lee County 1990 ............. A 3 Age Distribution Lee County 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Household Income Lee County 1990 . . . . . . . . . . A-7 Vehic l e AvailabilityLee County 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . A -9 Wo!X Co mmutin g PatternsLee County 1990 . . . . . . . . . A-11 Trave l Ti m e to Wo!XL ee County 1 990 ........................ A-13 Means of Travel to Wo!XLee County 1990 . . . . . . . A 15 LeeTran Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3 Lee County Transit Directly Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G 3 Lee County Transit Directly Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-4 Lee County Transit Directly Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-5 System Total Performance Indicators 10-49 Motorbus Vehicle Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-3 System Total Effectiveness Meas ure s 10 -4 9 Moto rbus Veh i cle Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H43 System To tal Efficiency Meas ures, 10-49 Motorbus V eh icle Category .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. H -9 Lee County Census Tracts : D i stributions and Scores . . . . . . . 1-3 Vehicle Inventory and Proposed Replacement Schedule . . . . . J-3 i x

PAGE 12

this page IS blank

PAGE 13

FOREWORD FOREWORD The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has contracted with Lee County Transit (LeeTran) to produce a five-year Transit Development Plan (TOP) for Lee County. This project has been funded with federal Section 8 planning monies. Each transit property in Florida that receives State Transit Block Grant funding is requ ired to prepare a TOP. This requirement is in tended to ensure that the provision of public transportation service is consistent with the travel 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 have been included in this final TOP document. Chapter One presents the demographic base data for Lee County Also presented are the results of operator and passenger surveys. and interviews with key lo ca l officials and focus groups Chapter Two outlines goals and objectives for LeeTran and demonstrates their connection with goals specified in other planning documents. Chapter Three provides a performance review of the LeeTran system, including a t rend analysis and a peer comparison. Chapter Four contains ridership and demand project ions and a needs assessment for the system. Chapter Five evaluates alternatives for public transportation services in Lee County. x i

PAGE 14

this page IS blank

PAGE 15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Cente r for Urban Transportation Research ( CUTR) has contracted with the Lee County Board of County Commissioners to prepare a five-year Transit Development Plan (TOP) for the county s transit system, LeeT r an. Each transit property in Florida that receives State Transit Block Grant funding is requi r ed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) to formulate a TOP. This requirement is intended to ensure that the provision of pub lic transportation service is consistent with the travel needs and mobility goals of the l ocal community. By establishing a strategic context for transit planning, the TOP can serve as a guide in the future development of the transit system FOOT's I ntention in requiring TOPs is to encourage the consideration of strategic issues, mobility needs within the context of overall planning and development efforts, and prioritization of needs in the form of a staged implementation plan. Relevant p l an features include an extensive focus on transit an emphas i s on transit s role at the community level, and explicit consideration of external factors affecting the viability of the transit system. Several concepts of strategic planning (vision, external orientation and future focus) are applicable in the preparation of a TOP. Until September 197 4 several private operators tried unsuccessfully to p r ovide viable public transit service in Lee County. After that time, as a result of an inter1ocal agreement between L ee County Fort Myers, Cape Coral, and FOOT, the Lee County Transit Authority was established. The Authority was funded with state and local dollars under Florida s Demonstration/Serv i ce Development Program In October 1 975, the City of Fort Myers assumed the operational responsibility of the transit service. which it continued for 16 months. Finally, on February 1 1977 Lee County assumed the ownership and operation of the transit system and has cont i nued the service through the present. It was believed that the county would most effectively operate the system since transit demand is not confined to city boundaries. Additionally, a county operation provides the most equitable taxation among all county residents Currently, Lee County Transit (LeeTran) is an independent department governed by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners, a five-member public policy body responsible for overseeing all of the county s government operations. The system is both county-owned and operated, and all transit personnel are county employees . LeeTran provides public transportation services to Lee County by operating fixed-route motorbus services and contractually providing complementary transportation services to those elig i ble XIII

PAGE 16

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 under the Americans wit h Disabilities Act (ADA). The system selVes Fort Myers, North Fort Myers, Cape Coral, and Lehigh Acres. In addition LeeTran operates a free trolley seiVice in Fort Myers Beach. The executive summary presents the key findings from each chapter of the report. The recommendations developed in the fina l chapter are also inc l uded in the executive summary for easy reference The first chapter examines the distribution of relevant demographic and economic characteristics of Lee County such as i ncome age, vehicle availability, work travel behav i or, tourist impacts, and land use. In ge ne ra l, Lee County residents tend to be older when compared to the F l orida popu la tion. Househo l d income and vehicle availabi lity data suggest that the populat i on of Lee County is largely middle class, with lowe r percentages in the county than in the state at the opposite ends of the scale. Although a majority of workers in the county drive alone, when compared to statewide figures workers in Lee County are slightly more likely to carpool and slightly less likely to use transit. Tourists and "part-time" residents have a sig nificant impact on the area ; i n 1993, more than 1 5 million people visited the county. Also included in this chapter are the results of an on-board passenger suiVey and a bus operator suiVey, as well as resuks of inteiViews with key local offic ial s and focus groups with non-users of transit. The specification of goals and objectives is an essential element of the TOP. Chapte r Two develops system goals based on a workshop conducted with the TOP Review Committee findings from the suiVeys, in teiViews, and focus groups, and discussions with LeeTran personnel Among areas and issues addressed by the goals are the provision and coo r dination of transit seiVice marketing and infomlationa l efforts to increase the visibi lit y of transit, and increased efficiency. Chapter Three centers on an evaluation of the existing seiVice A six -year trend analysis was conducted to follow LeeTran's pertormance based on several selected pertormance indicators and measures In addition, a peer analysis was conducted to compare LeeTran's pertormance with that of "pee(' systems in Florida and the southeastern United States. Results from the trend analysis are generally positive, while peer results are mixed. LeeTran seems to be providing an above average level of seiVice for the county. In 1993, LeeTran p rovi ded a larger number of revenue miles than any other system in the peer group However, when population is taken into account, the number of vehicle miles per capita is lower than average. While ridership has been steadily increasing over t he trend period the number of passenger trips is still slightly below the peer group mean. One area in which LeeTran pertorms better than its peers is in tem1s of cost efficiency. LeeTran's cost efficiency has steadily improved over the six-year trend period. xiv

PAGE 17

EXECunVE SUMMARY The fourth chapter discusses mobility needs in Lee County and provides various estimates of current and future transit demand. FOOT has consistently stressed the importance of accounting for all mobility needs a transit agency's service area when preparing a TOP. An analysis of the county's census tract data was undertaken to compare demographic infonmati on, particularly those characteristics that are highly correlated with transit-dependency, with leeTran's existing transit network configuration. Based upon the analysis, it has been detenmined that all primary tracts are currently being served by LeeTran. Concerning ridersh ip, taking into account historical ridership trends and a llow ing for service increases ( between zero and 10 percent annually), Is estimated that leeTran will generate approximately 2. 7 million trips per year by fiscal year 1999. The final chapter, Chapter Five presents alternatives for leeTran as it looks ahead over th e next five years. Recommended short-tenm priorities i nclude the purchase of new vehicles and the establishment of a vehicle replacement program, the Implementation of a fonmal marketing plan for the system, and the establishment of a long-tenm dedicated funding source for lee Tran The discussion of the alternatives leads to the process of defining a vision for Lee Tran. Chapter Five also includes the five-year plan for LeeTran. The plan is a culmination of all previous chapters and contains detailed recommendations to help the sys tem realize its vision and achieve its goals. The recommendations are listed in the following section of the executive summary. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations are prioritized by time frame for implementation: immediately, over the next one-to-two years, and over the next three-to-fwe years. Within each time frame, recommendations with a higher priority are generally listed earlier, but related actions are grouped as appro.priate; thus, the numbering scheme is not strictly in priority order Actions to be Initiated Immediately 1. Establish a vehicle replacement program and purchase new vehicles. Some of LeeTran's current Blue Bird buses are the last of their kind to remain in fixed-route service. As shown in Appendix J, LeeTran has developed a lis t of when current buses reach the end of their useful life. The proposed five-year budget in the following section assumes bus r eplacement on an ongoing basis. LeeTran currently has a pending application for funding to purchase new buses. New buses w ill be lift-equipped to comply with ADA provisions. XV

PAGE 18

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVeLOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 2. Ensure that LeeTran is In compliance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act LeeTran is In full compliance with the requirements for ADA complementary paratransit service, but needs to make its bus fleet accessible by purchas i ng new vehicles. 3. Monitor the impact of the recent fare Increase on ridership and revenue. It is expected that ridership will decline somewhat but that revenue will increase. The extent of changes resulting from the fare i ncrease should be determ ined. 4. Reevaluate pass policies and pricing. Discontinuat i on of the dally pass was appropriate, given the potential for abuse Monthly and multi ride passes accounted for only nine percent of all boardi n gs during the on-board survey. The pric i ng of these passes and the potent ial for introducing other pass media (such as weekly passes) should be evaluated. 5. Establish a formal monitoring program to track the performance of Individual routes. Th i s informat ion is the basis for making decisions on the rout ing and frequency of buses. A formal data collection program shou ld be set up and followed. implementation of t his program may require an additional planner for LeeTran 6. Conduct a pilot program to increase frequency on the busiest routes The Blue and Gold routes are the top candidates for service every 30 m i nutes, based on current ridership and on ease of imp l ementation. Routes shou l d be carefully monitored after the service increase to determine the impact on ridership. 7. Apply for Stete of Florida Transit Corridor Program funds to make transit improvements in congested corridors The first priorily for such imp r ovements is U.S. 41, extending from Pine Island Road in North Fort Myers to San Carlos Park in South Fort Myers. Othet potential corridors might include Estero/San Carlos Boulevards south of Glad i olus and State Route 865, i ncluding Bonita Beach Road. 8. Pursue the establishment of a long-term dedicated funding source for LeeTran. xvi LeeTran i s currently receiving a portion of the r evenue from the new five-cent gas tax but this funding is committed to the agency for only two years LeeTra n should work toward a permanent extension of this funding. Another possible source of dedicated funding is revenue from bridge tolls LeeT r an is doing its part to raise revenue by its recent fare increase, but a dedicated funding source will ensure the continued fiscal health of the system.

PAGE 19

EXEcvnve SUMMARY 9. Begin planning transit connections to the new university site. The new un iv ers ity is scheduled to open i n 1997 LeeTran must be i nvolved in the planning for the so that its buses can conveniently serve the university. At the same time, preliminary route planning can begin now. 1 0. Identify appropriate locations for park and ride Iota LeeTran and the county are studying sites a l ong 1-75 and near Fort Mye rs Beach which is highly congested in peak season Among the being considered i s near Car1 Johnson Park It m a y be desirable to deve l op one or more park and ri de lots in conjunction with service improvements along U S 41. 11. Explore opportunities for express bus service In conjunction with park and ride Iota Again, this may be mos t feasi b le in the U.S. 41 corridor or possibly in a corridor crossing the Caloosahatchee River. 12. Explore Innovative service concepts, including local shuttle service and deviated fixed-route service, In smaller outlying communities. Lehigh Acres Springs and parts of North Fort Myers are candidates for serv i ce of th i s type The State Service Development program Is a potential source of funds for implementin g these services 13. Install bus sheltars and benches at key locati ons. Transfer locations, major street intersec tions and stops near major trip generators are candidates for bus shelters Benches can be installed wherever there appears to be sufficient demand 14. Review the condition of existing signage and amenities. There is concem over the of benches at bus stops some benches reported to be propped up on blocks or tilted This reflects negatively on the tra nsit system and leaves current and potentia l riders with the percept i on that no one cares. Signage should a lso be clear and correct. The condition (or existence) of sidewalks at bus stops Is also important. 15. Include route numbers on new bus sto p signs. This can help to orient riders unfamiliar with the system At major stops, a route map and schedule might a lso be posted 16. Provide information kloska at major transfer centers. These kiosks should conta i n informat i on on routes schedules fares, and the transit system as a whole A f ull system map should be posted along w ith maps of routes serving th e transfer center. Informat i on on alternate payment options (passes, mulllride tickets) should also be included. xvii

PAGE 20

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 17. Establish a fonnal marketing program for LeeTran. Transn agencies across t h e country are rea l iz ing that the provision of quality service is not sufficient to attract ridersh i p Trans i t must publ i cize itself to the general pub l ic and to specific markets i n order to reach ns maximum pote n tial. In some areas the trans i t system is i n such poor shape that a marketing program does not make sense; there is nothing to market. LeeTran i s essentially heaHhy, and would benefit greatly by an active market ing program. This recommendation will requ i re an additional staff person w i th primary responsibility for information, marketing and community outreach. Other small transit agencies in Florida that have established a marketing posrtion on their staff have attributed subs e quent ridership increases {on the order of ten percent) to increased marketing activities. A marketing program can also estab l ish LeeTran more firmly as part of the community. 18. Conduct a marketing campaign oriented toward downtown workers. This might be done in conjunction with a new downtown transportation center, but given the number of routes serving downtown Fort Myers, a campa i gn could be organ ized prior to the construction. Arrangements might be made with the county or with other large downtown employers to offer discounts to employees or to distribute monthly passes. 19. Continue to use specially painted buses to markettransil The Manatee bus has proven to be extreme l y popular. These types of buses can "liven up" the streeis and get the transrt system noticed. LeeTran must take care to ensure a consistent visual identification on a ll of ns buses. 20. Arrange for a map of the transit system to be Included In the local telephone directory. This is commonly done in many cities and is an excellent way of ensuring that basic information on the transrt system i s in nearly every home 21. Pursue construction of a transportation center In downtown Fort Myers. There is currently an application for federal funds to construct a new multimodal transportation center in downtown Current route layove r and transfer facilrtles consist of a series of bus shelters and signs along Monroe Street. Whi l e this arrangement functions reasonably well, it is not attractive to new riders A transportation center would be a weather-protected env i ronment for waiting and transferring passengers, and would also provide a greater sense of permanence for the system 22. Work with downtown redevelopment efforts In Fort Myers. Much of the discussion of future directions for LeeTran has focused on responding to population and employment growth, part icul arly in the south part of the county LeeTran should work actively as a xviii

PAGE 21

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY partner in downtown redevelopment. since downtown still functions as an important center of the transit system. The transportat i on center may spur i ncreased act i v i ty downtown. 23. Identify possible routing Improvements to serve transit-dependent areas. All areas characterized as primary transit dependent tracts are reasonably well served by the existing transit sys t em, but LeeTran should keep these areas in mind when considering i mprovements In terms of mobility needs, these areas are most critical. 24. Continue to work with the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Lee County. There is always a need to coordinate transportation disadvantaged services with the fixed route n etwork. 25. Create a "Transit on Patrol" program, which enables radlo .. qulpped transit vehic l es to report suspicious activities directly to local pollee departments. Some transit agenc i es have undertaken a similar program Transit on Patrol i s intended to combat crime and perceptions of crime, and also to tie the transit system more closely to the community 26. Continue to encourage public Input, possibly by forming a Citizens Transit Advisory Council. Transit systems with open channels for public input tend to be successful. 27. Increase LeeTran's Involvement in the transportation planning process. The curre n t i n termodal emphasis at the federal and state l evels and the increased recognition of the r ole that transit can play in the community suggest that LeeTran should be involved i n transportation decisions for Lee County. This is probably best accomplished at the metropolitan planning organization level. 28. Redesign and reprint the transit system map. Plans are underway to accomplish this. 29. Market transit service to tourists and visitors. The beach trolley is a very successful means of increasing awareness of transit for tourists and visitors Service to the Southwest Florida International Airport m i ght also be co n sidered although most tourists will choose a taxicab or a rental car. LeeTran might a l so work closely with area hotels and motels Actions to be Initiated over the Next One-to-Two years 30 . Conduct an operations analysis of LeeTran service. A full operatio n s analysis would examine the entire existing transit network as well as unserved a r eas of the county and xix

PAGE 22

LEE COUNTY TRANS I T DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 make recommendations for spec i fic route-level changes LeeTran has not undertaken such a study in recent years. 31. Examine route reconfigurations Responses to the on-board survey i nd i cated dissatisfaction with l ong t r avel times on the b u s, i n part because some routes are very circuitous Routes should be examined to determine whether minor reroutings are appropriate Th i s might be part of an operations analysis, but it can also be done on an ind i vidual route by route bas i s 32. Initiate later evening service on selected routes. Cand i date routes include those serving the Edison Mall and other evening activ i ty centers. Connections with residential areas of employees at these activity centers would be idea l A p i lot program involv ing t h r ee routes might provide an indication of demand for later service Serv i ce could be operated until 9 : 00 or 9:30 p.m on these selected routes. 33. Implement a Guaranteed Ride Home program. T hi s program is i ntended to encourage ridership by guaranteeing that a rider will be transported h ome if something unexpected causes him/he r to miss the l ast scheduled bus Typically, emp l oyees are enrolled in such a program through their workplace, and are only permitted t o use this service a few times per year. This program might be i mplemented in conjunction a ridesharing program as part of a broader effort to encourage aHematives to the single-occupant automobile. 34. Implement local shuttle service and deviated fixed-route service, using State Serv i ce Deve l opment funds. Lehigh Acres, Bonita Springs and parts of North Fort Myers are candidates for service of this type as noted above. 35 Become more Involved, possibly as a review agency, in the local land use planning process. Ori a global level land use patterns affect the potent i al for transit ridership. At a more immediate leve l such as sidewalks can make a difference in attracting potential riders. LeeTran should become involved perhaps as a reviewer of development proposals in current or planned service area 36 Examine potential routings to serve the Southwest Florida International Airport. A presence at the airport can encourage tourists and visitors to consider use of the system while they are in Lee County In airport employees are a potential source of ridersh i p XX

PAGE 23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Actions to be Initiated over the Next Three-to-Five Years 37. Provide Sunday service on selected routes. Sunday service was brought up in interv i ews and focus groups A pilot program i nvolving perhaps half of L eeTran's routes should be explored, if fund ing can be secured 38. Implement service to the new university when it opens in 1997. This is the implementation portion of a previous recommendation Universrties often generate a fair number of transrt trips, and involvement in the planning for the new u nivers i ty will hopefully ensure that access to transit i s convenient. 39. Encourage the establishment of high occupancy vehicle lanes on bridges or at toll plazas High occupancy vehicle lanes are typically open to buses and to vehi cles carrying two or more people The advantage to the transit system i s a potential trave l time saving at congested locations such as toll p l azas 40. Examine the need for an Improved southern transfer center. As deve l opment continues to occur in the southem part of the county, there may be a need for a l arger tra n sfer facility than the current bus sheher at Cypress Trace. This might be coordinated with a park and ride lot. 41. Consider a service extension to Pine Island. There i s currently no transit service in this portion of the county, and near-term demand may warrant cons i deration of an extens i on of the purp l e or ye llow route, or a newly-des i gned service xx i

PAGE 24

CHAPTF:R ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA CHAPTER ONE: Demographic Data, Surveys, Focus Groups, and Interviews INTRODUCTION In order to better p l an for the continu in g development and/o r improvement of a trans system it is necessary to gain an understanding ofthe environment wHhin which the system is operating. To this end, this chapter analyzes the demographic and economic conditions of Lee County and its population utilizing Census data, as well as information from an on-board passenger survey. an operator survey, and interv i ews with focus groups and key local officials. LEE COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS This section summarizes demographic and economic data for lee County Speci fic demographic characteristics related to potentia l trans use are presented All data were obtained from the 1990 and 1980 Census of Population and Housing Appendix A consists of tables which include data from all census tracts Population and Population Density T able 1 displays population, population growth, and population density for F l orida and Lee County. Lee County has almost twice the population density as the State of Florida. Table 2 shows populat i on for the five most populous census tracts in Lee County. The most populous tract is number 104 03, which is located in southern Cape Coral. Table 3 presents population densy for those tracts with over 3 ,000 persons per square mile. The densest tract Is number 15 with 4,887 persons per square mile This tract i s located in the center of the county. Most of the county has less than 2 500 persons per square mile Generally high population dens i ty is more conducive to trans use. The population densities by tract can be seen in Figure 1 with red showing the tracts with over 3,000 persons per square mile Population growth for the county from 1980 to 1990 was over 60 percent or an increase of 129,847 people. Because new census tracts have been added it is not possible to prov ide growth data for all census tracts in the county. 1

PAGE 25

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN, 1995-1999 Area Florida lee County 2 Table 1 Popu l ation and Population Density Po p ul ation 12,937 926 335,113 Trac:t 104.03 502 19.02 5 01 15 Popu lation Growth (1980'1990) 32.8% 63.3% Table 2 Trac:t Population Populatio n 12 549 12,347 8 ,809 8,287 8,030 Table 3 Trac:t Population Density Density Tract '(persona per square mile) 15 4 ,887 1 4 724 2 4,325 7 3,989 5.02 3 ,93 2 3.02 3,716 8 3,702 3 .01 3,415 14 3 407 10 8.02 3,345 10 3,218 11 3,189 106.01 3,080 9 3,034 Density (persons per square mile) 240 417

PAGE 26

>. -u; c Q) 0 c: c: 1ii ::J 0 c..Q) 0 Q) Q_....J I 3

PAGE 27

this page IS blank

PAGE 28

CHAF'TER ONE: DEIIIOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Population Age Characterlatlcs T able 4 shows age group percentages for the county and Florida Lee County has a higher percentage than the state for the age categories of 55-59 years and 60-years-and-over. Nearty one-third of the county's population is 60 years of age and over. Table 5 shows the tracts that have greater than 30 percent concentrations of the age group 0-17 years and the tracts th a t have greater than 50 percent of the age group 60 years and over Age groups on both ends of the scale are of significant i nterest in regard to transit use because the young and the elderly often do not have adequate access to automobiles and therefore rely more on public transportation Figures 2 and 3 show the percent of the popu l ation under age 18 and the percent of the population age 60 and over. The highest percentages are shown in red. Tract 5 02, with almost 40 percent of the population under 18 years of age has the highest proportion of persons in this age category i n th e county This tract i s loca ted i n the cent e r of Fort Mye rs. Tract 205 .01, in northe as t Cape Coral has the highest proportion o f persons age 60 and over (76 percent). Area 0-17 lee County 19 .6% Florida 22.1% Table 4 Population Age Characterlatlca for L&e County and Florida A OH 18-24 25-44 7 .2% 26.7% 9 .6% 9.2% 30.5% 10.1% 55 60 & over 5 .3% 31. 7% 4 .5% 23.6% 5

PAGE 29

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Table 5 Population Age Characteristics Tract Percentage under Age 18 Tract Percentage Age 60 and over 5 .02 39 9% 205 .01 76.0 % 5.01 39.2% 101.02 75.1% 403.03 39 0% 603 66. 0% 403.02 38 6% 17 03 61.2% 403.01 37.5% 208 59.1% 6 35.8% 8 57.4% 3 .02 33.5% 403 04 54.9% 401.03 32 6% 702 53.1% 102.01 30.4% 108 .01 52.9% 402.02 30. 2% 602 50.3% 6

PAGE 30

-:,J c 0 -Q) Q) 0 a. _,J 0 a. I C\J Q) "' "' .S! :::J C') -LL 0 7

PAGE 31

this page IS blank

PAGE 32

0 c.o Q) C) '-Q) > 0 c.?: o c: -ca o _(.) ::J Q) Q.Q) o....J a.. I 0 -0 9

PAGE 33

this page IS blank

PAGE 34

CHAPTER ONE: DEIIIOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Transponation Disadvantaged Populat ion Chapter 427 of the Florida Statues defines transportation disadvantaged (TD) persons as: . those persons who because of physical or mental disability, income status, or age are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, social actNities or children who are handicapped or high-risk or at risk as defined ins. 411.202." The state's coordinated TO system serves two popula t ion groups. The first group referred to in this report as the Ca t egory I TO population, includes disabled, elderly, and l ow-income persons and children who are "high-risk" or "at-risk". These Category I persons are eligib l e for trips that are subs i dized by social serv i ce or other governmental agencies The second population group, referred to as the Category II TO populat i on, inc l udes those persons who are transportation disadvantaged according to the definition in Chapter 427 (i.e. they are unable to transport themse l ves or to purchase transportation) Members of this population a subset of the Category I population, are eligible to receive the same subsidies as Category I persons, plus they are eligib l e to receive TO Trust Fund monies for trips that are not subsidized by a social service or other governmental agency. Table 6 presents information on the TO popu l ation for the county and shows the number of perllons and the percentage of t otal county population in both categories TO data are 19g4 est i mates derived from the CUTR publication "Florida Five Year Transportation Disadvantaged P l an," June 1992 Tabl e 6 1994 Trans ponatlo n D isadva n taged Populatio n b y G roup TD COtogory II TDC-1 TD COtogory I .._..,_,. Total T ... l Area Dlso-Elderly Non-Elderly (Percent of (Poreent of NOn-Oioa bfed County County Popu l otion) Population) Lee County 58 261 80,040 30,891 1 69,192 29,651 (50 5%) (8.8%) 11

PAGE 35

LEE COUNTY TRANSfT DEVeLOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Income Characteristics Table 7 shows the distribution of household income in the county and in Florida. Lee County has a lower percentage of households with incom es under $10,000 and over $50,000 compared to the state percentages. Table 8 provides information on the census tracts concentrations of 20 percent or more households incomes less than $10 000. Income is an important factor in determining usage of conventional public systems. I n general low-income persons rely more on public transit for mobility and access to jobs, shopping, and entertainment. In Lee County there are only 10 census tracts where 20 percent of the households have an annual income below $10,000 as shown in Table 8. Tracts 5.02 and 1, l ocated in Fort Myers, have very significant concentrations of low -income households Median income f o r the county is $28,448. Figure 4 shows the percent of households with income under $10,000. Tracts with greater t han 20 percent of households with income under $10,000 are shown in red. Table 7 Household Income Distribution Area $0 $9,999 $10 ,00 0 $20,000 $30,000 $;40,000Over $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $50,000 . Lee C011nty 11.4% 20.6% 20.8% 16.6% 11.0% 19.7% Florida 15.1% 20. 1% 18.8% 14.8% 10.4% 20.8% Table 8 Income Characteristics for Lee County Percent wtth lncome Tract Under $10,000 5.02 49. 1% 1 45 .6% 5.01 28.5% 403.04 25.7% 3 .02 24.7% 6 23.9% 2 23 .9% 303 23 1% 7 20.7% 8 20.4% 12

PAGE 36

0 0 0 0 T"" Q) "0 c :::> Q) E 0 (.) c \.:_ i 'Sl I -<13 ::::1 c c <( >. .... .c: c: ::I -0 (.) (/) C1) "0 C1) -.....J 0 .c: Q) (/) ::::1 0 :I: -0 c Q) (.) Q) a_ .qQ) :::3 0) -u. 13

PAGE 37

this page IS blank

PAGE 38

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Vehicle Availability per Household Table 9 presents the distribution of vehicle availabilijy among househo lds in Lee County and F lorida Table 10 inc ludes census tracts where at least 25 percent of households do not have a vehicle available. In Lee County almost 6 percent of households do not own a vehicle This is much less than t he Florida average (9.2 percent). Almost all of the tracts the county have at least one vehicle available. The census tracts with high percentages of zero-vehicle households are in areas concentrations of lowincome households. Interestingly, these t racts are all l ocated in Fort Myers. Figure 5 shows the percentage of househo lds with n o vehicles available. The tracts wijh over 30 percent of households with no vehicles are shown in red. Table 9 Vehicle Availability per Household Number of Vehicles Available Area None One Two Three or More Lee County 5 .8% 45.5% 37.5% 11.2% Florida 9.0% 41.0% 37.0% 13.0 % Table 10 Vehicle Availability per Household Tract Percent with No Vehicle Available 5.02 38.3% 1 38.1% 2 36.9% 6 30.1% 15

PAGE 39

this page IS blank

PAGE 41

this page IS blank

PAGE 42

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Employment Characteristlcs Ta bl e 11 d i splays the percentage of the popu l ation 16 years and over in the labor fo r ce and the pe r centage of the labor force who are employed (non-military). The percentage of Lee County workers in the labor force (54 8 percent) is slightly lower than the state percentage (60.4 percent). This is consistent with the h i gh percentage of persons over 60 years of age, many of whom are retired Area Lee County Florida Travel to Work Table 11 Employment Characteristics Percentage in Percentage of Labor Force Labor Force Employed 54 .8% 95.6% 60.4% 94.2% Table 12 shows work locations and the extent of intercounty commuting lor Lee County. The Census Bureau defines the centra l cities in Lee County as Fort Myers and Cape Coral. Forty nine percent of the labor force works within the central cities, while 42 percent works in the suburbs. Table 13 shows census tracts within the county where greater than 70 percent of the r esidents worked within a central city. Not surprisingly, all these tracts were located in Fort Myers and Cape Coral. Figure 6 shows the percent of workers commuting to a central city The tracts with over 70 percent of workers commuting to a central city are shown in red. Table 12 Work Commuting Patterns Area Work In Work In Work Outside Central City Suburbs the County Lee County 49.0% 42.0% 9.0% 19

PAGE 43

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Table 13 Work Commuting Pattern Tract Percent Working In Central Cities 108.03 79.1% 106 .01 75.8% 101.03 74.9% 103 .01 74. 7% 105 02 74.6% 105.01 74 .5% 107 74. 5% 1 72 .4% 104 02 71. 7% 108.02 71. 5% 2 71. 1% 1 06.02 70 .6% 103.04 70.5% 9 70 .4% 108.01 70 2% 102.01 70.1% 20

PAGE 44

(/') Q) ---() co -c: Q) () 0 -0> c: --::J E E 0 () Q) .:: 0 s 0 -c Q) Q) a. I <.0 ::J 0> -u. i ; i . i .. ...:.. : . . . . 0 -"' "' :::;; 0 21

PAGE 45

this page IS blank

PAGE 46

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Travel Time to Work Table 14 presents the distribution of trave l time to work for Lee County and F l orida. One-third of Lee County residents have work trip commutes between 10 and 19 minutes The distribution of travel times with i n the county is nearly ident i cal to the statewide d i stribution. Table 15 shows tracts where 45 percent of workers have t r avel t i mes greater than 30 m i nutes. The tracts the highest percentages of travel time-tracts 402.02 402.03, 403.07 and 402.04are located in the eastern part of the county F i gure 7 shows the percent of workers travelling over 30 minutes. Tracts with over 45 percent of workers travel ing over 30 minutes are shown in red. Area 0-9 min Lee County 16% Florida 16% Table 14 Travel Time to Work Travel Time In Minutes 10..19 min 20-29 min Tract 402. 02 402.03 403.07 402. 04 702 203 303 104.01 33% 22% 33% 21% Table 15 Travel Time Percentage with Travel Time over 30 minutes 60.7% 57.3% 56.6% 46 .6% 47.0% 46.7% 45.6% 45.4% 30-39 min 18% 17% 40+ m i n 11% 13% 23

PAGE 47

this page IS blank

PAGE 48

"' "' Figure 7 Percent o f Workers with Travel T ime to Work Over 30 Minutes .. Percent OWW45% iii 35%10 .. % 0 25%1034% e Undol25 % \ ' Lee County .; ; ' N 0 5 10 Miles

PAGE 49

this page IS blank

PAGE 50

CHAPTER O NE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Mea n s of T rave l to W ork Tabie 16 shows workers means of transportat ion to w ork Use of public transportat ion for the journe y to work is low in Lee County c ompared to the state The overwhelm ing majority of w orkers are drivin g alone. Ta ble 17 shows carpoo ling and public transportation use by t ract Figure 8 sho ws the percent o f worke rs w ho carpool to/from work. The tra cts with over 25 percent of workers c a rpooling are shown in red Figure 9 sho w s the percent of workers using public t ra nsportation to/from work The tracts w ith over 2 percent of workers us ing pub li c transportation are shown in red Table 16 Means of Travel t o Work Drive Public Other Walk or Area Alone Carpool Tranal t Meana W ork at Home Lee County 77 4 % 15.3% 0 .9% 2 1% 4 .3% Florida 77 .1% 14.1% 2 0% 2 .0% 4 8% Table 17 Mea n s of Travel to Work Tract P ercen tage Usin g Carpool a Tract Percentage Using P ublic Transportation 403.08 43. 2% 503.03 19.6% 3.02 30 7% 401.05 17 2% 5.02 28 .6% 5 02 8 4% 5 .01 28 6% 2 5 2% 7 27 .6% 6 4 .9% 205.01 25.9% 1 3 .9% 6 25.7% 5 01 2 .6% 7 2 6 % 403 .06 2 2% 27

PAGE 51

this page IS blank

PAGE 52

(/) 0 0 a. '-ro () C) c: 'E ::I 0 (.) Cl> 0 Cl> -c: Q) Q) a_ I -' I _j

PAGE 53

this page IS blank

PAGE 54

c: 0 (1j "t 0 -' f I < I \ 0. (/) c: 1-0 ..c ::J a.. 0> c: ->. (/) ::::> c ::I 0 () (J) ..::&:. ".....J 0 0 - i 0 c (J) "' (J) a.. I 0) (J) "-:l 0> -u.

PAGE 55

this page IS blank

PAGE 56

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Demographic Summary Lee County residents are more likely to be elderty than Florida residents. Household income and vehicle availability data suggest that the population is largely middle class, with lower percentages in the county than in the state at the opposije ends of the scale. Although Table 16 shows that the majority of workers in the county drive alone, compared to statewide figures Lee County workers are slightly more likely to carpool and slightly less likely to use transit for the work trip. OTHER LEE COUNTY CHARACTERISTICS VIsitors/Tourists The beautiful Gulf beaches in Lee County attract many tourists as well as "part-time" winter residents. According to the Lee Visitor and Convention Bureau's 1993 Annual Summal}', in 1993 more than 1.5 million people visited the county. The number of visitors to the area by month are shown in Table 18. As is characteristic of many areas on the west coast of Florida, the season with the most visitors to the area is winter. In the winter of 1993 852, n2 tourists and "part-time" residents (53 percent of the total number of visijors for the year) swe lle d the peak season population. Table 18 also indicates increases in the' number of total visitors in 1993 compared to 1992. Three months of data from 199 4 are shown, and these figures show continuing growth in the number of people visiting Lee County. 33

PAGE 57

LEE COUifTY TRANSIT DEVe.OPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Table 18 Visitors to Lee County 1993 1994 1993 Number of Vl*ltora P"n:ent Change from Same Period of Prevloue Year January 159 ,6 88 +0.5% February 207,362 +5.0% Ma rc h 245,956 +4,0% Aprtl 239,744 +11. 1% WINTER 852,772 +5.4% May 105 ,276 +7 .7% June 106,253 +1.0% July 124,376 +6 .9% August 75,064 +1.6% SPRING/SUMMER 412,973 +4.5% September 74,156 +3.9% October 67, 371 + 0.9% November 74,142 -1. 3% Decem be r 117,611 +1.5% FALL 333,280 +1.9% TOTAL 1 599,025 +1.3% 1994 ' ' ' January 165 917 +3.9% February 2 1 0 ,617 +1.6% March 251,720 +2 .3% Source : lee Visitor and Convention Bu.reau -1993 Annual SummsJY, Rnearch Dati Servicn, I nc. 34

PAGE 58

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Land Use As will be noted later in this chapter one of the key topics discussed in intervie ws with l oca l officials was that Lee County is experiencing rapid growth. Many officials believed that wit h the international airport and the new university most of the growth and development Will be spreading to the south According to The Lee Plan 1993 Codification, to accommodate the county's rapid growth, future land use w ill be guided by a future urban area concept which will direct the extension of services such as roads, sewerage, water, and mass transn to areas of higher intens ity residential, commercial, and industrial usage. In Lee County, the intensive development areas are clustered in and around Fort Myers, North Fort Myers, and Cape Coral. The standard density range is from 8 dwelling units per acre to 14 dWelling unns per acre, while the maximum density is 22 units per acre. By virtue of the cnies' central locations, the county s current development panems, an d the available and potential levels of public services, these cities are well suned to accommodate high densities and intens ities As Lee County moves toward becoming a metropolitan complex of a half-million people, these centrally located urban nodes can offer a diversity of lifestyles, cosmopolnan shopping opportunities, and specialized professional services that befit such a region Personnel at the Fort Myers Downtown Redevelopment Association predict that the D owntown Fort Myers area will become an entertainment district With shopping, dancing, jazz clubs, and other forms of recreation. Also, if the state passes legislation allowing casino/riverboat gambling, Lee County will. be seriously considered as a locat ion. The university community l and use category provides for Florida's tenth university and for associated support development. Within the university commu nity are t hree distinct sub categories: universny campus, university endowment area, and the university village. Overall average density for the University Village shall not exceed 2.5 units per acre. Clustered densities wnhin th'e area may reach 15 units per acre to accommodate university hous ing. The airport commerce areas are commercial and industrial lands adjacent to the Southwest Florida International Airport needed to accommodate projected growth through the year 2010. These areas may include mixed-use developments consisting of light manufacturing or assembly, warehousing and distribution facilities ; offices, ground transportation. and airport-related terminals or transfer facilijies; hotels/motels, meeting facilities, and other services: and ancillary commercial uses. Because this area is located within the Six Mile Cypress Basin and is also a primary point of entry into Lee County special environmental and design review guidelines will be applied to its development to maintain the appearance of this area as a primary point of entry into Lee County 35

PAGE 59

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Parking Policies According to CUTR's Parl
PAGE 60

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Table 19 Lee County Roadway Deficiencies, 1993 Ex isting and Forecasted ' .level of .. Roadway Segment . .. .. Si1Nice 1 .. ' ' ' EXISnNG DEFICIENCIES '.. : Bayshore Rd (SR 78) -Williamsburg Rd. to Brewers Rd. F Bayshore Rd (SR 78) Business 41 to U .S. 41 F Gladiolus Dr. (SR 865) Summerlin Rd. (CR 869) to F Old Gladio l u s Homestead Rd./Richmond Ave. L eeland Hts. Blvd. to E Immokalee Rd. (SR 82) McGregor Blvd (CR 867) Colonial Blvd. (SR 884) lo F Winkler Rd. McGregor Blvd. (CR 867) College Parkway to F Cypress L ake Dr. McGregor Blvd. (CR 867) Cypress Lake Or. to F Gladiolus Dr. (SR 865) Palm Beach Blvd. (SR 80) Ortiz Ave. to 1-75 F Pine Island Rd. (SR 78)U S. 41 to Del Prado Blvd F San Gartos Blvd. (CR 865) Mantanzas Pass Bridge to F Hurricane Pass Bridge San carlos Blvd. (CR 865) Hurricane Pass Bridg e to F Summerlin Rd. (CR 869) San Carlos Blvd. (CR 865) Summerlin Rd. (CR 869) to F Gladiolus Dr. (SR 865) U .S. 41 Island Pari< Rd. to S i x Mi le Cypress Parkway F U .S. 41 -Six Mile Cypress Parkway to Petty's Way F LeeTran -Route Ojlerating on Segment ... Gold 90 (partial) Gold 90 (partial) none none S ilve r 60 (partial) none none Blue 100 none Shuttle Bus Shuttle Bus Orange 50 S i lver 60 Silver 60 . FORECASTED DEFICIENCIES .. .,..;:. ,. t: .. ,; . .. -:-"' > .. ; ". Metro Parkway Daniels Rd. to Six Mile Cypress Parkway F none Source: LH Coun.ty ConcutTancy IMntQtment lmtenfory snd 199M3 Dept of Community Dev&fOpment 37

PAGE 61

LEE CouNTY TRAIISTT DEVeLOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 LEETRAN ON-BOARD SURVEY LeeTran is an independent department governed by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners that provides fixed-route transit service to the county's residents LeeTran provides bus service on 12 routes throughout the county. In Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 (October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993), the system carried approximately 1,750,000 passenger trips. On-Board Survey Methodology The LeeTran on-board surveys were designe d to be filled out on the bus and returned to the drivers. No mail-back provisions were provided. Surveys were printed in English only. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix B. The LeeTran on-board survey was conducted in December 1993. On each bus surveyed, all boarding patrons over the age of 12 were presented and asked to fill out a survey. A total of 1,000 surveys were passed out, which resulted in a total sample of 370 completed surveys Therefore, the return rate for the survey was 37 percent. Responses were weig hted by average daily ridership per route to reflect totalleeTran ridership A completed survey was not a requirement to be included in the survey results. All completed questions were Included in the analysis, regardless of whether the entire survey was filled out. Survey resuHs were reviewed, coded, and entered into a database by CUTR personnel. These files were then reviewed and subsequently analyzed by CUTR using a microcomputer version of a statistical analysis package known as Statistical Application Software (SAS). On-Board Survey Analysis The LeeTran on-board survey analysis is comprised of two major sections: demographic information and travel behavior. Each section provides information that w ill be useful in improving the performance and service of the leeTran system. Demographic data collected in the LeeTran survey include age, gender, vehicle ownership and resident status. This demographic information identifies current market characteristics of LeeTran riders and may also be used to determine how this market segment has changed over time. 38

PAGE 62

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS ANO OTHER DATA Travel behav ior is established through the collection of i nfonn a tion such as trip purpose modes of access and frequency of use This infonnation contributes to effective schedul i ng bus stop planning, and general policy decisions From the demographic and travel behavior characteristics, a statistical ridership profile can be detennined for weekday LeeTran patrons. This profile will enable LeeTran to pinpoint specific market characteristics and segments wh ich are useful for the implementation of marketing strateg i es. lHTran System Profile Demographic l nfonnatlon A number of questions were asked of patrons in order to establish a demographic profile of the typica l LeeTr a n patron. Demographic-related questions incl uded age gender auto ownership, and resident status Each of these questions is briefly discussed, and the responses are presented in graphic form Figure 10 shows demographic infonnation for LeeTran riders Table 20 and Figure 11 provide compari sons between LeeTran riders and Lee County residents ( from 1990 Census data ) fo r each demograph i c variable Age -Sixty-three percent of the survey respondents were between the ages of 18 and 44 This age group constitutes 33 percent of Lee County's population. Only 10 percent of the respondents were under the age of 18, and only 9 percent were over 65 years of age, compared to 20 and 24 percent for Lee County, respectively These comparisons are represented i n Table 20 and Figure 11. GenderSystemwide more wo men used LeeTran service than men. S i xty-five percent of the survey respondents were female wh il e only 35 percent were male Th i s is typ i cal of findings on gender for other trans i t systems. The ge n de r split In Lee County was 48 percent m a le and 52 percent female Vehicle Ownership Near1y 56 percent o f the survey respondents indicated owning at least one vehicle, while 44 percent reported not owning a vehicle This suggests that a large portion of LeeTran patrons are captives and is typical of a conventional bus system For Lee County as a who l e only 6 percent of households do not own a vehi d e Resident Status As i n Figure 10 97 percent of the rid ers surveyed were full-t i me residents, wh ile 2 percent stated they were part-time residents and 1 percent touristslvisnors 39

PAGE 63

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN, 1995-1999 Summary of Lee Tran and Lee County Demographic Comparisons -Comparisons between LeeTran users and the Lee County population are shown in Figure 11. Table 20 provides data for Lee County In three demographic categories. LeeTra n riders are more likely than the population at large to be female, and to be between 18 and 44 years old Demographic categories underrepresented in LeeTran ridership includes persons under 18, and persons 65 and older LeeTran riders also own fewer vehicles. 40

PAGE 64

under18 18 to 24 yea rs 45 to 54 y ears 55 to 64 years Figure 10 Demographics LeeTran On-Board Survey Age 10% 1 Vehicle OWne,.hlp Female 65% Gender Male 35% Resident Status P a rt-time r e si dent 1% 2% resident 97% 41

PAGE 65

LEE COUNTY TRANSTT DEVEI.OPIIIENT Pt.AH, 199 5 1 9 9 9 4 2 Table 2 0 Demogra phic Comparis o n of LeeTran Riders w ith Lee County Populatio n LeeTran On-Board Survey Category LeeT ra n . lee COUnty Gender Mal e 35% 48% Fema l e 65% 52% Age 18 yea rs or under 10% 20% 18 to 2 4 years 21% 7% 2 5 to 34 y e ars 20% 14% 35 to 44 years 22% 12% 45 to 54 yea r s 9% 10% 55 to 64 years 9% 12% 65 to 7 4 y e ars 5% 15% 75 y e ars or more 4% 9% Veh i c le Ownership No n e 44% 6% O n e 36% 45% T w o 14% 38% T h ree 4% 9% Four 1% 2% F ive or more 1% 1 %

PAGE 66

Female 65% 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 75 years or more Figure 11 LeeTran & Lee County Demographic Comparisons LeeTran On-Board Survey Male 35% Gender Female 52% Age Vehicle Ownership E LeeTran Lee ll!llll Lee Tran Lee CO
PAGE 67

LEE COUNTY TRANSFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 LeeTran System Profile Travel Behavior Trip Origin Purpose Figure 12 shows 60 percent of the respondents reported their trip originated at home. Ten percent indicated starling their trip at work. Fourteen percent transfem!d from another bus. while the "'maining 16 percent started their trip elsewhe"'. Trip Destination PurposeTrip destinations are also summarized in Figure 12. Fifty percent of the respondents indicated that they were headed to work. Thirty-four percent we"' either going shopping, headed to school, or on their way home, while 13 percent of the respondents were bound for some other destination. Mode of Access As seen in Figure 13 37 percent of the "'spondents only walked one block to get to the bus stop. Overall 16 percent of LeeTran riders walked two blocks, 8 pe rcent walked three blocks, and 14 percent walked four blocks or more. 44

PAGE 68

' Figure 12 LeeTran Trip Orig i n / Dest i nation LeeTran On-Board Survey W ork Home School Shopping Doctor Other Transf e r Trip Origin 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Trip Dest i nati o n Work Home School Shopp ing Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 4 5

PAGE 69

46 Figure 13 LeeTran Mode of Access LeeTran On-Board Survey Mode of Access 1 block 2 b locks 3 blocks 4 blocks or more Other Don't Know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

PAGE 70

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA LeeTran System Profile -Fares and R idership Patterns The following tables and figures summarize each of the survey questions that were not used in either the demographic or travel behavior profiles. The following questions are summarized: Q6 Is the bus stop you used to get on th is bus conveniently located? Q8 On the average, how many days a week do you take this bus ride? Q11 -What type of fare did you pay when you boarded this bus? Convenience of Bus Stop -As seen in Table 21, 87 percent of the respondents were pleased with the location of the bus stops. Only 9 percent of the resoondents believed that the bus stop i s not conveniently located Frequency of LeeTran UseSixty-six percent of the respondents ride LeeTran five days per week or more. This indicates that the majority of LeeTran patrons are frequent users. Only 8 percent used the bus less than twice per week as shown in Figure 14. Fare Category -Figure 15 indicates that 47 percent of the respondents paid the full fare. TwelVe percent used the $2.00 daily pass, and 12 percent transferred from another LeeTran bus. Ten percent paid either the discounted student fare o r disabled fare Table 21 Convenience of Bua Stop LeeTran On-Board Survey Is the bus atop you used to get On this' bus convenientlY loeated? Yes No Don' t Know Percent 1%).' . . 87% 9% 4% 47

PAGE 71

46 Figure 14 Frequency of LeeTran Use Lee Tran On-Board Survey First time use 1 day per week 2 day per week 3 day pe r week 4 day pe r week 5 day per week 6 or more days per week

PAGE 72

Figure 15 LeeTran Rider Method of Fare Payment LeeTran On-Board Survey Regular Fare Student Transfer $2.00 Da ily Pass Disabled Monthly/Multi-Ride Pass Senior 49

PAGE 73

LEE COUNTY TRANSrr DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 ConunenuuSuggestions Questions 9 and 10 gave the respondents the opportunity to express the one thing they like most and least about riding the bus. The responses were coded and the resuHs are presented in Tables 22 and 23. Thirty-three percent of the respondents were pleased with the courtesy of the drivers and the comfort of the bus (mainly the air conditioning). Twenty-three percent liked the convenience, and 24 percent were happy just to be able to reach their destinations. What the respondents disliked the most about the service is that wait times and trip durations both are too long and service is too and generally not dependable. 50 Table 22 Positive Comments LeeTran On-Board Survey Tell us the one thfng' you like moat riding the Ill? . . Courtesy (Driver) I Comfort Gets me there Convenience Economical People Don't have to drive I No hassles Table 23 Negative Comments LeeTran On-Board Survey Tell .,. the one thing you like least about riding tile bll8? Takes too long I Infrequent I Not dependable Uncomfortable I Overcrowding Run longer I Run on weekends People Walking distance Discourteous drivers Cost Pen:ent 34% 24% 23% 8% 6% 5% Pen:ent(%) 39% 16% 15% 10% 9% 8% 3%

PAGE 74

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS ANO OTHER DATA LEETRAN OPERATOR SURVEY In addition to the on-board survey completed by the riders, a survey was also prepared for the LeeTran bus operators. Since bus operators are in direct contact with passengers they are an Invaluable source of inform at ion concerning LeeTran's dally operations. A copy of the operator survey is contained in Appendix B A total of 33 surveys were re turned by the opera tors The most frequent rider complaints expressed to the operators are presented in Table 24. The two most common compla ints were the l ack of l ater evening service and lack of Sunday serv ice. The riders also complained about infrequent service routes not taking them where they want to go, the low number of benches/sh e lters, and uncomfortable buses. For the most part, the operators felt that the riders' complaints were valid The operators stated that Improvemen ts should be made in se veral areas Many expressed a need for Sunday service and more time in their schedules as shown in Table 25. More than half of the operators who responded stated that they want better route and schedule I nformation Also m any operators agreed with the ride rs th a t shelters should be erected at more bus stops Operators were a l so asked about potential safety problems on leeTran' s routes Among the safety problems mentioned were maneuvering vehicles in shopping centers and Jama i ca Bay, the improper and/or unsafe locations of certain bus stop signs, the old age and poor condition of the Blue Bird buses. and the fact that speeding is often necessary to maintain route schedules. In addHion a number of other potential safety hazards were a lso mentioned by the opera tors as illustrated in Table 26. Fifteen operators responded that the Orange 50 route was especially difficult to ma i ntain on time as sho w n in Table 27. The Silver 60 route was mentioned eight t imes, and the Green 20 route was mentioned fiVe times as being difficult for maintain ing route schedules No other routes were mentioned more than three times. The drivers were asked what routes should be modified and why; their responses are Indicated in Table 28. The common change mentioned was having more time in their schedules With six responses the Orange 50 route was the most common route associated wHh thi s problem. The majority of drivers felt that night serv i ce and Sunday service were needed Of the 33 operators surveyed 25 suggested night serv i ce and 21 suggested Sunday service Th i s information is presented in Table 29. 51

PAGE 75

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOP111ENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Table 24 Moat Frequent Passenger Complalnte about LeeTran Identified by Bua Operators LeeTran Operator Survey Moet Complaints Weighted' #ofReeponses Need evening service 139 Need Sunday service 119 Infrequent service 77 No bus shelters/benches 53 Bus doesn't go where I want 49 Bus sChedule too hard to understand 22 Bus is not comfortable 22 Bus is not clean 21 Route/destination not clear 20 Passengers cannot get information 12 Bus leaves stop too 12 Eating or drinking on bus 8 Bus is late 6 Need more d irect routes 5 Need more buses on routes 5 Blue Bird buses are old 5 Too frequent changes i n routes/schedules 5 Fare is too high 3 Need service to airport 3 Drivers rude 2 Incorrect information by phone operator 2 Smoking on bus 1 Need more bus stop signs 1 'FiYe poinb for each first PrioritY ranking, down to one point fot ftfth priority rankk'lg, 52 Figure16 Validity of Passenger Complainte ae Reported by Bus Operators LeeTran Operator Survey .... ,...,. .. ,.._ "' v .. .. .,. 33 30 21 18 15 9 9 6 9 5 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

PAGE 76

CHAPTER ONE: D EMOGRAPHICS A N D OTHER D ATA Tab le 25 Improvement A,. .. for lAeT,.n Identified b y Bus Ope,.tora LeeT,.n Ope rator Su rve y I mprove me n t .. Wei g h ted orR .. pon ... More ti m e in schedul es 92 21 Operate Sunday service 85 20 Provide better route/schedule i nlonnation 60 18 Put up shelters at bus stops 55 18 Operate new smaller vehicles 48 23 Maintain buses more frequently 39 11 Reduce headway 29 8 Extend evening service 14 4 Make Sanibel on or eliminate it 5 1 .. .. Charge e xtra lor ,;, ; y Creek pick up 5 1 Red should h ave tw o or three buses 5 More frequent service (every 112 hour) 4 1 Information operator to alleviate supervisors 3 1 Lower 1he lares 3 2 Tabla 28 LaeTran Safety Problem Identified by Bue Operat o re LeeTran Operat o r Survey Sfety Prolllem : of ResponHS M aneuvering i n a nd out of shopping centers 5 Bus stop signs in impro per and/or unsafe place 5 Problems with old buses ; especially Blue Birds 4 No safety problems 4 Forced speeding to maintain schedule 3 M aneuvering In Jamaica B a y (spec ifica lly U tums) 2 L e ft t urns on t o or crossing over lo u r lan e s of traffic 2 1Q..hour Saturday shifts are too lon g 1 More bus stop signs 1 Full buses (stan dlng room only) 1 Road conditions on VIOlet Cypress Trace I s too oongested for b u s transfer point 1 Construction In Cape Coral 1 Drivers' seats are uncomfortable 1 53

PAGE 77

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Table 27 Routes with Schedule Problems Identified by Bus Operators LeeTran Operator Survey Difficult to Maliltlln;Route Sclledules> .tlofRMpoiiSM Orange 50 15 Green 20 5 SilVer 60 Southbound 4 Silver 60 4 Red 110 3 Brown 80 2 Green 10 1 Table 28 LeeTran Routes to Modify Identified by Bus Operators LeeTran Operator Survey < IdentifYing Route Modification . Modification Orange 50 Need more time in schedule 6 Silver 60 Need more time in schedule 3 Orange 50 Add another bus 2 Brown 80 Need more tim e in schedule 2 Green 10/20 Reduce the number of green routes 1 Orange 50 Health Park should be on call only 1 Purple 70 7:00 a.m. run should be an express 1 Brown 80 Service Pine Manor and San Cartos Partk 1 Brown 80 Should cover Royal Palm and Matthews Drive area 1 Gold 90 Need more time in schedule 1 Red 110 Service Cypress Trace to Bonita Springs 1 -Establish new route on Daniels near the airport 1 -Sho u ld be more routes in Cape Coral 1 Table 29 Response to Questions 7 and 8 LeeTran Operator Survey QUMtlon Yes .. No 7 Is night service necessary? 25 8 8. Is Sunday service necessary? 21 12 54

PAGE 78

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS ANO OTHER DATA FOCUS GROUPS WITH NON-USERS Conducting focus groups with non-users provides highly useful infonnation to a transit system Such non-users represent the potential riders of the system, and their perceptions and observations provide insight as to how the transit system is viewed among the general public In addition, thei r opinions can provide the transit system with suggestions for improving serv ice, thus capturing the potential users. The focus groups are intended to provide certain qualitative infonnation regarding the transit system by faci li tating discuss i ons. Two focus group sessions for non:users were scheduled in Fort Myers for residents who had not used the system in at least the past six months. T he first meeting was scheduled at noon on Monday May 16, 1994. Invited participants in this first session included Lee County employees. A second focus group was scheduled for noon on Tuesday, May 17 1994; however, none ofthe eight invited participants whose names were randomly se l ected from the area telephone directory, was able to attend The meetings were intended to provide valuable infonnation regarding the impressions and attitudes non-users harbor about public transit in Lee County Appendix C presents the outline used to facilitate the discussions. Assessments One of the primary reasons focus group participants do not use the transit system in Lee County is simply the i nconvenience For many people, it is more convenient to use their own automobiles to get to work or to run errands. tn addition the non-users argue that trips on the bus take much longer than by private car, so it is much easier to drive. Many have neither the time nor the patience to take the longer trip by bus. Needing to wait for a bus at a stop is also considered a majo r inconvenience. Several ofthe focus group participants also have children to care for and they often cannot rely on a bus fixed schedule. Parents often worry about what would happen in an emergency situation if they had to rely on the bus system. They felt more peace of mind knowing they could use their vehicle and immediately travel directly where they needed to go. Another factor contributing to the inconvenience of the bus system was LeeTran's lim i ted service hours. Those who worked late evening hours or were taking night classes (at the University of South Florida for example) were not able to use the bus system to get home since the hours do not fit their schedules 55

PAGE 79

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Non-users also cited other reasons for not utilizing transit. Some noted the geograp hic makeup of the area, s tating that the decentralization of the county makes an effective transit system difficult to achieve. Others also noted that there are few sidewalks or pathways that users could use to walk to the bus S1ops: people do not want to walk directly on the road. A few of the participants, who had lived in larger urban areas such as Atlanta and New Jersey, remarked that there is no comparison between those systems and LeeTran (or similar systems in Florida), especially in terms of convenience. In northeastern states where population densities are greater, the transit systems are more developed and thus are much more convenient to use. Those who had previously relied on transit in other cities cannot, o r do not, utilize the system in Lee County due to the lim i ted service. When asked if the transit fare is an inhibitor to use. participants replied that the price of public transportation was not a deterrent. Safety was a lso not a concern; most said they would feel safe riding the bus system in Lee County. In there were not many perceptions of the buses being dirty or uncomfortable In contrast to the perceptions of most local officials, many non-users stated that obtaining information about Lee Tran's routes and schedules was difficult. The prevalent Oelief was that there is not enough information available to those who may want or need to use the transit syS1em. One non-user said that. in the past sometimes the printed schedules would not keep up with changes in the routes. Many felt that the transit system was inaccessible: one person remarked that buses are hardly even seen on the S1reets. There were some positive perceptions about LeeTran, however. The participants agreed that the beach trolleys were visible and popular, mainly due to th e frequent stops. Many also believed that the specially painted buses, with fish and dolphin scenes, greatly helped to improve visibility and the image of the syS1em within the community. The operators' pleasant-looking uniforms were also mentioned. In addition, the operators did have a reputation of being very friendly and he lpful to the passengers (this comment came from a participant who used the syS1em in the past but was unable to utilize it presently due to day-care needs and o ther parental responsibilities). The focus group participants also felt that the transit system was not marketed for them. and they believed that LeeTran's riders were mostly from lo w -income groups and those who had no other form of transportation. Several of the non-users could not imagine surrendering the convenience of their personal automobiles for the current transit system. 56

PAGE 80

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Reasons for not utilizing other commute options such as carpooling were generally the same as for not usin g transit: convenience was the largest factor, along with the problem of coordinating schedules Also, people were concerned about the extra time their trips would take allowing for picking up and dropping off other members of the carpool. Just as for transit, participants were also concerned about being stranded in an emergency situation. For example, what if a child became seriously ill at school and another member of the carpool had driven that day? Suggestions The participants in the focus group were questioned about what would make the transit system better, and what enhancements or improvements would make them more likely to become transit riders. They were also asked what fact ors make transit more appealing in other cities: answers included the high frequency of service, the availab i lity of express service, and greater disincentives for driving an automobile (such as a high level of traffic congestion). Non-users did agree that they would be more likely to use LeeTran if the frequency of service were increased or some type of express service was imp lemented One participant also wondered whether jitney service would be viable in Lee County. Longer service hours would also make it more convenient to use the transit system. For example, the parent whose teenagers often work late at a fast -food restaura.nt could let them take the bus to and from work, rather than driving them. Not only would longer hours of service create the possibility for those who work evenings to use the transit system for their commutes, but those who are enrolled in night classes could take advantage of the system as well. Since many of the non-users had complained of inad equate facilities for pedestrians more covered shelters and better benches would represent significant improve m ents and might encourage more people to use the system. Some in the group rep orted seeing benches at bus stops that were propped up on blocks, were crooked, or were sliding into ditches Better facilities for users at the bus stops would definitely make the alternative of public transit more attra ctive. The participants generally be lieved that LeeTran needs to engage in more marketing. While techniques such as the specially painted buses were positive (and the participants would like to see more of the same), the system also needs to make the route and scheduling information more readily available to the general public. Perhaps the system could explore different media fo r advertising such as providing computerized information More slgnage wou ld also help spread inform ation about the system. 57

PAGE 81

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Summary Non-user focus group participants were very frank in discussing their reasons for not currently using the transit system Such reasons included : inconvenience (compared to using the private automobile); longer travel times by bus; the wait at a bus stop; bus schedules/hours of service that do not fit the daily schedules of the non-users ; no guaranteed ride home in the case of an emergency ; difficulty in getting around a decentralized county by bus; lack of adequate pedestrian facilities. such as sidewalks or pathways; availability of alternatives; lack of information about routes and schedules; perception that the transit system is inaccessible. The participants also offered some positive opinions about LeeTran These comments included: reasonable transit fare; comfortable, clean, and safe buses; -well-used beach trolleys that enhance the image of LeeTran; specially painted buses; helpful and courteous operators (with nice uniforms). Finally, the participants recommended several improvements that wou ld make LeeTran more appealing to the typical non-user. The suggestions entailed: 58 increasing the frequency of service; implementing express bus or jitney service; increasing hours of service ava i lable ; installing more covered sheHers and newer benches at bus stops; exploring various methods of distributing system information; investiga ting different marketing techniques; examining other ways to increase the level of convenience associated with use of the system.

PAGE 82

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA INTERVIEWS WITH KEY LOCAL OFFICIALS An important part of preparing a TOP is identifying the opinions and perceptions of local officials and the genera l public. The community s view of the transij system provides insight in determining whether the system s goals and performance match residents expectations of a publ i c transportation system. Also, the way in which transit i s viewed by loca l officials can significantly influence the priority that is given to public transit and other related transportation issues. Interviews with key local officials and community leaders are seen as an essential component to the transit development planning process since such persons are usually responsible for policy formulat io n and funding allocation. leeTran compiled a list of key officials to in terview, representing the cities of Fort Myers and Cape Coral, lee County and the area business community CUTR conducted a total of ten interviews in May 1994 This section summarizes the results of these interviews, during which the officials' impressions of t he current transit system as well as thoughts about the system s future were discussed The synopsis is organized under three topics: percept io ns, improvements, and policy issues. Also included in Appendix C is an outline of questions that were used in the interv i ews with the key local officials. Perceptions Several interviewees commented that leeTran has not successfully attracted the choice rider. At this time, a c to the interviewees, it seems that t he only riders of t he t ransit system are those who ha v e no other forms of transportation: predominantly the poor and the elder1y. One intervie wee believed that leeTran only markets to the transportation-
PAGE 83

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN, 1995-1999 Many of the officials believed that for those who do utilize LeeTran, information is readily available and the system is relatively easy to use. The route and scheduling information is available to prospective riders, and, in addition, LeeTran periodically runs public service announcements. Also, the buses that were repainted recently wHh marine scenes were very popular: the interviewees thought those buses were appealing, and they helped to enhance the image of the system. It was the general opinion of those Interviewed that LeeTran is operating very well considering the limHed resources that are available The slow service, as reported by some of the officials who have ridden the system, is jusi a function of the r oute structure. Based on the current rout es, the scheduling is good and the buses are generally on time and provide consistent service. In the fare was considered to be reasonable, buses were perceived to be clean and safe, and the drivers were regarded as courteous. Another strength expressed in the interviews was the trolley system that runs along the beach. The trolleys, besides being a decent aHernative to driving to the beach, were viewed as a positive image-booster for the w hole trans system. The opinion of many officials was that LeeTran is a very well-managed system. Those at LeeTran have earned a reputation as "good listeners," providing a great deal of community outreach The system Is seen as continually attempting to reallocate Hs limHed resources to best serve the community. One interviewee remar1
PAGE 84

CHAPTEII ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Parking is not seen as a major concern at this time, wnh a few exceptions Many officials report that parking is insufficient in downtown Fort Myers In the area, parking is free or very cheap, so commuters have little incentive to a"er their driv i ng habHs. Many of those i nterviewed warned that congestion and parking problems may begin to worsen significantly in the future as Lee County grows Some officials compla i ned that planning has been inadequate in accommodating current and future traffic needs One interviewee mentioned that the road network is sufficient for now but will need major changes as time progresses. Another i nterviewee queried "How many more cars can you put on U S 41?" One official summed up the growth of Lee County by stating 'We can't bui l d roads fast enough." As Lee County grows, increased congestion will necessarily follow. The perception among the interviewees is that the area is growing rapidly. Both Fort Myers and Cape Coral are experiencing popu l ation growth, and a new toll bridge is planned to connect the two cit i es. Not just retirees are moving to the area some officia l s contended, but those who want to earn a living are entering the area as well Most see the maj ority of the growth heading towards the southern portion of the county, near where the new university will be located, and along the U.S. 41/1-75 corridor. The new and the expanded international airport are seen as two of the major i nducers of growth in Lee County However, preparations must be made for such growth. As one interv i ewee stated, "the new university will be an impactor to the area before it becomes an enhancer." Readying for such growth involves the consideration of transportation issues, including commute such as transit. and carpooling or vanpooling The interviewees were supportive of transportation demand management (TOM) measures (such as transit carpool i ng or vanpooling, or flex time) in p ri nciple but concurred that H is difflcu" to persuade people to stop driving their cars and try the aHematives. even on a part-time basis. Most agreed that more incentives are needed to entice drivers to undertake commute options In investigating why transit use (or use of othe r alternatives) is not more widespread, one official said that the issue of convenience and the val ue of personal time must be examined. Some of those interviewed do not have much faith in the viability of carpooling programs without extensive education and marketing to the pub l ic. Interviewees were also asked about their percept i ons of the role of public transit in Lee County One official replied that t r ansit can be used to alleviate current and Mure problems with the infrastructure demand in the area. In order to do this successfully however, transit should be an "attractive" alternative to driving alone, for work commuters, shoppers and others. Transit 61

PAGE 85

LEE COUNTY TRANSTT DEVEl.OPfriENT PLAN, 1995-1999 is generally seen as a potential solution to transportation problems in the county, and as an answer to growth. It can possibly help stabilize the economy in the wake of rapid growth Most of those interviewed believed that transit should be the link to connect population, employer, retail, and education centers throughout all of lee County. Most of the officials agreed that transit is not as high a priority as it should be. It is realized among the localgovemment officials that trans i t cannot be ent i rely self supporting, but some fe l t that all has been done locally that can be done in terms of funding. Recently, the bus fare was raised from $0.75 to $1.00 and 10 percent of the county's share of the new five-cent gas tax (2.5 percent is dedicated to lee County for two years) was approved for transit funding, to assist with main tenance and operational shortfalls. Most of the interviewees held the opinion that the public believes is doing enough for the transit system. As one official noted, hard lo gain support for something that is not used." Though the funding of transit is not always popular, it is seen as a necessity The Americans D i sabilities Act (ADA) compliance regulations are seen as helping to raise the priority level of public at least in terms of funding. Improvements Many of the interviewees agreed that public transit is a quality-of-life issue. A system must determ ine market, determ in e the needs of that market, and then provide the service that best meets those needs. It is believed that the transit system in lee County cannot remain static: it must expand its market and service, especially into the southern areas ofthe county, where the highest level of growth is expected in the future. Those interviewed believed that transit has an important role in the future of the county, and the community needs to be educated about that role. One interviewee in particular was adamant about persuading people to consider transit as an alternative: both the public and private sectors of the economy must work together to change people's minds about public transit. Most of those Interviewed had plenty of ideas about imp rovements for the transit system in lee County: however, they realized that an increased level of funding (particulariy capital funding) is essential. In examining the system as is currently operating, the local officials offered many possible improvements. Many concurred that ongoing route realignment is necessary. One official stated that Lee County will shift resou r ces in response to ridership on an annual basis. Another improvement mentioned by neariy all of the interviewees was the extension of leeTran's hours of service. lengthening the hours of service, on a selective basis, was seen as vital to attracting more riders One official noted that crime is not a prob l em in the area, but the perception of crime is high. This person believed that later operating hours for the buses could help to counter this perception of crime 62

PAGE 86

CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER DATA Other suggested improvements to the current system included expanding the beach trolley service up and down the beach, and perhaps fitting the trolleys with bicycle racks or "luggage" areas for riders' picnic coolers and other beachgoing amenities. Also, continued increases in capital expenditures for buses (a five-year capital plan is in place) were encouraged. Some interviewees also mentioned the possibility of offering a van-type service, or express bus service. Another way to promote ridership would be to offer coupons or other discounts to trolley or bus riders at retail areas. As one official asserted, more creativity is needed in making the transit system an attractive aHemative. Perhaps for each holiday the system could do something special, such as taking children to area malls for trick-or-treating at Halloween A suggestion was also made to continue painting the buses in different ways or possibly affix say ings on them, not unl ike very large bumper stickers. The interv ie wees agreed that more and different mar1
PAGE 87

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 suggested It was widely agreed that in order to persuade commuters to carpool or use transit, clear incentives are necessary. One official noted that supporting and encouraging use of commute options would be a "wise of funds. The implementation of high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes and bus-only lanes was d i scussed by several of the interv i ewees. For example, one official proposed that HOV or bus lanes be designated over toll bndges : a lower bndge toll was even recommended as an incentive for HOVs. Another i nterv i ewee considered designated HOV lanes on San Carlos Boulevard afte r the road is widened as FOOT has proposed Loca l officials recognize that fund i ng is limrted and real ize that there i s scant pub lic support fo r the transit system. However, officials are qu i ck to point out that they are supportive of and believ e it is their responsibilrty to make LeeTran a higher priority and lead the communrty's education about the advantages of transit. Rais i ng the awareness of the need to consider alternative fonns of transportat i on is becoming increasingly important as the county grows. Summary To summarize those who were interviewed free l y shared their opin i ons and perceptions about public transit in Lee County, as well as other transportation-related topics T he overa ll impression of LeeTran seems to be very positive : the system was pra i sed for its management and for utilizing Its scarce resources In an Intelligent and efficient manner. LeeTran does seem to be doing its best to meet the needs of the community its constraints. Many of the i nterviews also included discussions about the rapid growth the area is experiencing and what role transit can play in a growing Lee County Most of the officia l s believed that as the area grows, so will the demand for transit, as well as other commute alternatives. Finally, all ag r eed that more money should be allocated to transit, but also realized that actually obtaining the funding is extremely difficult. Allowing for addi ti onal funding, the interviewees all conmbuted many different suggestions for improvement of the system One of the most prevalent ideas was the lengthening ofleeTran's service hours It was also agreed that LeeTran must explore different marketing techniques to better sell itself to the public. 64

PAGE 88

CHAPTER Two: GOALS ANO OBJECnVES CHAPTER TWO : Goals and Objectives INTRODUCTION The identification of goals and objectives for a transn system i s a fundamental step in the development of a TOP. This section summarizes the policy issues i dentified in discussions CUTR held with c:ommuney leaders th e TOP Review Committee, transit staff and the general public. The issues highlighted during these discussions form the basis for the proposed goals for LeeTran In addition a pre limin ary lis t of goals has been supplem en ted by an exam in at ion of existing transit-related policies assembled from the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, an on board survey of passengers, and a survey of LeeTran bus operators The trans it-related policies assembled from the Lee County Comprehensive Plan are presented in Appendix 0 along with a brief statement identifying where they are incorporated i nto the proposed goals for Lee Tran LEETRAN GOALS The proposed goals for LeeTran are the result of an approach designed to sol i cit input from an array of community interests As previously mentioned, numerous interviews were conducted w nh key local officials and other transportation providers as part of this process The Information gathered from the focus group meeting held with non-transit users were incorporated as well. A goal-setting workshop conducted with the TOP Review Committee, which has oversight responsibil i ties for the development of this TOP proved particularly helpful in the final summat i on of the proposed goals In addition staff m embers o f LeeTran prov ided input i n the goal-setting process. The proposed goals focus on six In terrelated policy areas Im portant to the effective operation of a transit system. These include : Availability of service; Passenger amen i ties ; Marketing ; Efficiency; Innovation ; and Funding 65

PAGE 89

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PL.AN, 1995 1999 The proposed goa l s are presented in Table 30 a long with their corresponding po licy objectives Each policy objective outlined in th e tabl e addresses in a broad policy context. act i ons to be tak e n in order to achieve the stated goal. Goa/1: Ensure Availability of Transit Service t o Lee County Residenta and VIsitors This goal focu ses on the quality and accessib ility aspects of the existing system an d the potential to enhance the tra nsi t system The policy objectives und e r th i s goal address s eve ral of the major i ssues brought forth during discussion s of the system such a s increas i ng the service span and frequency of service identify i ng the approp ri a t e s e rvice are a an d imp rov i ng serv i ce for those w ith th e greatest mob ili ty needs. Goa/2: Provide Quality Passenger Amenitln to Enhance Bus Service and Attract Discretionary Riders In order to maintain existing riders and h ave the ability t o attract the discreti onary rider transit systems mus t provide a menities which increase the riders level of comfort a nd safety when using the system These amen iti es include sheHers and benches sidewalks and transit centers Go a/3: Intensify M a rketing Efforts and lncreaae Vlaiblllty of LeeTran Intensifying the mar1
PAGE 90

GoalS: CHAPTER Two: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Investigate Innovative Approaches to the Provision of Efficient Transit Service The fifth goal focuses on investigating and potentially impleme nting innovative approaches to the provision of trans" service. Each of these approaches would require some leve l of investigat ion/analysis before implementation. Idea s include route deviation in selected areas, a Guaranteed Ride Home Program, and private funding and/or operation of transit services Goa/6: Secure Adequate Funding for the Transit System The sixth and final goal focuses most importantly on the long-term funding of Lee Tran. Securing a dedicated funding source and seeking alternative funds from the FOOT were discussed as important activities needing to be accomplished during the five-year time period of the TOP. The goals and po licy objectives presented in this technical report reflect the strategic focus of the transit development plan and are purposely designed to address the broad concepts of transit system operation that were identified during the goal-setting process. Consequently, the policy objectives range in their level of specificity. II is envisioned that these goals and objectives will provide the framework from which LeeTran can develop me asurable objectives. 67

PAGE 91

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 199599 Goal1 Goal 2 Goal3. Goal4 Goal5 GoalS 68 Table 30 Proposed LeeTran Goals . . Ensura Availability of Transit Servk:e to Lee County Rnldents. and VIsitOrs Provide service that meets demand and needs Identify the appropriate service area for LeeTran Increase span of service, as appropriate Increase frequency of service on busiest routes Replace existing bus fleet with accessible vehicles Comply with all requirements of the Amencans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Provide Quality Paaunger Amenities to. Enhance BU. Service and Attract Discretionary Riders Provid e bus shelters and/or benches at highly used bus stops and transfer locations. Coord inate with local governments for the construction of accessible sidewalks i n to bus stops. Develop a multimodal transfer center in the downtown area coordinated with other transportation modes. . Intensify Marketing Effo!U and Increase Visibility of LeeTran Increase the availability of information regardi ng routes and schedules Inc l ude information kiosks at bus shelter locations I nstitute a outreach/educa t ion program for reside nts and Deve lo p and implement a marketing program geared towards downtown workers Prov ide the system transit map in the Yellow Pages d i rectory PriKnDie System Efficiency Monitor overall system performance through !lend and peer analyses Develop and apply measures to monitor individual route performance Coordinat e with loca l transportation agencies for the early inclusion of transit amenities In the planning process. Integrate needs i nto the land use p lanning and development process Coord i nate transit serv i ce with other transportation providers Investigate Innovative Approachea to the Provision ofEfficient Transit Service Explore the use of smaller vehicles Consider the of route deviation i n appropriate areas Investigate the implementation of a Guaranteed Ride Home Program Coordinate with the loca l transportation planning agencies for inclusion of dedicated bus la nes in transportation projects Investigate private funding/operating opportun i ties Secura Adequate Funding for the Tranelt System Secure a lo ng-term, dedicated funding source for the system Seek FOOT Service Development funds to i mpleme n t i nnovat ive service techniques on a tria l basis Leverage local matching funds to the maximum extent possible

PAGE 92

CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CHAPTER THREE: Performance Evaluation of Existing Transit Service INTRODUCTION Chapter Three summarizes the results of the performance evaluation of Lee County's transit system, which is a fundamental task in the development of the TOP. The performance evaluation was conducted in two parts. For the first part a trend analysis was conducted which represents the system's performance over a six-year time period (1988 through 1993). Then, a fixed-route peer review analysis was conducted. This peer review compared the performance of Lee County's system with that of other selected Florida and non-Florida peer systems. The Purpose of Perfonnance Review Since performance analysis is only one method of evaluating performance and is to those aspects Included in the analysis the reader should exercise considerable caution In interpreting the results. These analyses are particularly strong in reviewing cost effectiveness and efficiency; however, they do not report on the extent to whi ch other objectives of the transit system are being fulfilled. For example, the performance evaluation w ill not directly measure several relevant considerations such as passenger satisfaction wHh regard to leve l s of service taxpayer ar.d public aHHudes toward the agency, employee morale, success in aHaining minority hiring or contracting goals qualijy of planning, contributions to economic development, air quality improvements, or other goals that may be important to the agency Also, several aspects of quality of service are not measured in performance reviews. These include vehicle cleanliness and comfort; operator courtesy; on-time performance; qualijy of marketing and passenger information support; and level of satisfaction with hours of operations. frequency of service, and geographic coverage of the service. In to understanding the limits of this analysis, the reader should use caution in interpreting the meaning of the various measures. The performance review does not necessarily provide information regarding which aspects of performance are within control of the agency and which measures are not. Figure 17 is a schematic of the factors that ultimately affect transit agency performance. 69

PAGE 93

LEE CoulfTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Perfonnance reviews are a useful and importan t tool in mo nitoring and imp roving tra nsit system perfonnance. However, it should be recognized that the resuHs of trend and peer analyses are only a starting point for fully understanding the performance of transit systems. The i ssues identified as a resuH of the analyses provide the basis for a series of questions that can lead to an enhanced u nders tanding of the "hows" and "whys" of system perfonnance. .... ... .... 70 Figure 17 Factors Affecting Transit Performance . .. .. Y;-": {t,.. < , -,..., > :. ' .( ...... '. ,;.:. . :. ..... . . .: 1 ... . l --'..; -:--..... J. . ....... ' . ,. . --: . '\:::,: . . .

PAGE 94

CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Perfonnance Review Data Base To receive federal funds, properties are required to report a variety of data in a standardized format, resulting in what is known as a Section 15 report. These documents provide standardized measures of reporting that enable a more accurate comparison of information between properties. Since 1979, when th is reporting requirement was instituted, additional refinements in data collection and reporting have increased the accuracy and of the data. The data are for the fiScal year used by each system. For Florida properties the fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30. For other properties, the fiscal year may be different. Data Reliability All Section 15 data submitted to the Federa l Transit Administration (FTA) are subject to considerable review and validation through manual and automated methods. Each report is thoroughly examined to identify errors, questions, and inconsistencies. FT A identifies problems and requires each reporting agency to respond to these problems before the final report is accepted. For this study, data were taken from published summary reports of Section 15 data and from indiv idual Section 15 reports provided by the transit agencies for fiscal year 1993. With the exception of data on the inflation rate, all information was provided by the transrt systems. CUTR did not collect any original data or conduct any audits or on-site analyses of the data or data collection procedures. Data Definitions To fully understand the data presented in Section 15 reports, it is important to understand the definitions of the terms used in the documents. In many instances, these definitions differ from Initial perceptions and may be subject to int erpretation. Appendix E provides a detailed list of deflnrtions for selected terms used by FTA. The data collection procedures further specify exactly what is being referred to by a given term. For example "passenger trip" refers to an individual boarding a transit vehicle. A person riding a bus from the comer to the office takes one passenger trip to wor1< and a second passenger trip to retum home. Likewise, a person transferring from one bus to another is considered to make two passenger trips to get to his or her destination. In spite of these definitions and continued refinements in data collection procedures. there remain some discrepancies between systems as to how terms are defined and how informa tion is collected. Accordingly, caution should be used in in terpret ing findings, especially for those variables that are more likely to be subject to variation in definitions. One example includes how employees are categorized among administrative, tra nsportation. and maintenance tas ks within different agencies. Other discrepancies can result from differences in the organizational structure of the agency and the 71

PAGE 95

LEE COUNTY TRANSrT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 allocation of responsibilities among the various governmental entities within the service area. For example, street sweeping and garbage pickup at park-and-ride and other transit facilities may be provided at no cost by a given jurisdiction or may be a contract or in-house cos t of the transit system. Legal services, computer services, engineering and design support, administrative support, and other costs are often shared costs that may or may not be accurately allocated between the transit system and a parent governmental body. The nati ona l inflation rate, as defined by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items (including commodities and services) from year to year, was used to deflate cost indicators so that they could be presented in real terms Over the past decade service and labor costs tended to increase at a faster rate than did commodity prices. Therefore, transit operating expenses, which are predominantly comprised of service and labor costs, may be expected to increase somewhat faster than inflation even if the amount of service provided did not increase Performance Indicators and Measures -The evaluation measures that are used throughout the performance review are divided into three major categories: performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures Performance i ndicators report absolute data in the s e lected categories that are required by Section 15 reporting. These tend to be key indicators of overall transit system performance. Effectiveness measures typically refine the data further and indicate t he extent to which various service-related goals are being attained. For example. passenger trips per capita is an indicator of the effectiveness of the agency in meeting transportation needs. Efficiency measures invo lve reviewing the level of resou rces (labor or cost) required to achieve a given level of output. It is p ossible to have very efficient service that is not effective or to have hig hly effective service that is not efficient. The substantial amount of data availab le through Section 15 reporting provides an opportunity to develop a large number of measures Sets of performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures that are believed to provide a good representation of overall transit system performance have been selected for this report. Table 31 lists the selected indicators and measures provided in this report for flxed-route transit services and also provides subcategories, where appropriate. 72

PAGE 96

CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Table 31 Selected Perfonnance Review Indi cators and Measure s Fi xed-Ro ute Transit Services Per!wm...C. lnd lcatoro EffecttwnM.I ..... UI"H Eflleloncy Meaoono Service Area Population Sttvlu Supply Cost Elllcloncy Servioo Area Size (sq u are miles) Vehide Milet Per Capita Operating Exp. Per C.pita Operating Exp. Per Passenger Trip Pauenger Trips Servke Cor.umptkln Opiera tin g Exp. Per Revenue M i le Passenger Trips Per Cspita Revenue Miles Pauenger Trips Per Rev e nue Mile Opo-Ratloo Farebox Recovery Total Operating Expense Quol!ty of S.NI .. Total Ope rating Expe nse (1984 $) Average Age of Fleet {in years) Lobo
PAGE 97

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 OVERVIEW OF SYSTEM LeeTran i s now an independent departme n t governed by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners, a five membe r publ i c po l icy body responsible for overseeing all of Lee County government operations. LeeTran provides public transportation serv i ces to Lee County by operat i ng fi xed route motorbus services and contractually providing ADA mandated complementary transportat i on services. The system serves F ort Myers North Fort Myers, Cape Coral, Fort Myers Beach, and Lehigh Acres. Figure 18 shows a route map of the system. The performance evaluation focuses on directly operated fixed-route service; therefore, the purchased demand-response service is not i ncluded in the trend or peer rev i ew analyses AppendiX F provides information on major existing public and private transportation services in Lee County. Recently, the County Commission approved a fare increase for LeeTran The base fare is set to increase from $0 75 to $1. 00. The fare change will be i mplemented in August 1994 and, therefore, will not fully influence the system s performance indicators and measures unt i l FY 1995. In order to present a basic overview of the system, selected performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures are reported in Table 32 The source of the data is L eeTran s FY 1992 and 1993 validated Section 15 reports. Table 32 shows that betwee n 1992 and 1993, LeeTra n increased its service, as measured by revenue miles by 9 percent and the number of passenger trips i n creased 20 percent. Even with the increase in service operating expense increased by only 1 percent. Th i s resulted in an overall increase in cost efficiency evidenced by a decrease in three operating expense ratios : operating expense per capita decreased 5 percent, operating expense per passenger trip decreased 17 percent, and operating expense per revenue mile decreased 8 percent. A l so, the farebox r ecovery ratio increased 6 percent from 18.27 percent in FY 1992 to 19.36 percent i n FY 1 993 74

PAGE 99

this page IS blank

PAGE 100

CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Table 32 Overview of LeeTran FYs 1992 and 1993 SELECTED PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FY1992 FY 1993 % .CHANGE 1992-1993 Serv ice Area Population 33 1 340 350, 809 +6% Service Area Size (square miles) 189 189 -Passenger Trips 1 451,672 1, 748 ,916 +20% Revenue Miles 1 419,041 1,553 220 +9% Total Operating Expense $3 ,1.06,948 $3, 122 937 +1% Tolal Mai ntenance Expense $636 ,858 $780,105 % Operati n g Revenue $698 121 $705,314 +1% Total E m ployees 63.6 67.5 +6% Vehicles Avai l able in Maximum Service 36 36 -Ve h icles Operated in Maximum Service 25 26 +4% SELECTED EFFECTIVENESS .. MEAS\lRES Veh i cle Miles per Capita 4.54 4.76 +5% Passenger Trips per Capita 4.38 4 .99 +14% Passenger Trips per Reve nue Mile 1.02 1.13 +10% Average Age of Fleet (in years) 6 .42 7.42 +16% SELECTED EFFICIENCY MEASURES .. . Operating Expense per Captta $9.38 $8.90 -5% Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $2.14 $1. 79 -17% Operating Expense per Revenue Mile $2.19 $2.01 -8% Farebox Recovery Ralio 18. 27% 19. 36% +6% Revenue Hours per Employee 1,429 1,306 -9% Passenger Trips per Employee 22,825 25,910 +14% Ave r age Fare $0. 39 $0.35 -12% 77

PAGE 101

this page IS blank

PAGE 102

CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FIXED-ROUTE TREND ANALYSIS A fixed-route trend analys is for the years 1988 through 1993 was conducted to follow the performance of LeeTran's directly-operated motorbus service over a six-year time period. Data used in this ana l ysis are from LeeTran's Section 15 reports as well as CUTR's completed Performance Evaluation o f Florida Transit Systems reports for the years included in this analysis Performance indi cators and measures are grouped into catego ries and presented in tab u lar form (Tab les 33 t hrough 38) a l ong with a brief d i scussion of the data The percent change over the six-year tre nd period i n each i ndicator and me asure i s a l so shown in the tables . The trends are also illustra ted i n Figures 19 th rough 36. Detailed trend data tabl es can be f ound in Appendix G In 1990, LeeTran contracted with Trolley Systems, Inc to provide the beach tro ll ey service that it had directly operated since 1987. In the FY 1990 Section 15 report, this service was reported in the purchased motorbus category After a complete evaluation, was determined that the trolley service would be more cost-ilffective i f it were operated d i rectly. Consequently in FY 1991 LeeTran resumed the operation of th e trolleys The trolley service data for the year it was contracted privately are not I ncluded i n thi s trend analys i s since the focus is on service directly operated by LeeTran. 79

PAGE 103

LEE CoUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Perfonnance Indicators Ridership and Level of Service As shown in Table 33, ridership on leeTran's directly-operated foced-route motorbus system increased 54 percent since 1988, with the number of passenger trips increasing from 1,136,240 in 1988 to 1,748,916 in 1993. The largest increase in ridersh ip over the trend period was between 1992 and 1993, with passenger trips increasing by nearly 300,000 trips. This increase accounted for nearly 49 percent of the Iota! growth in passenger trips over the six-year lime period. The trend is also showri in Figure 19. The level of service, as measured by revenue miles, also increased steadily over !_he six-year period, as shown in Table 33 and Figure 20. Revenue miles increased from 993,530 in 1988 to 1 ,553,220 in 1993, an inc rease of 56 percent. Twenty-seven percent of the total increase in revenue miles over the trend period occurred between 1990 and 1991. Large increases also occurred between 1988 and 1989 (23.8 percent of the total growth over the trend period) and 1992 and 1993 (24 percent of the total growth over the trend period). Table 33 LeeTran Ridership and Level of Service .. <. Pasaetiger Trips . Revenue Miles Year 1988 1 136 ,240 993,530 1989 1,122 ,581 1,126,7 39 1990 1,320 ,055 1,188,162 1991 1,352,410 1,338,435 1992 1,451;672 1,419,041 1993 1,748,916 1 ,553.220 % Change 1988-1993 54% 56% 80

PAGE 104

Flgure19 Passenger Trips (000) Figura 20 Revenue Miles 8 1

PAGE 105

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Expenses and Revenues Total operating expense rose 36 percent in nominal terms between 1988 and 1993; this increase was only 9 percent whe n adjusted for inflation, as seen in Figure 21. The operating expense inc reased steadily over the first three years of the period (1988 t hrough 1990), expanding 36 percent during those years. However, Tab le 34 shows that, after 1990, operating expense began to decrease s l ightly, only to increase again in 1993 by a small amount. Since 1988, maintenance expense had been steadily shrinking as ill ustrated in Table 34 and F ig ure 22. This trend was broken in 1991 maintenance costs expanded nearly 104 percent from the previous year. This significant increase occurred after some expenses were reallocated from General Administration to Vehicle Ma intenance. Maintenance expense also increas ed significantly (22 percent) between 1992 and 1993, from $636,858 to $780,105. Tab le 34 also shows that operating revenue, which includes passenger fare revenues and in LeeTran's case, special transit fares, auxiliary transportation revenues, and non-transport at ion revenues (such as investment income), increased 57 percent over the six-year period This occunred despHe a 4 percent decline between 1991 and 1992. Much of that recent decrease was due to a 7 percent decrease in passenger fare revenues from $611,594 in 1991 to $567,485 in 1992. Passenger fare revenues decreased (even with a n increase in passenger trips) during the second sixth-month period of FY 1992 when the beach trolley service was operated as a free zone with increased service. In FY 1993, operating revenue increased slightly, from $698,121 to $705,314. The trend for operating revenue is presented in Figure 23 Table 34 LeeTran Expenses and Revenues Year . Operatli)S Exs-nae .Maintena!IC!I Expense Operating Revenue 1988 $2, 298,900 $743 930 $447 980 1989 $2 796,638 $568 752 $5 13,059 1990 $3 132,780 $328 646 $876 749 1991 $3, 127,880 $869 336 $728 297 1992 $3,106, 948 $836 ,858 $898 ,121 1993 $3 ,12 2 937 $780,105 $705 314 %Change 1988 1993 36% 5% 51'!. 82

PAGE 106

Figure 21 Tot.l Operating Expense Figure 22 Tot.l Maintenance Expense Figure 23 Operating Revenue ,... '"' 1810 18t1 1112 1tt3 83

PAGE 107

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Employees and Vehicles The total number of emp l oyees rose significantly (17 percent) between 1988 and 1989 increasing by 10 full-time employee equivalents (FTEs) The 1989 i ncrease was primari l y due to an increase in transportat i on operating employees of 13 FTEs Th i s i ncrease in operating employees may be partially due to the increase in revenue service that yea r : three add"ional vehicles were operated in maximum service. Following FY 1989 Tab l e 35 shows that the number of employees fell by nearly 10 percent and then remained relatively stable through the rema i nder of the trend period increasing to 67.5 FTEs In FY 1993. Since 1990, transportat i on operating employees lncreased.sli9hlly, while the of maintenance and admin i strat i ve emp l oyees decreased. The main r eason for the reduction in the maintenance and admin i s t rative employee categories in 1992 was that a total of three pos"ions among these two categories were vacant during the fiscal year. Figure 24 illustrates the trend in the number of FTEs among transportat i on operations, main t enance, and adm i nistrative employee categories, as we ll as the totals. According to Tab l e 35 and Figure 25, the number of vehicles available for max i mum serv i ce Increased 28 percent between 1988 and 1990 and t h en fell by one vehicle to remain constant at 36 avai l able vehicles for the rest of the trend period. The number of vehicles operated in maximum service remained stable fluctuating from a low of 22 vehicles to 26 vehicles i n FY 1993. Interesting ly, i n FY 1990, LeeTran added four more vehicles as available for maximum service yet decreased th e number of vehicles operated In peak serv i ce by three Table 35 LeeTran -Employees and Vehicles . Vehicles Available for vehicles Operated In Year . Total EmploY. -Maximum Service . Maximum Service 1 988 58.0 29 22 1989 68.0 33 25 1990 61.3 37 22 1991 64.1 36 24 1992 63 6 36 25 1993 67.5 36 26 '!.Change 1988 1993 16A, 24% 18% 84

PAGE 108

Flgu,. 24 Total EmployHI Flgu,. 25 Vehicles In Mulmum Service 8 5

PAGE 109

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPIIIENT PLAN, 19959 Effectiveness Measures SeNice Supply, SeNice Consumption, and Quality of Service Vehicle miles per capita. as a measure of service supp ly, incre ased steadily over the trend period. Table 36 and Figure 26 depict this trend During the last three years of the trend period, more than four vehicle miles of service were provided for every person residing In Lee County The service consumption measures a re shown in Table 36 and in Figures 27 and 26. Service consumption can be measured by the number o f pfsaenger trips per Over the trend period t h i s measure increased 35 percent. The most notable In crease occurred in 1993, when passenger trips per capita increased by 14 percent from FY 1992 Another measure of service consumptio n is the number of passenge r trips per revenue mile, which is generally influenced by the supply and demand of service. Since 1988 this measure fell2 percent. LeeTran does tend to have a high average trip length however, which is mainly due to routes that cross bridges and serve distinct are as of the county Between 1992 and 1993, the number of passenger trips per revenue mile in creased from 1.02 to 1 .13, an increase of 10 percent. In 1993, the average age of LeeTran s veh i cle neet was nearly seven a nd one-half years, as presented in Table 36 and Figu re 29. The fleet is certainly not old by transit standards ; however, this average age results from LeeTran's fleet consisting of newer vehicles along with much older ones. For example according to LeeTra .n's FY 1993 Section 15 report, the system had eight buses that were 14 years old and four that were 12 years old along with 24 vehicles that were four, frve, and six years old Table 38 leeTran Service Supply, Service Con1umptlon, and Quality o f Service Year Vehicl e lloiJi .. P_.engwTrtpe Pauenger Tripe Avel'llge Age per Clplta; : : ;:'per Clplbl per M ile of FIHI 1 9 88 3 42 3.70 1.14 6.80 1989 3.70 3 .46 1.00 9 .00 1990 3.79 3 94 1.11 4 .59 1991 4 .24 3 93 1.01 5 .42 1992 4 .54 4 .36 1.02 6 .42 1993 4 .76 4 99 1 13 7.42 '4 Change 1988-1993 39% 35'4 -2% 1 4 86

PAGE 110

Figure 26 Vehicle Miles Per Capita Figure 28 Puaenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Figure 27 Passenger Trips Per Capita Figure 29 Average Age of Fleet (years) 87

PAGE 111

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery Table 37 demonstrates that operating expense per capita increased 19 percent between 1988 and 1993, while operating expense per passenger trip decreased 12 percent during the same period of time. Operating expense per passenger trip had a l arge increase between 1988 and 1989 (23 percent) but has declined steadily since then Operating expense per revenue mil e stead ily in creased through 1990 then began to decline. Overall, there was a decrease of 13 percent in this measure between 1988 and 1993 . All three operating ra tios have decl ined in FY 1993 : $8 .90 was spent on operating expenses for every person living in Lee County ; $1.79 was spent for each trip taken on LeeTran; and $2.01 was spent for each mile of. revenue service provided by LeeTran. Figures 30 through 32 illust ra te these trends graphically The farebox recovery ratio inc reased 1 percent between 1988 and 1993, as evidenced in Table 37. The table, as well as Figure 33, shows that during the first three years of the trend period this operating ratio fell n earty 10 percent. It incre ased s i gnificantly in 1991 only to fall slightly again during FY 1992to 18.27 percent. The 7 percent decrease between 1991 and 1992 is like l y due to the drop in passenger fare revenues during that tim e period wh ich resulted from the beach trolley service changing to a fare free zone In FY 1993, the farebox recovery ratio incre ased to 19 .36 percent. The recently approved fare Increase, which will take effect in August 1994, is likely to continue to increase this measure I n the com ing fiscal year (FY 1995) Table 37 LeaTranCost Efficiency and Farebox R ecovery Oparallno ElqleMe Opemlng ElqleMe Opemlng Expenaa Farabox Year par par par Recovery Capita P-anger Trip Mila Retlo 1988 $ 7 .48 $2.02 $2.31 19 22% 1989 $8.62 $2.49 $2.48 17 66% 1990 $9.35 $2.37 $2.64 17 36% 1991 $9.09 $2 .31 $2 34 19 .5 5% 1992 $9. 38 $2 14 $2 19 18 27% 1993 $8.90 $1. 79 $2 .01 19 36% %Change 11% % % 1% 1988-1993 88

PAGE 112

Figure 30 Operating Expenae Per Capita Figure 32 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mila F i gure 31 Operating Expenn Par P .... nger Trip Figura 33 Farabox Recovery Ratio 89

PAGE 113

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DE'Ia.OPMEIIT PLAN, 1996-1999 Labor Productivity and Fare Structure Labor productivity, as measured by revenue hours per employee decr eased significantly in 1989, and then increased In 1991 and 1992 before declining once again in FY 1 993, as shown in Table 38 and Figure 34. Overall, this measure declined 14 percen t du ri ng the six-yea r trend period. Another measure ofla bor productivity, passe nger trips per employee, steadily incre a sed over the trend period by 32 percent. F i gure 35 reveals thai after decreas ing in the beg i nning years of the trend this measure began io grow aga in sh
PAGE 114

1 F igure 34 Revenue Hours Per Employee Figure 35 Passenger Trips Per Emp loyee Figure 36 Average Fare . 91

PAGE 115

LEE COUI(T'Y TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 FIXEOROUTE PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS A fixed-route peer review analysis was conducted to compare LeeTran's perfonnance wHh other similar transit systems in Florida and the United States The procedure to choose peer systems was based on both operating characteristics (number of vehicles operated in maximum service, amount of service supplied, average speed, and number of days service is provided) and exogenous factors (geographic location, service area population, and service area population density) The two primary decision variables for selecting potential peer cand i dates, however, were geographic locat ion and number of vehicles operated iri max imum service. The specified geographic region forth is study included the southeastern part of the United States since t ransit systems that operate in a similar geographic area are typically subjected to many of the same exogenous factors such as weather, labor cost. historical tra nsit ridership trends and density. Only transit systems t hat operate between 10 and 49 vehicles in maximum service were considered for this peer group. Population dens ity, vehicle miles, and average speed were also used in making the final selections from the potential peer systems. All systems chosen for the peer group were reviewed for reasonableness and extraordinary conditions. In some cases, it was necessary to contact the transit systems to clarify inconsistencies in the data and to co llect missing data. The final peer group contained 16 systems, including LeeTran. Seven of LeeTran's peers were Florida systems, and the remaining eight systems were from out of state Table 39 shows the transit systems inc luded in the final peer group. Data presented for LeeTran and its peer systems represent FY 1993. Tables 40 through 45 present LeeTran s value and the peer group minim um maximum, and mean for each indicator and measure. Additionally, LeeTran's deviation from the mean is also reported as a percentage of the mean value. Detailed data tables for all of the peer systems are provided in Appendix H. Graphics throughout this section (Figures 37 through 56) illustrate selected perfonnance ind i cators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures from this analysis These figures in dicate the rank of the systems from best to worst, as well as the peer group mean ( ind icated by the vertical line) for each measure 92

PAGE 116

CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVALUA nON Table 39 LeeTran's Peer Systems Fl!lflil, a Peer -Systems ' Non-Florida P.er Systems Tallahassee Transit Authority Chapel Hill Transrt Regional Transrt System (Gainesv il le) Columbus Transit System (METRA) East Volusia Transrt Authority Greenville Transit Authority Escambia County Transit System City of Jackson Transit System (Jatran) Sarasota County Area Transit City of lafayette Transit Lake l and Area Mass Transit District Transit Authority lexingt on (LEXTRAN) Space Coast Area Transit (B revard ) C::ity of Lubbock (Citibus) City of Raleigh Trans it Division 93

PAGE 117

LEE COUNTY TRANSrT DEVELOPIIIENT PLAN, 1995 Perfonnanc:e lndfcato1'11 Population, Ridarship, and Level of Service LeeTran, wh ich serves most of Lee County, reported a se rvice area population ol350,809 in FY 1993. Service area populations lor Florida and non Florida systems wer e provided directly through each of the sys tems Sectio n 15 reports Figure 37 sho ws service area popu l ations lor a ll the peer systems LeeTran's population is 70 percent above the peer group mea n of 206 ,119 accord in g to T a ble 4 0 I t shou l d be noted that LeeTran a s we ll a s severa l other F l orid a sys t ems use c:ouniy J)opulat i on as a pf'Qxy for th e service area popu l ation eve n if th e transit system does no t serve the entire county Most syst e ms outside F l orida use t he actual s ervice area p opulation The table also indicates that LeeTran is only 8 percent below the peer group mean lor total number of passenger trips Figure 38 r evea l s that these figures p l ace LeeTra n just abou t at the m edian of th e peer group for th i s i nd i c ator LeeTran's number of revenue miles however, is the l arges t of the peer group at 1 553 220 miles This figure is 42 percent above th e peer group me a n of 1 093 313 miles Tab l e 40 a nd Figure 39 clearly ind ica1e tha1 L ee Tran supp lie s a n above average a mount o f service Table 40 Peer Analyl Population, Rlde1'11hlp, and Level of Service, FY 1993 Perfonnanc'e Indicator LHTran Peer Group Pee r Group Peer Group LeeTran: M inimum Mulmum Mean %From Mean Service Area Population 350, 809 50, 272 417, 7 4 0 206,119 + 70% Passenger Trips 1 748, 916 13 1 ,996 3 944 225 1,896,047 -8% Revenue Miles 1 553 ,220 418 ,370 1 ,553,220 1,093,313 +42% 94

PAGE 118

Figure 37 Serv i ce A re a P opulatio n ( 000 ) F i g u r e 38 Pa .. engerTripe(OOO) F i gure 3 9 Revenue M II H ( 000 ) 9 5

PAGE 119

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1995 Exp e n ses a n d Revenues Table 41 ind i cates that LeeTran s operating expense i s j ust 3 percent above the peer group mean of $3,036,332 indicat ing a reason ab le level of spending for a system of this size Total maintenan ce expense Is 15 percent above the group mean Figures 40 and 41 show the to tal operating and maintenance expenses, respectively for all the members of the peer group. Overall LeeTran's costs are somewhat above the mean of the peer group Operating reven u e a ccord i n g t o F i g u re 42, t ends to be sig n ificantly be low th e g roup average. L ee T ra n s operating r evenue i s 29 perce n t below th e peer gro u p mea n o f $9 9 1 991, as ev i denced in Table 41. Thi s could be due t o the syste m's relatively low base fare ( $0 7 5 ) in FY 1993. Table 41 Peer Analysis Expenses and Revenues FY 1993 Performance Indicator LTran P-Group PrGroup P-Group LTran: Minimum Maximum Mean % From Mean Operatin g Expense $ 3 ,1 22 937 $944 398 $5 47 9 0 10 $3 ,036, 332 +3% Maintenance Expense $780 105 $183,336 $1,253 769 $676,967 + 1 5 % Operat ing Revenue $705.314 $333,691 $1,777 ,900 $99 1,99 1 29% Space Coa:St Area (8reverd County) dicl not report operatftg rewnue, a nd, therefore. Is not Included tM peer g r o u p mean fOt this indbtor 96

PAGE 120

FlguN 40 Total Expense (000) F l gUN 41 Maintenance Expense (000) FlguN 42 Operating Revenue (000) 97

PAGE 121

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DINElOPMENT PI.AN, 1995 Employees and Vehicles LeeTran is just below the mean of the pee r group for the total number of emp l oyees as shown i n Tabl e 42. In FY 1993, LeeTran utilized 67.5 full time employee equivalents (FTEs) which, according to Table 42 was only 1 percent below the peer group mean. The total number of employees for each peer system is depicted in Figure 43 Lee Tran s nu mber of veh icles ava il ab l e for maximum service i s equal to the mean of the peer group wh ich i s 37 veh i cles as shown in Table 42 a nd -Fig ure 44 Also i n 1993 LeeTran opera t ed 26 veh icl es in m aximum service whiclh is on e vehicle fewer than the peer group average of 27 vehicles Figure 45 indicates that LeeTran i s approximately at the median of its peer group for the number of vehicles operated in peak service Table 42 Peer Analysis Employees and Vehicles, FY 1993 Performance l ndac.tor LHTrsn Peer Group P-Group PrGroup LeaTran: Minimum lllulmum ...... %From Mean Total Employees 67 .50 23.60 132 .80 68.15 % Vehicles Available for 36 16 56 36 0% Mal
PAGE 122

cVoiUOia Colum .... ,..,..., Lubbock .... ._. &com.,. Figure 43 Total Employees Figure 44 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service Figure 45 Vehicles Operated In Maximum Service 99

PAGE 123

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Effec:tlveneaa Measures Service Supply, Service Consumption, and Quality of Service Service supply as measured by the number of veh icl e miles per cap ita. is well belo w the peer group mean of 7 .33, as reported in Table 43. However, th e system does have the second l argest service area population of the peer group, and this may deflate the measure somewhat. Another possible explanation for LeeTran's low figure for veh i cle miles per capita is the fact that In FY 1993. most buses stopped service in Lee County at Z;OO p m (9:00p. m during the tourist sea son) and there was no Sunday service except on the beach trolleys during the tourist season Figure 46 p r esents vehicle miles pe r capita for each system in the peer group Figures 47 and 48 ind ica1e that serv i ce consumption in terms of passenger trips per capita a nd passenger trips per re venue mile is a l so belo w the m ean of the peer group A larg er service population and the relatively low density of the county may be factors in these low figures LeeTran's 4 .99 passenger trips per is 62 percent below the group mean of 13.21 trips, accord in g to Table 43. In add i tion, the system reports 1 13 passenger trips fo r every revenue mil e of se rvice wh ich is 32 percent below the pee r group mean of 1.65 t rips per mil e One way i n wh ich the service quality can be assessed is by examining ttie average age of a system s vehicle fleet. Table 43 I ndicates that LeeTran has a somewhat younger fleet (7.42 years) in comparison to the peer group mean of 8 .79 years. Figure 49 shows the average fleet ages for all peer systems The system's mixture of older and newer veh ic les must be r emembered when int erpreting this measure: for example LeeTran has 24 buses ranging from four to six years old and 12 buses between 12 a n d 1 4 years old 43 Peer Analyela Service Supply, Service Coneumptlon, and Quality of Service, FY 1993 Effec:tlven-MNeure LeeTren Peef.Gioup Peer Group Peer Group LeeTran: Mlnbftwn Mulmum Mean %From Mun Vehicle M i les per 4 .76 1.14 28.22 7 33 -35% Passe n ger T ri ps pe r Capita 4 99 0 32 5 1 .44 13 2 1 Passenger Trips per 1.13 0 .32 3 .00 1.65 32% Revenue Mile Averag e Age of Fleet 7 42 3.75 18 07 8 .79 16% (in y e ars) 100

PAGE 124

_...., .... -.. LMCounty .......... Figure 46 Vehicle Miles Per Capita Flgure48 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile F lgure47 Passenger Trips Per Capita Figure 49 Average Age of Fleet (years) 101

PAGE 125

LEE COWTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency and Farebo)( Recovery According to Figures 50 through 52, leeTran is re l atively cost efficient when compared to its peers: the system is below the peer group mean for all three operati ng expense ratios (operating expense per capita operating expense per passenger trip and operating expense per revenue mile). As shown in Table 44, operat i ng expense per cap ita is 56 percent below the mean of $20.14, operating expense per passenger trip is 18 percent below the mean of $2.17 and operating expense pe r revenue mile is 27 below the peer group mean o f $2. 77. Overall, LeeTran performs well in terms of cost efficiency in comparison to rts peers. LeeTran's reported farebox recovery ratio is 18 percent below the peer group mean of 23.52 percent. Figure 53 indicates that while leeTran falls below the mean line fo r farebox recovery, only three Florida systems are above the average (Space Coast Area Transit, due to missing data for passenger fare revenues, did not report farebox recovery for its motorbus system) As noted earlier in the section detailing expenses and revenues, the low base fare of $0.75 and t h e low average fare per passenger trip ($0 39) due I n part to the free beach trolley service, are major contributing factors to LeeTran's below-average farebox recovery ratio. Th i s measure should improve when the recently-approved fare i ncrease takes effect in August 1994 Table 44 Peer Analysis Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery, FY 1993 .,;.:., < .y' . : Efficiency Meaeure L8eTran .. Peer Group Peer. Group J>:: F LHTran: .. Minimum . Maximum %,f.'fO!ii Mean Operating Expense per $8.90 $2 .26 $79.04 $20 14 56% Cap ila Operati n g Expense per $1.79 $0.79 $7.15 $2.17 -18% Passenger T ri p Operating Expense per $2,01 $1.67 $3.92 $2.77 -27% Revenue Mile Farebox Recovery Ratio 19.36% 18 26% 33.9 1 % 23.52%. -18% Space Coast Area Transit {Brevard County') dicf n.ot provide data to calculate its farebOx recovery fltio, and, therefore, Is not included in the peer group mean fot this measure. 102

PAGE 126

Figure 50 Operating Expense Per Capita Figure 52 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Figure 51 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip COlumbus ........ ......... ...._ ......... Figure 53 Farebox Recovery Ratio 103

PAGE 127

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Labor Productivity and Fare Structure LeeTr a n' s labor productivity, as measured by revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee, is difficuH to interpret. Only two systems report more revenue hours per employee than leeTran, which is 17 percent above the peer group mean for this measure (see Table 45). Table 45 also reports t hat passenger trips per employee is 6 percent below the mean of 27,452. leeTran seems to be reasonably labor efficient in terms of service supply, but less so in terms of service consumption, due to lower than average ridership. Figures 54 and 55 exhibit the values of these measures for each member of the peer QfOUp. Table 45 indica tes that the average fare of $0 35 is 17 percent lower than the peer group average of $0.42. According to Figure 56, six of the F lorida peer systems, including leeTran, are below the mean for this measure whi le only-one Florida system has an average fare above the peer group mean (also, one Florida system, Space Coast Area Transit, did not report data for an average fare). Table 45 Peer Analysis labor Productivity and Fare Structure, FY 1993 . ..... . . 1':/J> <. ':'" > Efllclency Measure LeeTnn Revenue Hours per 1 ,306 Employee Passenger Trips per 25,910 Employee Average Fare $0.35 Peer Group 'Minimum 649 5,593 $0.19 Peer Group ' ; . 1,603 61,237 $0.85 P..roroup .. -Meen: : .. 1,118 2 7 ,452 $0.42' : LaliTran: % From Mean +17% -17% Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard COunty) did not report data to caklulate an averagoflre, and, therefore, is not included in the peer group mean for this 104

PAGE 128

Figure 54 Revenue Hours Per Employee 'L::!!i!iii!i! ... ......, ......... ,_ Figure 55 Passenger Trip Per Employee La... _. "'"'-' ... Tl..,_... "-""' ... ......, .._ .. ....... 0-10 -Figure 56 Average Fare 105

PAGE 129

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVF:LOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 APPLICAT IO N TO LEETRAN GOALS In order to assess the specific performance evaluation resu lts for LeeTran, it is useful to review the goals previously iden tified in Chapter Two. Specific performance evaluation measures can be identified that assist in determining the extent to which LeeTran is meeting each of the stated goals. Table 46 reiterates the goals presented in Chapter Two, while Table 47 ident ifies applicable effectiveness and efficiency measures that relate to the assessment of LeeTran with respect to each of the stated goals. Tables 48 through 50 specifically look at the trend aod peer performance measures applicable to each of the goals. For each measure, the percent change from 1988 to 1993 and from 1992 to 1993 is provided from the fixed-route trend analysis. In addition, the percent deviation from the peer group mean is provided based on the peer review analysis. These tables provide a useful overview of the performance of LeeTran over time an. d in comparison to similar systems in the southeastern United States. Interpre ta tion was purposely omitted from this section since the intent is to not suggest that performance evaluation is the only mechanism for assessing whether goals are being achieved. Performance evaluation measures do not comprehensively cover the objectives i dentified under each goal in Table 46. Many ofthe objectives cannot be measured through this mechanism and require additional informa tion or more subjective evaluation. However, a consideration of the applicab le measures provides a useful starting point for fully understanding the status of LeeTran in its efforts to achieve these goals. As a result, the appropriate measures are provided in the tables, but the interpre tat ion of these measures as they relate to the achievement of goals is left to the reader. 106

PAGE 130

Goal1 Goal2 Goal 3 Goal4 GoalS Goa l S CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVA LUAnON Table 48 LeeTran Goal s Ensu r e Availability o f Transit Service to LH County Residents and Vlaltora Provid e transit service that meets demand and needs tdentily the appropriate service area for LeeTran Increase span of service as appropriat e Increase frequency of service on busiest routes Replace existing b u s fleet with accessible v ehicle s . Comply with a u requirements of the Americans with Disabi laies Act. Provide Qua l ity P .. aenger Ameniti .. to Enhance Bus and Attract D i scretionary Rldera Provide bus sheHers andlor benches at highly used b u s stops and transfer locations Coord i nate with local governments for the co nstruction of accessible s i dewalk s In prox i mity to bus stops Develop a mul tim odal transfe r center In the downtown area coordinated w it h other transporta tion modes. lntenalfy Mlrketlng EffCMta and lncraaae V l alblllty of LeeTran Increase the availability of i nformation regarding routes and schedules Include in formation kiosks at bus shf>lter locations Institute a community o utr eac h/education program for residents and v ishors Develop and implement a marketing p rogram geaned towards downtown workers. Provide the system transit map In the Yellow Pages directory Promote Syllem Efficiency .. Monit o r overall system performance through trend and peer analyses Develop and apply measures to monitor individ ual route performance Coord i nate wah local transporta tion agenc i es for the earfy i ncluslon of transit amen ities in the planni ng process Integrate transi t needs into the land use planning and development process_ Coordinate transh service with other transpo rtation providers Investigate Innovative ApproachH to the Provlalon of Efficient Transit Service Explore the use of smaller vehicles Consider the possibility of route deviation i n appropria te areas Investigate the implementation of a Guaranteed Ride Home Program Coordinate with the local transportation planning agencies for inclusion of dedicated bus lanes i n transportat ion project s I nvestigate private funding/operating opportunitie s Secu,.. Adequata F unding for the Transit Syatem Secure a long -term, dedicated funding source for the transrt system. Seek FOOT Service Deve lopment funds to im plement innovative service techniques on a trial basi s Leverage local matching funos to the maximum extent possib le 107

PAGE 131

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Table 47 Performance Measures Applied to LeeTran Goals Goals Applicable Perfonnanc.e Measures Goal1 Ensure Ava i lability of Transit Service Service Supply to Lee C<>unty Res i dents and Vehicle Miles Per Capita Visitors Fare Full Cash Fare Average Fare Goal2 Provide Quality Passe n ge r Qual ity of Service Amenit i es to Enhance Bus Service Average Age of Fleet and Attract Discretionary R i ders Goal3 Inte n s i fy Marketing Efforts and No applicab l e performance measu r es i n I n c r ease Visibility of LeeTran Section 1 5 database Specific actions are addressed in the recomme n dations as system e n ha n cements. Goal4 Promote System Efficie n cy Service Consumption Passenger Trips Per Capita Passenger Trips P e r Revenue Mile Cost Efficiency Operating Expense Per Capita Ope r ating Expense Per Pas se nger Trip Operating Expense Per Revenue Mil e Operating Ratios Farebox Recovery Labor P r oductivity Revenue Hours Per Employee Passenge< T rips Per Employee GoalS Investigate Innovative Approaches No applicable performance measures in to the Provision of Effi c ie n t Transit Section 15 database Serv i ce Goal& Secure Adequa t e Funding for the No applicable performance measures i n Transit System Section 1 5 database Specific actions a r e addressed in the recommendations as system enhancements. 106

PAGE 132

CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVAI.UAnON Table 48 Status of Goal1: Ensure Availability of Transit Service to Lee County Residents and Visitors Trend,% Tren d,% PHr,% Appllcoble Me .. ure Change Change O.VI1tlon From 1981-1993 1992-1993 Mean Service Supply Vehicle Miles Per Capita 39% I 5% I -35% Fare Average Fare I -11% % -17% Table 49 Status of Goal 2 : Prov i de Quality Passenger Amenities to Enhance Bus Service and Attract D i scretionary Riders Trend,% Trend,% PHr,% Applicable Perfonnance Measure Change Change Deviation From 1888-1993 1912 1993' M e a n Quality of Service Average Age of Fleet I 9% I 16% I -16% Table 50 Status of Goal 4: Promote System Efficien c y Trend,% Trend,% PHr,% Applicable Performance Measure Change Change O.VIatlon From 1911-1993 1992-1993 Mean Service Consumption Passenger Per Capita 35% 14% -62% Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile -2% 10% -32% Coat Efficiency Operating Expanse Per Capita 19% -5% -56% Operating El
PAGE 133

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 CONCLUSIONS A summary of LeeTran's perfonnance strengths and weaknesses base d on the trend analysis is provided in Table 51. The in tent of this table is not to suggest the extent of the strength o r weakness but to identify those perfonnance areas where the trend has imp roved or worsened from 1988 to 1993 A perfonnance strength is defined as any perfonnance area that improved or was maintained over the trend analysis time period. A perfonnance weakness is defined as a trend that declined over the trend analysis time period. Table 51 LeeTran Performance Strengths and Weaknesses, Trend Analysis Performance Strengths ... Perfonnanc. Weaknesses . . Serv ice Supply Labor Productivity Service Consumption (Service Supply) Cost Efficiency Farebox Recovery Labor Prod uctivity (Service Consumption) A summary of the perfonnance strengths and weaknesses based on the peer review analysis is provided in Table 52. A perfonnance strength Is defined as a perfonnance area that is more than 10 percent better than the pee r group average, while a perfonnance weakness is defined as a perfonnance area that is more than 10 percent worse than the peer group average. Table 52 LeeTran Performance Strengths and Weaknesses, Peer Review Analysis Performance Strengths Performance Weaknesses .. '' Cost Efficiency Service Supply Labor Productivity Service Consumption (SeM:e Supply) F arebox Recovery Results from the trend analysis are generally positive, while peer results are mixed. LeeTran seems to be providing an above average level of service for the county. In 1993, the number of revenue miles supplied by LeeTran increased to 1 ,553,220, wh ich is the most of any system in the peer group. However, when population is taken into account, the number of vehicle miles per capita is lower than average. While ridership has been stead ily in creasing over the trend 110

PAGE 134

CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVALUAnON period the number of passenger trips is still slightly below the peer group mean Serv i ce consumpt i on, as measured by passenger trips per capita and passenger trips per revenue mile is significantly lower in comparison to LeeTran's peer systems. One area in which Lee Tran performs better than Its peers is in terms of cost efficiency. Lee Tran's cost efficiency has steadily improved over the six-year trend period Three operating ratios-operating expen se per operat ing expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue m ile-are all well below the mean of the peer group for FY 1993. Over the past six years Lee Tran s revenue hours per employee has dedined 14 percent, w h ile, over the same period passenger trips per employee has increased stead ily. However when compared to its peers Lee Tran's number of revenue hours per employee is significantly above average and the number of passenger trips per employee is slightly be l o w the average The performance weakne sses revealed by the peer revie w analysis are somewhat misleadin g. Service supply and consumption measures are cases in which the peer review approach does not necessarily reflect the of service Fo r example Lee Tran provides the greatest revenue miles of se rvice of all systems in peer group and it is only Lee County's l arge popu l ation that causes the service supply measure (veh i cle miles per capita) to be below average. The same holds true for passenger trips per capita, a measure of serv ice consumption, while the below-average number for passenger trips per revenue mile reflects the high service levels provided by LeeTran In short, the per-capita measures are deflated because of the large county population and are essentially out of LeeTran's control. The rema i ning performance weakness is in the farebox recovery rat i o or the percentage of operating costs covered b y passenger fares LeeTran s recen t fare increase should i mprove performance in this measure in FY 1995. Trend and peer review analyses can be useful in developing a better understanding of LeeTran performance and In identifying target areas for additional atten t ion and improvement. Performance evaluation measures do not comprehensively cover all of the objectives of a transit system. Many objectiv es cannot be measured this mechanism and require additi onal in formation or more sub j ective eva l uation. However the resuHs of the trend and peer review analyses provide a usefu l start ing point for fu lly underst a nding the performance of LeeTran a nd complement the other components of thi s study 111

PAGE 135

this page IS blank

PAGE 136

CHAPTER FOUR: DEMAND AND NEEDS CHAPTER FOUR: Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment INTRODUCT ION Chapter Four summarizes the results of the preparat ion of esti mates of demand for transit service over the five-ye a r period the assess ment of mobility need s in the county and the eva lu ation of alte rn a t e methods in creas ing mobtrity through transit system im provements Various methods of estimating demand for transit service and assess ing unmet mobility needs are presented and discussed here in. These techn iques utilize the data and findings from aU previous tasks. Transit service alternatives are identified through the interviews focus groups. and surveys. and through CUTR's experience in other urban areas similar in size to Lee County. CURREN T AND FUTURE DEMAND FOR TRAN SIT SERVICE There are several different methods ava il ab l e to estimate the l eve l of demand for transit serv i ce in Lee County The demand may be estimated th roug h the use of trend analys i s peer rev iew comparisons among similar Florida and non-Florida transit systems, fare and service elasticities, census tract analysis, results of interviews and non-transit-user focus groups, and survey results. The following sections provide estimates for fixed route transit demand in Lee County Fixed-Route Demand Ridership Trends Over the past ten yea rs, ridership on LeeTran has increased nearly 116 percent, f rom 610,500 passenger trips in FY 1984to 1,746,916 passenger trips in FY 1993. After slightly decreasing In FYs 1985, 1986, and 1967, ridership increased 64 percent between 1987 and 1988 Following another slight decrease In FY 1989, ridership Continued to increase steadily. Between 1992 and 1993 the number of passenger trips i ncreased 20 percent. In order t o provide esti mates of future annua l rid ersh i p l evels a linear regression model was calibrated using the h istorica l ridership data from FYs 1984to 1993. S uch a model frts a straight line to the data points thereby allowing ridership i n future years to be pred ict ed Regression equations are very useful tools for forecasting Clear1y, however, the fur1her into the future a 113

PAGE 137

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 forecast is made, the less prec ise it becomes In this exercise, ridership levels, as measured by total number of annual passenger trips, were estimated through FY 1999. The classical linear regression model takes the following general form: where y, = a+ /1x, + e, y, = dependent variable, or the variable to be forecast, at t ime t; a = constant term; x, = independent variable that influences y., at time t; p = parameter on the independent vaiiable; <', = error term, which represents Influence not captured by the independent variable. For t his model, a regression l ine was fitted for annual ridership (in terms of passenger trips) with respect to time using the data on the number of passenger trips for the past 10 years. The regression equation that resulted is as follows: where y,. 512,797.267 + 113,571.388x, y, = annual ridership in terms of passenger trips at lime t; x, = year (year = 1 ,2,3 . ). The coefficient of determination for this model, de noted by R2 is .8265, which means that approximately 83 percent of the variation in the estimated annual ridership is explained by this regression equation. In add iti on, the F-stat istic which is a measure of the overall usefulness of the model for predictive purposes. is 38.109, which is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level (a= 0.05). Table 53 shows the existing level of ridership (FY 1993) for LeeTran and the estimated future ridership derived from the model for FYs 1994 through 1999. The table shows that ridership is projected to increase to approximately 2.3 million trips by 1999, a 33 percent increase from FY 1993. In order to estimate the number of annual passenge r trips for a particular year, the number representing the year in the order of the lime series is substituted into the regression equation. For example, year 14 represents 1997 (since the first data point is from 1984, which is year 1). When x, is set equal to 14 in the model, the number of passenger trips (denoted by yJ is 2, 102,797, as shown in Table 53. The model used to produce the estimates shown in the table does not account for the tare increase (from $0.75to $1.00) wh ich wi ll take effect in August 1994, since no ridership data are 114

PAGE 138

CHAPTER FoUR: DEMAND AND N EEDS yet available at the $1.00 fare level A second drawback is the small number of observations used in the model calibration : only ten years of data were available for the estimation. As the number of data po ints increases, so does the reliability of the mod e l. Table 53 Projected Fixed-RoutAt Ride ... hlp for LeeTran FY 1193 FY 1t84 FY1tM FY 19M FY1H7 FY1tM FY 1ttt (Actual) Ridership 1,748,916 1,762,083 1 ,875,654 1 989,225 2.102.797 2,216 369 2,329 939 Peer Group Comparison One alternate approach I n determining the extent of transH demand is to compare pe r capita ridership service, and spending levels at LeeTran wit h those at similar systems in Florida and the southeastern United States. The peer review analysis contained in Chapter Three presented a wide array of data for 16 transit systems that operate between 10 and 49 buses in max imum service Of these systems half are in F l orida and half are i n other so utheastern states By taking the averages of rid ersh i p per cap ita and other measures and then app lying them to Lee County's population, it is possible to est imat e the level of demand for transit service in systems of this size, all other things being equal Table 54 presents the results of th i s exe rcise In FY 1993 the peer group systems averaged 13.14 passenge r trips per capita, while Le eTran averaged only 4 99 trips per capita. If lee County were to match the average number of trips per capita for the peer group, LeeTran ridership would increase to over 4 .6 million from its existing 1 9 million Simllar1y LeeTran provides significantly less service. as measured by vehicle miles per capita, than the peer group average Service levels would have to incre ase by app roxim ately 50% to match the peer group The operat in g expenses per capita for leeTran are four tenths the peer group average Projected operating expense would be $7 million based on the per capita peer group average One factor to consider in interpreting these numbers is the difference In measuring service area population Lee Tran and a number of other Florida systems use county population as a proxy est im ate even if the transit system does not serve the entire county Systems outside F lorida often use actual service area populat io ns Thus, per capita measures are generally higher for non-Florida sys tems 115

PAGE 139

LEE COUNTY TRANSfT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Table 54 Peer Group Comparisons with LeeTran Meoaun. .... . ,._ LeeTran . P-Gioup Population 350 ,810 206,120 Passenger Trips per Capita . 99 13.2 1 Vehicle M i les per Capita 4 .76 7.33 Maximum Vehicles Openlled 26 27 Operating Expenses per Capita $8.90 $20.14 Projeeled LeeTran Ridership Aclual 1,748 ,916 1 ,896.047 Based on Peer Averages Projeeled P rojected Lee Tran Vehicle Miles Aclual 1,668 ,841 1,148,786 Based on Peer Averag"s Projected 2,571,400 Projected LeeTran Operating Exp. Aclual $3,122,937 $3,036,332 Based on Peer Averages Projected $7 065,300 It may be instructive to look at subsets of ltle peer group, since LeeTran operates 26 buses in maximum service and the peer group span ranges from 11 to 43 buses operating in maximum service. Subsets are created in order to narrow the span in wh ich LeeTran is compared. Table 55 presents the ridership and service data for LeeTran, the full peer group, and th ree different subsets: peer group systems that operate between 20 to 30 buses in maximum service, peer group systems in Florida, and peer group systems in Florida that operate between 20 to 30 buses in maximum service. As can be seen from ltle table LeeTran's performance resuHs are most similar to the averages of Peer Subset 1, except for population density and operating expense per This suggests that a greater discrepancy between LeeTran and the averages of the fu ll peer group resulted from ltle inclusion of the larger systems (ltlose operating between 31 and 49 buses in maximum service). Even so, LeeTran has lower ridership, less service, and lower expenses per ltlan would be expected for a system of its size. Table 56 presents LeeTran projections based upon the per capita averages in the peer group and the peer subsets. For example, annual ridership estimates range from 2,147 ,000, if LeeTran per-capita ridership were to match the average of peer systems in ltle 20-to-30-bus subset, to 4,634,200, if LeeTran per-capita ridership were to match ltle peer group average. Projected annual vehicle miles of service range from 1,785,600 to 2,571,400, and operating expense projections range from $4,469,300 to $7,065,300. 116

PAGE 140

CHAPTER FOUR: DEMAND AND NEEDS Table 55 Peer Subset Comparisons with LeeTran . > > ' > _. "*iUre .P,eer sutieet 1 P-Suboet2 Peer Sublet 3 LMTran -, . ; > Florido,. . Aoriciol 20-30 'Bilaa . > .. ,. ' . : .. .... _i:_; ... ;., 21).;10 BUMS . Population 350,810 243,520 238,440 262,800 Service Area Population Density 1 ,856 2,816 2 ,202 3,070 (population/sq. mile) Passenger Trips per Capita 4.99 6.12 10.45 7.00 Vehicle Miles per Capita 4 76 5 .09 6.32 5.32 Maximum Vehicles Ooerated 26 27 25 25 Operating Expense pe< Capita $ 8 .90 $13. 35 $15.93 $12. 74 Table 56 LeeTran Projections Based on Per Capita Averages In Peer Groups .. LHTran .. _, > .PeerSubeet3 : Peer l!ublet 1 PeerS..-2' Maaaute ' (Actual FY Peer Gro1111 : Florida 20-31fBua .. .: Florida : ' ' >,1993) N . 20-30 Buses .. Projected RideBhip 1,748 916 4,634 200 2,147,000 3,666,000 2,455,700 Projected Vehicle Mikts 1,668,641 2,571 400 1,785.800 2.217,100 1,886,300 Projected Operating $3,122,937 $7,065,300 $4,683 ,300 $5.588,400 $4,469,300 Expense 1/Vhile peer groupanalysis is useful for comparing the relative performance lev els of similar systems. caution must be used in applying these results to demand estimation and needs assessment. The underlying assumption that the propensity to use transit is constant across urbani zed areas of similar size and similar !ransit syslem characteristics ignores differences among cities in urban development, demographics, and qua lity of service. In LeeTran's case. the hi gh end of the range appears to be out of reach. Even realistic projections, derived primarily from averages of the peer systems operating between 20 to 30 buses in maximum service, would result in a 23 -percent increase in fixed-route ridership, a 7-percent increase in fixed-route service, and a 43-percent i ncrease in expenditures 117

PAGE 141

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 Fere end Service Elesticilies Another means of estimating f uture demand for transit I s through the use o f fare and service elasticities. An elast icity is a measure of the sensitivity of a dependent variable, such as passenger trips, to changes in an in dependent variable, such as fare or level of service. It is also represented by the percent change in a dependent variable divided by the percent ohange in an ind ependent variable VVhile considerable variations can ocour, especially for changes at the level of ind i vidual routes fare and service elasticities have been shown to rem a i n relatively oonsistent ac:ross transit systems of a ll sizes a t the aggregate system level. The Amerioan Public Transi t Associa t ion (AP TA ) has pub li shed a value of -0.43 for the e l ast i city of rid ersh i p with respect to fare (for systems serving areas with populations of less than one million).' According to an Ecosometrics, Inc. report, the elasticity of ridership with respect to level of service as mea sured by vehic l e miles is +0 61.2 The elasticity measures are interpreted as follows: a 1 0-percent i ncrease in the transit fare would resuM in a 4.3-peroent decrease in rid ers hip, while a 1 ()-percent increas e in the level of service would generate a 6 1 percent i ncre ase in ridership These e l asticities show that generally transit ri ders a re more sensitive to service levels than to the fare Table 57 presents the results of three fare pric i ng scenarios as well as a scenario Involving an Incre ase in the level of service The first scenario predicts how ridership w ill be affected after the fare increase from $0 75 to $1. 00 (an increase of 33 percent) takes effect In August 1994. According to the elasticity measure, with a fare of $1.00, the system can expect a decrease in ridership (as measured by the number of passenger trips) of 250,653 trips, all other things being equal. However since the demand for ridership is considered in e lastic w ith respect to fare (Ind icating a l esser degree of sensitivity to f are changes) the increase in revenue from passengers pay i ng the higher fare will more than offs e t the l oss from fewer trips, result i ng in a net revenue increase of $92,063 (based on the average fare ) AIMrican Public Transa Alsociation Elfem of Fate On But Ridfll$hip (Wa!hington : AIMOc:an Public Associ ation May 1991), 7 'Ecosom etries, lne Petronage lmp&Cts of Changes in Tranft Fete and SoMc:es report prepared for lho U.S. Department of Transportal ion (Wahlngton: Govemmenl Prinling Ofllee. Seplember 65. 118

PAGE 142

CHAPTER FOUR: DEMAND AND NEEDS Table 57 Impacts of Fare and Service Scenarios .. I 2 Scenorio 3 Scenorlo 1 Meaaure ,' .-: EldoUng Forelnerease : 10 cen1 fare 1.:10 cent fare. 10% (FY. 1993) (Aug!JOi 199;') lncruae ..... iitciuaeln ' service Fare $.75 $1.00 $1.10 $0 .90 $1.00 Average Fare $0.35 $0.47 $0.5 1 $0.42 $0.47 Vehicle Mites 1,008 ,841 1,008,841 1,008 841 1,tl68,841 1,835,725 Passenger Trips 1, 748,916 1,498 ,263 1,4 33 838 1,562,688 1,589,657 Operating E>pense $3,122,937 $3,122,937 $3 122,937 $3,122,937 $3,435,231 Change in Ridership ,653 -64.425 +64,425 +91,394 Change in Revenue +$92.063 +$27.074 ..$47,855 +$42,955 Change In Operellng ---+$312.294 E>pense Net Financial Impact +$92 ,083 +$27,074 ..$47,855 -$268,338 The second scenario shows what would happen if the fare were to increase an additional 10 percent from $1.00 to $1.10: Table 57 indicates that ridership could be expected to decline, all things being equal, by 64,425 passenger trips. Again, however the effect of increased passenger fare revenues will dominate with a net gain of $27,074. In the th ird pricing scenario the effects of a fare decrease from $1.00 to $0.90 are reported As evidenced in Table 57, the 10-percent decline in the fare would cause an increase in ridership equal to the decrease from the second scenario: 64,425 passenger trips, holding all other factors constant. Due to the of transit demand with respect to fares, the increase in riders will not generate enough revenue to counter the loss from the lower fare, and a net financial loss of $47,855 w ill be rea l ized. The last scenario in Table 57 exhibits the resutts of an increase in leeTran's level of service, as measured by vehicle miles Transit demand with respect to the level of service is considered to be elastic, which indicates a higher sensitivity to the service levels provided by the system. Therefore, a 1 0-percent increase in vehicle miles would produce 91 ,394 additional passenger trips, which would generate additional revenues of $42,955, all else being equal. However, a 1 O-i>ercent increase in the level of service provided is presumed to require a 10-percent increase 119

PAGE 143

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAII, 1995-1999 i n operating expense The i ncre ase in operating expense to provide the add itional serv i ce wou l d result i n a net loss of $269 338 The results of the elasticity calculations indicate that increasing serv ice levels does not necessarily achieve the anticJpated results, since the cost involved in service expansion is significant. A 10-percent increase in vehicle miles would represent a major challenge for any small agency These results imply that proposed service improvements must be closely scrutinized for im pacts on cost as well as ridership. Also important, however, i s the fact th at all service extens i ons are not equal; a n i mprovement targe ted at a specific corridor or location where there is sign i fican t demarid 'can perfo rm mucl) bette r than aggregate averages Table 58 inc ludes the original fixed -rout e ridership projections from Table 53 a swell as estimates assuming that an annual 10-percent increase in service would result in a 6.1-percent increase In ridership. This increase would be in to the annual ridersh i p increases predicted by the linear regression equation, which holds all exogenous factors. including service changes, constant. The resulting estimate is 3.1 million trips by FY 1999, compared to the orig i nal estimate in Tabl e 53 of 2 3 million Given that the actual level of change I n fixed-route service i s likely to be somewhere between zero and 10 percent annually it is estimated that leeTran will generate approx imately 2 7 million trips per ye a r by FY 1999 Tabla 58 B as e and Enhanced Fi x e d -Route Ridership P rojection s for LeeTran .. Ridership FY1tl3 FY1994 FY 1tl5 FY11te FY1tl7 FY 1188 FY 1199 (Actuol) Base (no service 1 748 918 1 782.083 1 .875.6 54 1 889.225 2 102 797 2,216 369 2.,3 29 939 increase) Enhanced (1 0% annual service 1.748 ,918 1 762,083 1,983 ,141 2 22 4 ,192. 2 486 855 2 .n2.a8a 3 084 099 increaM:) Census Tract Analysis Census tract data from the 1990 Census can be used to compare demographic Inform a tion particu l arly those charaele risti cs that are highly correlated with a person s or household s need for transit, wit h the county's ex i sting transit network configuration Thi s type of analys i s i s useful for determ i ning whethe r oensus tracts characteristics are adequate l y served by the existing network. For this analysis the demographic characteristics that 120

PAGE 144

CHAPTER FoUR: DEMAND AND NEEDS were used to indicat e transit dependence inclu ded the distribution of elderly (60 years or older) persons, low-income (less than $10 ,000 annual household i ncome) households, and zero vehicle-ownership households. The first step in i dentifying the census tracts that have persons or households with the greatest propensity for transit use involved th e calculation of the percent distributions of th e three demograph i c characteristics for each tract. This process in a table of values i ndicating the percent of elderly persons, lowIncome households, and zero-vehicle households for each of Lee County's 93 census tracts The census tracts were then sorted for each characteristic in descending order of percent dis\ribution so that tracts with higher percentages for each characteristic would appear at the top of their respective ranges From the percentage ranges, an average percen t value and a standard deviation value were calculated for each characteristic. Statistically, the standard deviation may be thought of as a measure of distance from the average value. According to an empirical rule of thumb, for most moderately-sized data sets with a bell -sh aped distribution approximately 68 percent of the data values will lie w ithin one standard deviation of their average and approximately gs percent of the data values will li e within two standard deviations of the i r average Each of the three characterist i c ranges was then stratified into fou r seg ments based on the followi ng break po ints: average pe rcent, average percent plus one standard dev i ation and average percent p lu s two standard deviations Thus, the census tracts fell into one of the following four categories for each character1slic : below average above average but below one standard deviation (average), between one and two standaFd deviations above average (above average) and more than two standard dev iations above average (far above average ) The next step i nvolved the assignment of discrete numerical scores to each of the four categories established for each demographic characteristic. These scores serve two basic purposes : to provide uniform ranking to all of the tracts within a particular category and to numerically differentiate among the four categories for each characteristic. A comparative probability estimation method was utilized to develop the scores First the probability that a tract would be part of a specific ca tegory for a given ch ara cteris t i c was ca l culated for each category For examp le, thr ee of Lee County s 93 census tracts were part of the "far above average category for the characterist ic. This meant that there was a 3.2 percent probab ility (number of tracts in category+ number of total tracts x 100%) that one of Lee County's tracts would fall within the range established for that particular category for the elderly characteristic. After the probab ili ties were ca lcul a ted for each characteristic's categories they we re then u sed to est imate th e categories scores via comparative probability rat ios. That i s, the 121

PAGE 145

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 probability percentage for each category was divided in to the probability percentage for the "be low average" category. This numerator was selected so that, for each characteristic, the census tracts in the "below average" category wo uld receive a score of one (1 ). Again using the "far above average" category of the characteristic as an example, ij was determined that the score for th is category would be 16 1, since the probability for the "below average" category was 51. 6 percent and this probability divided by the '1ar above average" category probability of 3.2 percent equals 16.125. The probabilities and final scores for each demographic characteristic's categories are presented in tabular form in Appendix I. Finally, scores were calculated for the &ensus tracts by summing the in div idual category scores that they had received for each demographic characteristic. The census tracts were then ranked by composite score and stratified into four levels using the same method that was utilized to develop characteristic categories. The census tracts that fell into the '1ar above average" category were defined as primary transit-dependent tracts, i.e., census tracts with t he greatest propensity for transit based on the tracts' percentages of persons, low-income households, and zero-vehicle households. Secondary transit-dependent tracts included those that fell into the "above average" category; tertiary transH-dependent tracts included those tracts in the "average" category. Table 59 presents the results of the census tract analysis. Of the census tracts listed in the table, all but three tracts are served by the existing transH system, with the census tracts in Fort Myers receiving the most service coverage. F igure 57 illustrates the primary, secondary, and tertiary t ransH-dependent census tracts with an overlay of leetran's fixed-route network. Based upon this analysis, ij was determined that all primary transij-dependent tracts are currently being served. In fact, only three tracts were identified as that are not currently served : 101. 02 in North Fort Myers (secondary), 303 00 in Alva (tertiary), and 503.03 in Bonita Springs (tertiary). Other areas that warrant further detailed analysis with regard to the possible need for addHio na l service coverage include census tracts 5.01 and 6.00 in Fort Myers, tracts 106.02 and 108.02 in Cape Coral, and tract 205.01 in North Fort Myers. 122

PAGE 146

Tract 1 .00 Fort Myers 2.00 Fort Myers 5 .01 Fort Myers 5 .02 Fort Myers 6 .00 Fort Myers 403 04 Lehigh Acres 3 02 Fort Myers 7 00 Fort Myers 8 .00 Fort Myers 11.00 Fort Myers 101.02 North Fort Myers 205.01 North Fort Myers 603 .00 Bonita Beach 1 7 .03 Cypress Lake 106 .02 Cape CO
PAGE 147

this page IS blank

PAGE 148

Figure 57-Lee County Bus Routes and Transit Dependent Tracts "' U1 i -' ... t .._'; ; . 0 5 10 M iles "'..... ..... .... -tlll.tt atUI Bus Routes -Trolley 10 20 Cll :lO 0 40 so so 70 .80 .90 oo 110 ... .. ..... Transn Dependent Trac t s Prim81)" 0 S.oooclaty Torliary ... N

PAGE 149

this page IS blank

PAGE 150

CHAPTER FovR: DEMAND AND NEEDS Interview, Focus Group and Survey Results Results of interviews with key local officials and focus groups with non-users have been discussed in Chapter One. The overall opinion of the transit system is generally positive. The system was commended for its management and for utilizing ns scarce resources In an Intelligent and efficient manner Local officials and reported potential demand for I ncreased hours of operation. In addition both groups agreed that exploring various methods of d i stributing system infonnation to the public was necessary and that LeeTran must explore different m arketing techniques Severa l of the key local officia l s also said was. impo rtant for further studies to be undertaken concerning issues so th at Lee County and th e transit system will be better equ i pped to serve the community Finally, most of the key officials agreed that more money should be allocated to transit, but also realized that actually obtaining the funding is extremely difficult. Demand-Responsive Servlc:e Ridership Estima Americans with D i sabl1it les Act In addition to requiring t ransit agencies to provide access i ble, frxed-route bus serv i ce the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires these agencies to provide complementary paratransit service. LeeTran has until1997 to phase In its accessible vehicles In order to be in compliance. The regulations define the service criteria that must be met when Implementing complementary paratran sit service. The six serv i ce criteria, described in Section 37.31 of the fed eral regu l ations (49 CFR Part 37) include the follo w'.,q : Serv i ce area T rip ; e Response time H o 1 days of service Fares Ca, : y constraints Section 37.123 of the ADA regulations describes the eligibility standards for the paratransit service To be eligible for ADA complementary paratransit services, persons must be unable to use fixed-route service for some or all of their trips because of the nature of their d i sabilities. A person who is blind or uses a whee lchair, for examp l e is not automatically e li gib l e for ADA paratransit unless he or she is specifically unable to u se the fixed-route serv i ce Lee County ca n manage the demand fo r ADA comp l eme ntary paratransit services by follow i ng the strict ADA paratransit el i gibility standards outiined in the regula tions Th i s wou l d encourage the use of less costly, frxed-route serv i ce by those who are able to do so. 127

PAGE 151

LEE COUNTY TRANSfT DEVELOPMENT PI.AN, 1995-1999 AOA requires public transn systems to prepare a Complementary Paratransit Plan describ ing t h e system s i mplementat i on plan for the ADA paratransit serv ice, and to provide annual updates to the plan leeTran's 1994 plan update includes several sections: a discussion of the fixed-route and paratransit service currently provided; a proposed process for determining eligibility for the service; certiftcation(s) ; an ADA paratransit p lan timetable and progress report; estimates of demand fo r ADA paratransit serv ice; a budget summary with cost an(j vehicle est i mates ; a public partic i pation process; and unresolved and other issues. According to LeeTran's 1994 plan update, the number of persons certified eligible for ADA paratransit service is projected to increase from 662 I n FY 1995 to 730 in 1997, and ADA paratransit ridersh i p i s pro j ected to i ncrease from 13,942 in FY 1995 to 15. 370 In FY 1997, as shown in Tab l e 60. leeTran is in fu ll compl i ance with the requ i rem ents for the comp l ementary paratransn provision of ADA ; however it is actively pursuing fund i ng fo r a n access ible fleet. A basic linear regress i on model was cal i brated using the actual and projected ADA-eligib l e persons and trips from 1993to 19971o estimate the number of ADA-elig i ble persons. and trips for the last two years of the TOP time frame. Tabla 60 ADA-Eligible Person snd Trip Projections vPro)ec11on 1195 1tH 1997 1tH 1tt9 Number of Penoris Certil!ed ADA Eiigiblo 662 6 95 730 758 789 Number of ADA Paratranaft Trips Provided 13.942 1 4 639 15,370 16 018 16 699 Souroo: Lee County TransN ADA PsrJtransn Plan, 1994 Update. Eatimataa tor 1998 & 1999 based on results of a linear model. Fixed-route service improvements such as route extens i ons, lengthening of the span of service during the day, and provision of Sunday service have defin n e i mplications with regard to ADA requ i rements Complementary paratrans n serv ice must be provided during the hours of normal fixed-route operat i on, and must be made available to all e l igible persons within three-quarters of a mile of a fixed route Therefore, such proposals as evening or Sunday fixed-route service 128

PAGE 152

CHAPTER FouR: DEMAND AND NEEDS or introducti on of service to new areas will also expand t he hours or geograph i c service cov erage that will be required for complementary ADA service and, thus, increase the pro j ected number or ADA trips. According to the Lee County Transit ADA Complementary Paratransit Plan, 1994 Update, leeTran currently uses the state-appointed Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC), Good 'M1eels to provide complementary service Lee County The plan does not differ from the requirements of ADA service criteria Effective J une 26 1992 LeeTran, t hrough the CTC was in full compliance with au of the ADA regulations for complementary The plan update a 'so indicates that the current demand for ADA service in Lee County is 608 certir;ed clients Good Wheels is currently successful in, and does not foresee any future problems with, meeting tnis requirement. If, In the future, Good Wheels cannot meet this demand, LeeTran will further involve the private sector paratransit providers to comply with ADA requirements. NEEDS ASS E SS MENT Flxe
PAGE 153

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOP/riENT PLAN, 1995-1999 assessment, s ince they com prise the most promis ing marl<.et fo r future transit g ro wt h Thi s future growth will i n bette r serv ice for all riders captive as well as cho ice. Based upon the system goals and objectives. demand estimates, and the findings from previous tasks, the following mobility needs have been identified ( Note tha t these are not listed In priority order) : Service a rea; Later even in g service; Improved frequency espeCia lly pn the busiest routes ; Sunday service ; Express service; Service to major employment sites; Multimodal linkages/transit center; Improved corridor service ; and Improved service coverage in transit-dependent census tracts Service Area The current LeeTran fixed-route bus serves Fort Myers Cape Coral, North Fort Myers and Lehigh Acres LeeTran operates trolley service on Fort Myers Beach and within Bonita Springs. Areas not served by the transit system include Pine I sland and the Southwest F l orida International Airport The new university campus that will be locate d just east of 1 75 and south of Alico Road will be completed in 1997 and will require direct transit service I n the meetings with transit users non-users and key local o fficia l s there was not a consensus on whether LeeTran shou l d use the five-year plan to denote an expans ion of serv ice with i n the county a contra'Ciion of serv ice using the exl$t i ng resources to provide increased service to a smaller geographical area or a combination of both alternatives. Both alternatives can have positive impacts on the residents of the county, one serving the current user and the other addressing the potential needs of residents not cumsntly served by LeeTran An expansion of the service area w ould certainly require the purchase of equipment and an increase i n service miles s ince the cumsnt service operates at min imum standards of frequency and cou l d not. therefore be spread out any further 130

PAGE 154

CHAPTER FOUR: DEMAND AND NEEOS Evening Service At present, of the 13leeTran fixed routes, 1 1 rou t es finish their final trip between approximate l y 6:30 and 7 :30 p.m. The except i ons are the Bonija Springs Trolley and the Fort Myers Beach Trolley, with serv i ce ending at 5:40p. m. and 8:45p.m., respectively. The desire for later transit service has been strongly expressed by riders, non-users, drivers and local officials Of the 15 other systems in LeeTran's peer group 9 provide later evening service and 7 operate at least until 10 :00 p.m. I n L eeTran's case the i ssue is not so much prov i ding service to the average 8:00 a m -to-5:00 p.m. working commuter as it is providing even i ng service after 7:30p.m. A first step i n provid ing evening transit service is to identify trip generators which produce a large number of trips during these time periods. Colleges, shopping malls major businesses and hospitals are among the obvious generators Hours of service could be extended on routes serv ing these locations, as well as routes serving transij-dependent nei ghborhoods Exact hours of operation shou l d be determined through detai led evaluation during service design Service into the evening might encourage shopping mall workers to commute via transij and open up employment opportunities fo r those without access to an automob i le Even a more modest lengthening of the service day would support the objectives of increasing mobilijy for captive riders and prov i ding serv i ce to working commuters. Financing evening service is problematic. While some existing equipment can be utilized, ADA paratransit service would need to be expanded to match the new hours of service. Further, additional labor costs for this service may be significant. Improved Frequency Currently Lee Trim service is provided at a frequency of one bus per hour on ten routes, w i th two routes providing service every two or three hours and the beach trolley p r oviding service every 15 minutes in-season and every 30 m i nutes during the off-season. I t is very difficuH to attract choice riders out of their automobiles at this frequency. On its busiest rou1es and corridors, LeeTran might consider experimenting with a frequency of one bus every 30 minu1es during peak hours The fisca l implicaons of improved frequency are significant. Additional equipment w i ll be along with additional labor costs, and no funding source is immediately i dentifiable. One possible approach Is to select the most promising rou1e as a test case. I f overall service elasticities hold, rou1e ridership might increase by approximately 60 percent duri ng peak hours, 131

PAGE 155

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT Pl..AH, 1995-1999 since se rvice i s be ing inaeased by 100 percent. On bus i est rout e with the highest dema nd however, Le e Tran might expect to experience a greater t han average rid ersh i p i ncrease Sunday Service LeeTran does not operate any fixed-route bus service on Sundays, but the beach t rolleys do operate. Since the market for Sunday serv ice is unknown a limited p ilo t program might be proposed to o perat e service on Sundays o n se l e ct e d routes at reduced frequencies Specifically these could be th e routes t h a t perform we ll on Saturdays -Routes serving malls hospita l s and oth e r a ttractions open on Sunda ys wo1.11d be log i ca l candid ates a long with rout e s traveling i n nei ghborhoods. It should be noted that only 6 of the 15 systems in LeeTran's peer group provid e Sunday service Thus, providing Sunday service may not merit high priority Should LeeTran dec ide to start Sunday service, ADA paratrans i t service would need to be expanded to match the new hours of service. Express Service Exp ress service i s generally provided from a suburban outlying area to a n urban h igh dens ity employment site su c h as the central business district (CBD). I n meetings w ith the focus groups and key local officials, the need for express service in the county was discussed Areas to consider for express s ervice include Lehigh Acres Bonita Splings Pine Island, and along 1 75 Se rv ice to Major Employment Sites The on-bo ard survey results of LeeTran bus riders revea l ed that 50 percent o f transit riders were going to work. Wh il e th i s I s norm a l for a system th is size I t also suggests th a t a transit market (employment sites) might not be adequately s erv ed by the present system configuration and schedules. One of the objectives for LeeTran is to seek out markets for t r an si t service at employment sites and major trip generators. M ultimod a l L/nkagestrrensit Center LeeTran currently h a s a joint grant appficat ion with the City of Fort Myers for the cons t ruction of a muttimod a l tr ansn center in downtown Fort M yers Ove r the years LeeTran has had to move the downtown transit transfer center which is actually no more than a series o f bus stops and shelters on a downtown street. The p l anned muHimodal facility would accommodate CBD132

PAGE 156

CHAPTER FOUR: DEMAIIO AIIO NEEDS oriented bus routes, as w ell as a joint development project with Amtrak for connecting bus This pennanent fac ility is n ee ded to allo w easy transfers between bus routes, serve Amtra k bus service, and to provide adequa te shelter facilities for wait ing transit passeng ers. Improve d Corridor Service Incre ased trans i t service on many of the county s state ro a dways/corridors is necessary to aid in allevi a tin g congestion Corridors to be considered include Sta te Route 865 (Includ i ng Bonita Beach Road) Estero Boulevard and San Carlos Boulevan:houth of GladiQius and U S 41 from Pine Islan d Road south to San can'os Pi!rk in South Fort M yers leeTran should prioritize these service needs and seek funding from the F l orida Department of Transportat ion's Transit Corridor Program for funding assistance. Improve d Service Coverage in Transit Dependent Tracts Prim a ry, secondary a nd tertiary transit-d e pendent census tracts h a v e been identif18d earlier in Table 59 and Figure 57 That p a rticul a r section compared th e fixed-rout e system with areas of transit need. These concentra t ion s of e ld e rly population low-income households and zero veh icl e households have a clear n eed for transit service All prim ary transit-dependent census tracts are currently served by LeeTran fixed-route bus service. Census tract 101.02 in N orth Fort My ers, and tracts 303 .00 (Alva) and 503.03 (Bonita Springs) are secondary and tert ia ry transit dependent tra cts that are currentl y unserved, but are c l eariy well outside l eeTran's service area. Transit-dependent tracts should be ana l yzed further w hen consid ering any modifications or expansion of serv ice in the county M OBILITY NEEDS AND TRAN S IT DEMAND : SUMMARY The peer a n d census tract analysis suggest that there is some l evel of unmet demand for transit service in Lee County but that, overall, Lee Tran does a good jo b in providing service where it i s needed. Demand projections sugges t that ri d ership will continue to grow, h elped along by appropriate serv ice extensions. Speoific transit-dependent are as deserving add i tional anal ysis h a ve been noted LeeTran must als o t ake into account growth p attems in the county, p art iculariy in and around the Southwest Florida International Airport, the ne w university campus and th e U S 4 1 corridor in the southern half of the county AJI ofthese issues raise im portant questions regarding the future direction LeeTran s hould take. The next chapter presents and evaluates broad aHema t ives for LeeTran and develops a series of reco mmendation s to help the agency achieve "s vision and goals in the next five years. 133

PAGE 157

this page IS blank

PAGE 158

CHAPTER FIVE: AlTERNAnVE AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER FIVE: Transit Alternatives and Recommendations INTRODUCTION This is the final chapte r for the Lee County Transit Development Plan. Previous chapters have described the current conditions for serv ice in Lee County. External factors such as population growth, development patterns, and demographic characteristics of Lee County residents have been analyzed in terms of their impacts on LeeTran's ab i lity to prov ide quality transit service. participation in the form of the TOP Review Committee has produced goals and objectives for the transit system. A public meeting was scheduled and advertised for August 8, 1994, in downtown Fort Myers, but produced minimal input. At this point in the project, the focus shifts fro m a descriptive, analy1ical approach to a future oriented perspective. The findings presented earlier are now brought together and used to sketch for LeeTran and to make recommendations for impr ovements in Lee County. The first section of this chapter presents broad alternatives for LeeTran's future direction over the next five years. The most reasonable and promising alternatives are then selected to form the basis of LeeT ran 's vision for transit. T o help achieve this vision and the agency's proposed goals and objectives, the next section develops a series of recom menda t ions to be imp lemented over the next five years. The recommendations are prioritized according to the time frame for action: immediately, within one-to-two years, and within three-to-five years. The final section outlines the current budget projections for LeeTran over the five-year period and estimates the costs associated with each recommendation. ALTERNATIVES Broad alternatives for the future direction of the transit agency are presented in the following paragraphs. These alternatives reflect overall policy decisions regarding ridership, extent of service and the role of transit In the day-to-
PAGE 159

LEE COUNTY TRANSfT DEVElOPitiENT PL.AN, 1995-1999 Three policy scena ri os are presented and discussed i n this section These are : 1. Expand the trans" system to unserved and undel1lerved areas of the county ; 2. Concentrate transit where it is most needed and used; 3. Respond to growth in Lee County. Expand the Transit Syst.m to Unserved and Underserved Areas of the County Thi s attemalive applies to the geographic coverage of the county by thjl trans i t system and would stress prov i sion of service beyond the current service area to newly developing communities and to older commun i ties not currently served One example where this concept has been applied is Lehigh Acres, where transit service was established to connect that area with Fort Myers T he process of service expansion could initially focus on areas with high concentra tions of transit-dependent households. Expansion could also ensure that all areas of the county receive serv i ce A major benefit of the service expan sion a H emalive is increased access for residents of Lee County to the transit system Greater geographic coverage should i mprove mobi l ity There is a l so the potential to en l arge the constituency support i ng public transportation There are two significant drawbac ks to this alternative The fim involves cost. Transit works best in a concentrated environme nt and it becomes vary difficult to provide service i n a cost efficient manner as the service area becomes larger and more suburban in character As seen i n the peer review in Chapter Three LeeTran s revenue miles of service is highest among all systems i n its peer group This i s due in large part to the size of its existing service area with many routes traveling for considerable distances LeeTran has done an excellent j ob of manag i ng costs with the second-lowest f1Qure for operating expense per revenue mile among its pee11i, but add ing service in outlying areas tends to drive up costs quickly. The second and related disadvantage to the service expansion alternative Is that It Is probably not the most promising technique to increase ridership on the system. The reason for this Is that there is an Inverse relationship between service area coverage and frequency of service, given limited resources Provid i ng service to all comers of the county reduces the resources ava i lable to improve serv ice in selected target areas and may spread the transit agency too thinly across the county is most effective in p l aces where density i s highest and where there are a fainy large number of trip generators and attractors Serving suburban o r l ow-density areas solely for the sake of increasing the number of people with access to a bus i gnores the 136

PAGE 160

CHAPTER FIVE : ALTERNitTJVE AND RECOMMENDATIONS I ssue of whether such serv ic e actually meets the travel demands and needs of residents i n those areas. Concentrate Transit Where It Is Moat Needed and Uaed The second attemative uses the strategy of matching transit service with demand Under this scenario, transit service would be concentrated in areas w here there is proven demand and need for publ i c transportation with the poss ible truncation of underutilized routes or route segments Cle arly th i s approach I s less expansive than the previous allemative atthovgh service expans ion I s not ruled out The primary focus he!ll is on providing service to areas of the county where it w ill be heavily utilized Implicit in this alternative Is the Idea that th e tra ns it -dependent popu lation should receive the most attention and service from LeeTr a n. Every transit agency is faced with a similar decision: whether to orient service to wa rd the transit-dependent who usually constiMe the majority of transit ridersh i p in small systems or to try to attra ct those res id ents with other t r a nsportation cho i ces ( refened to as cho i ce" riders) The latter marKet is much larger and offers greater potential for growth ye t the tr ansit-dependen t marKet forms the foundat ion o f the agency's exist i ng rid ers hip \Nh lle t here are som e services tha t can benefrt both marKets, hard choices must sometimes be made These choices are a clear reflection of the transit agency s v i sion of its ro l e in the community The issue is somet imes phrased in terms of city versus suburb since transi t -dependent households are often located in inner-city areas Resources targeted for new service in suburb a n areas wh ich are more difficutt to serve by fixed route transit a re somet i mes seen as being taken away from city n e ighborhoods. Th i s I ssue i s muted in many F l orida communities including Lee County in which county management of the transit system trans lates to a mandate to serve the county as a w hole Among the benefits of th is aHem alive i s that it emphasizes the nee d for transit service in areas w here it can do the most good in terms of providing mobility. I t a l so fo cuses service in to neighborhoods where transit can walK This concentration recogni zes a nd responds to the travel requirements of the transit-dependent and so contributes to one of the m ain goals of public transportation Finally transit service provided under th i s scenario i s likely t o be reasonab l y cost-i! ffective There are also drawbacks associated w ith this altemative The transit system Is some what constrained, and potential for ridership growth is consequently li mited. This scenario also does 137

PAGE 161

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVB.OPIIIEHT PLAN, 1995-1999 very little to promote broader societa l goals often associated with transit suoh as reduced energy consumption, lower levels of air pollut i on and reduction i n t raffic congestion Even partially ach ie v in g these goals requ i res attract i ng new choice rid ers who will leave their cars at home. To the extent that it consciously limits transit service to the market this option emphasizes transit's role as a social service as opposed to a broadly-available transportation alternative. Respond to G rowth In Lee County Th e third a lternative presented here is in that it stresses the need to provide transit serv ice in growing area s of Lee County In a way, this alternative I s similar to the previous scenario in its emphasis on responding to the demand for transit but its focus is on changes in demand and potential demand for service as the county grows This option can be differentiated from the first alternative in its focus on responding to change, Instead of expanding the service area to as many areas of the county as poss ib le The primary benefits of th i s alternative are twofold F i rst it ties the need for transit service to land use development and population growth patterns in Lee County. Second it cle at1y permits and encourages growth i n the transit sys tem, in response to these and similar ohanges. In essence, the transit network is treated like any other part of the transportat ion system i n the county: it will expand to meet the emerging travel demands of growth areas Negative aspects of this scenario include Its potential cost and a certain lack of focus Service expansion as noted above, can be expensive, espe cially if the new service area Is suburban in oh aracter and the automobile I s by fa r the dominant mode of transportation. Also, th i s approach l eaves the quest ion of the appropriate level of service unanswered and so runs the risk of spreading the transit agency too thinly, as is also possib l e in the first FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR LEETRA N The peer resuHs and public Input obta ined through Interviews, focus groups, and surveys indicate that LeeTran is well-posit ioned to move into the future After a period of instability, there is now a stable, knowledgeable management team in place There also appears to be an i ncreased awa reness regarding the role that the public transn system can potentially p lay in meeting the challenges posed by Lee County's continued growth EaCh of the three broad a n ematlves sketched in the preceding secti on has merit on its own terms. The most promising course for LeeTran to pursue Involves taking the best of each 138

PAGE 162

CHAPTE/1. FIVE: A LTER NATI\IE AND RECO IIIIII ENDAOONS and implemen t ing at the appropriate t ime. It appears obvious for example that the current system w ill expand its service area over the next five years but is equally obvious that fixed-route transit is not the optimal choice for meeting mobility needs in all areas of the county. Areas where growth Is concentrated (primarily the southern ha l f of the county, according to the unani mous opinion of key local offic ials interviewed) are obvious candidates for expanded routes. In the immediate future, Improve ments such as increased frequ e ncy, routing realignments. enh a nced ameni ties, and the poss i ble extens ion of the time span of service can be considered for th e core areas of the transit system those routes w h i ch a re most hea vily traveled The exist ing transit serv i ce i n lee Cqunty is he a lthy i n lts essentia l aspects : ridersh i p is incre asing costs are not out of line, and the system is wen-regarded by those wh o use lt This provides a solid ba,e for improvements, w hich can proceed on several fronts. The strategy proposed for leeTran over the next fiVe years Is to market the exist ing system whil e ma k ing needed improvements, to plan for new servi ces and to implement these new services at the appropriate time and when funding is establ ished The follo w ing paragraphs ela borate on this proposed s trat egy A major need iden t ified by the public is in the a rea of marlletlng and passenger Information. Becaus e good serv i ce Is curren tly provided marketing act i ons are appropriate at an early stage to improve public awareness and perceptions of the transit system. These actions can benefit both the transit -dependent and choice riders and can encourage additional ridership Along wit h improved marketing and i nformation actions should be und e rtaken to Improve the existing transit system. Reliability does not a ppear to be a problem, but there Is a desire for m ore frequent and l ater transit service. Upgrad ing the fac.i ; ties for t ransit riders (shelters bus stop signs transfer locations) i s a l so a priority C i rcuitous portions of exist ing routes should be closely exam i ned to identity opportuniti es to provide more direct and faster bus service The third area of attent ion is expand ing transit service to other parts of lee County This service expansion should be f ocused in areas where gro wth is occurring. The new and the area around the Southwest Florida International Airport are importa nt locations f or ne w service. The university In particular can be expected to spur considerable growth in activity in th e surrounding a reas Overall growth in the county i s e xpected to occur primarily to th e south and LeeTran should be prepared to respond to these cha nges In summary, the mos t promising future d i r ect ion for leeTran i s to focus i mmediate attention on core service and to expand selectively in response to population and employment shifts This 139

PAGE 163

LEE COUNTY TRANSfT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 199$e9 strategy allows LeeTran to continue to serve its t ransit-dependent ridersh i p while taki n g advantage of opportunities to attract new riders to public transportation LEETRA N VISIO N As is the case in most small transit agencies, LeeTran has not devoted considerable resources to articulating its vision or defining its role in the commun ity. The transit deve l opment plan process provides the opportunity to cons ider these i ssues as the context i n which to present recommenda ti ons for future developments in pub lic transportation Public _input received as part of the TOP process suggests that 'publi_c transportat i on is viewed as an i ncreas i ngly important component of the local transportation network The discussion of altemate future d i rections for transit in Lee County and the findings presented in previous chapters help to define the vision for the rol e LeeTran can play In the community leeTran's vision may be expressed as: Lee Tran i s the major public transportat i on pro vider In Lee County Lee Tran i mproves the quality of life for county residents and v i sitors by providing, i n a oost-etriC i ent manne r, a read ily access / biB means of mobi1ity for those who want to use its services and by reducing traffic congestion on major roads in the county This visio n s tatemen t recognizes t he imp o rtance of providing mo b ility and of k eeping costs within reason. I t defines the essential function of the transit system, but it a lso stresses the broader community role that transit can play beyond serving its existing riders. The next section contains specific recommendat i ons fo r I m proving transit service i n Lee County over the next five years Taken together these recommenda t i ons constitute a series of actions intended to bring Lee Tran closer to achiev ing its vision FIVE-YEAR TRAN S I T DEVEL OPMENT PLAN : F I NDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION S This section summarizes findings with regard to transit service in Lee County and presents recommendations lor LeeTran over the next fiVe years Recommendations are priorit i zed by time frame for implementation : immed i ately over the next one-to-two years and over the next three to-five years Most of the recommendatio n s fa ll into the near-term time frames and it i s expected that the transit deve l opment plan will be updated annu ally to account for changing conditions in Lee County Within each time frame. recommendation s with a higher priority are 140

PAGE 164

CHAPTER Frvr:: ALTERNATIVE AND RECOMMENDATIONS generally li sted earlier but rel ated actions are grouped as appropriate Thus the nu mbe ring scheme of the recommendations i s not strictly in p riority order. Actions to be Initiated Immediately 1 Establish a vehicle replacement program and purchase new vehicles Some of LeeTran's current Blue Bird buses are the last of their kind to remain in fixed rout e service. As shown in Appendix J Le eTran has deve l oped a lis t of when current buses reach the end of their useful lif e The proposed five-year budget in the foRewing section assumes bus replacement on an ongoing basis. currently has a pending for funding to purchase new buses New buses w ill be lift-e qu ipped to comply with ADA prov isions. 2. Ensure that LeeTran Is In compliance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities A c t (ADA). Lee Tran is in full compliance with the requirements for ADA complementary para t r ansit service but needs to make i ts bus fleet accessible by purchasing new vehicles 3. Monitor the Impact of the recent fare lncre .. on ridership and revenue It i s expected that rid ers hip will decline some w hat, but tha t revenue w i ll i ncrease extent o f changes resulting from the fare increase should be determined 4 Reevaluate pass policies and pricing. Discont inu at ion of the daily pass was appropria te given the potential for abuse Month ly and multi-ride passes accountec;l for only 9 percent of all boardings during the on-board surve y The pricing ofthese passes and the potential for i ntroducing other pass med i a ( such as weekly passes) should be eval uated 5 Establish a fonnal monitoring program to track the parfonnance of Individual routes This information is the basis for making dec i sions on the routing and frequency of buses. A formal data collection program should be set up and followed. Implementation of this program may require an additional planner for LeeTran. 6. Conduct a pilot program to Increase frequency on the busiest routes The Blue and Gol d routes are the top candidates for serv i ce every 30 minut es based on cumsnt ridership and on ease o f im plementation Routes shou l d be carefu lly monitored after the se rvi ce incre ase to determine the impact on ridership 7. Apply for State of Florida Transit Corridor Program funds to make transit improvements In corridors. The first priority for such improvements is U.S 141

PAGE 165

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995999 4 1 exte nd i ng f rom P i n e Is l and Road in North Fort M yers to San Carlos Paril i n South Fort Myers. Other potenti a l conidors might i nc l ude Est e ro/San Carlos Boulevards south of Gladiolus and Sta te Route 865, including Boni t a Beach Road. 8. Pursue the establishment of a long-tann dedicated funding sourc e for leeTran. leeTran is currently receiving a portion of the re venu e from the new five-cent gas tax, but this funding is committed to the age ncy for only two years leeTran should woril toward a permanent extens i on of th i s funding Anothe r possib l e source of ded i cated fund i ng is revenue from bridge tolls leeTran i s do i ng part to ra i se revenue by ita recen t tare incre ase but a ded i cated furlding source wi ll ensure th e con t i nued fisca l heatth of th e system. 9 Begin planning transit connections to the new univers ity alto. The ne w university is scheduled to open In 1997. LeeTran must be Involved in the plan ning for the site so lhat its buses can conveniently serve the university At the sam e time p r elim inary route planning can beg in now 10 Identify appropriate locations for part1-1nd-ride lots. L ee Tran and the county are studying sites a long 1 75 and ne a r Fort M yers Beach wh ich i s highly congested in peak season Among th e alt ernat iv es being considered Is n ea r Cart Johnson Paril It m ay be des i rab l e to devel o p one or more paril -and-rtde lo ts in conjunction w ith servi ce improvements along U .S. 41. 11. Explore opportunities for express bus service In conjunction with part1-1nd-ride lots. Again this ma y be most feasib le i n the U S 41 conidor or poss i bly i n a conidor crossing the C a loosah a tchee River 12. Explore Innovative service concepts, I ncluding l ocal shuttle service and devi ated fixed-route service, In smaller outlying communities Lehigh Acres. Bonita Springs and parts of North Fort Myers are candidates for se rv ice of this type The State Service Development program is a potential source of funds for imp lementi ng these services. 13. Install bus shelters and benches at key locations. Transfer locations, major street in terse ctions, and stops n ea r major trip generators are candidates for bus sheners Benches can be i nst a lled wherever t h ere appears to be sufficien t demand 14 Review the condition of existing slgng nd amenities. There is concem over th e of benches at bus stops with some benches reported to be propped up on bloc ks 142

PAGE 166

CHAPTF!R FIVE: ALJ'ERNA71VE AND RECOMMENDA110NS or tilted. This reflects negatiVely on the transit system and le a v es current and potentia l ride rs with the per cep t i on that no one cares Signage should also be clear and correct The condition (or ex i s t ence) of side wa l ks at bus stops i s also important. 15. Include routa numbera on new bus atop signa This can help to orient riders unfamiliar with t he system A t major stop s a route map and schedul e might also be posted 16. Prov ide informati o n k loaka at major tranafer centera. Th ese kiosks should conta in inform a tion on routes schedules fares and the t ransit system as a wttole A full system map should be posted, along With f!1aps o f routes serv i ng the transfer center Informa t i on on alternate payment options (p asses multi-ride t i ckets) should also be i nc l uded 17 Establish a formal marketing program for Transit agencies across the country are realizing that the provision of qual i ty serv ice Is not s ufficient to att ract ridership Transit must publicize i tself to the gene ral pub lic and to specific m ark ets in order to reach its maximum potent i a l. In some areas the transit sys tem is i n such poor sh a pe that a mark e ting program does not m a ke sense ; there i s nothi ng to market. LeeTra n is essentia lly h ealthy, a nd would benefit gre atly by a n active m arketing prog ram This nscommenda ti on will require an additi onal staff person w ith primary r esp ons ib ility fo r I nformation, m arke tin g and community outnsach Other small transit agencie s in Florida t h at have es t ablished a market i ng position on their staff have attribut ed subse quent ridership incnsasea (on the order of 10 percent) to increased marketing activities. A marketing program can a l so es tablish LeeTran more firmly as part of the community 18 Conduct a marketing eampalgn oriented toward downtown w o rkera This might be done in con j unction with a new down town transportation cen ter, but given t he number of routes serving downtown Fort Myers a campaign could be organized prior to the construction : Arrangements m igh t be made w ith t he county or with other large downtown employers to offer discounts to employees or to distribute monthly passe s 19. Continue to use apeclally painted buses to market trana l l The dolph in bus has proven to be extremely popular These types of buses can "l iven up" the street s and get the transit system noticed. LeeTran mus t take care to ensuns a consistent visual i dentificat i on on a ll of its buses. 20. Arrange for a map o f the transit system to be l neluded in the local telephone directory. This is commonly done in man y cities and i s an excellent way of ensuring that basic i nformation o n the transit system is in neariy every home. 143

PAGE 167

LEE COUNTY TRANSrr DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995 21. Pursue construction of a transportation center In downtown Fort Myers. There is currently an application for federal funds to construct a new muHimodal transportation cente r in downtown Current route layover and transfer facilities consist of a series of bus shelters and signs along Monroe Street. While arrangement functions reasonably well. is not attractive to new riders A transportation center would be a weather-protected environment for waijing and transferring passengers, and would also provide a greater sense of permanence for the system. 22. Work with downtown redevelopment efforts in Fott Myers. Mucjl of the d i scuss i on of future directions for Lee T ran has (ocused on responding to population and employment growth particularly in the south part of the county. LeeTran should worl< actively as a partner in downtown redevelopment, since downtown still functions as an i mportant center of the system The transportation center may spur increased activity downtown. 23. Identity possible routing Improvements to serve transit-depsndent areas. All areas characterized as primary transit-dependent tracts are reasonably welt served by the ex i st i ng transij system, but LeeTran should keep these areas in mind when considering improvements In terms of mobilijy needs, these areas are most critical. 24. Continue to work with the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Lee County. There i s always a need to coordinate transportation disadvantaged services with the fixed-route networl<. 25. Create a "Transit on Patrol" program, which enables radto .. qulpped transit vehicles to report suspicious activities directly to local pollee departments. Some transit agencies have undertaken a si milar program. ''Transij on Patrol" is intended to combat crime and perceptions of crime. and also to tie the transij system more c l osely to the commun i ty. 26. Continue to encourage public Input, possibly by fonnlng a Citizens Transit Advisory Council. TransH systems wijh open channels for public input tend to be successful. 27. Increase LeeTran's Involvement In the transportation planning process. The current intermodal emphasis at the federal and state leve l s and the i ncreased recognition of the role that transit can play in the community suggest that LeeTran should be involved i n transportation decis i ons for Lee County This is p r obab l y best accomplished at the metropoiHan planning organizat ion level. 144

PAGE 168

CHAPTER FIVE : ALTERNATJVE AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 Redesign and reprint the transit system map. Plans are underwa y to accompl ish th i s 29. Market transi t service to tourists and v laltors. The beach trolley is a very successful means of i ncrea sing awareness of transit for tourists and visitors Service to the Southwes t Florida International Airport might also be considered, a lthough most tourists w ill choose a taxicab or a rental car LeeTr a n might also wor1< close ly w ith area hotels and motels Actions to be Initiated over the Next One-to-Two Years 30. Conduct an operations ana(ysl s .of LeeTran service. A full operat i ons analys i s w ould examine the entire existing transit networ1< as well as unserved areas of the county and make recommendations for specific route-level changes. LeeT ran has no t undertaken such a study in recent years 3 1 Examine route reconllgurations. Responses to the on-board survey Indicated d i ssatisfaction with long travel times on the bus i n part because some routes are very circuitous Routes should be exa m ined to determ ine whether m inor rerout ings are appropriate. Thi s might be part of an operations analysis, but it can also be done on an individual route-by-route bas is. 3 2 Initiate later evening service on selected routes. Candidate routes include those serving the Edison Mall and other evening activity cen ters. Connect ions with residential areas of employees at these activity centers w ould be Ideal A pilot program invol ving three routes might provide an indication o f demand for later service Service could be operated untilg:oo or 9:30 p m on these sel ected routes. 33. Implement a Guaranteed Ride Home progrsm. Thi s program is intended to encourage ridership by' guarantee ing that a rider w i ll be transported home if something unexpected causes him/her to miss the last scheduled bus. Typically, employees are enrolled in such a program through th ei r wor1
PAGE 169

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN, 1995-1999 35. Become more involved, possibly aa a review agency, in the local land use planning process. On a global level land use patterns affect th e potent i al for transit ridership. At a more immediate level, amenities such as sidewalks can make a difference in attracting potential riders. LeeTran should become involved, perhaps as a revie wer of development proposals in its current or planned service area 36. Examine potential routings to serve the Southwest Florida International Airport. A presence at the airport can encourage tourists and visitors to consider use of the system while they are in Lee County. In addition, airport employees are a potential source of ridership Actions to be Initiated over the Next Three-to-Five Years 37 Provide Sunday service on selected routes. Sunday service was brought up in interviews and focus groups A pilot program involving p erhaps half of LeeTran's routes should be explored, if funding can be secured. 38. Implement service to the new university when it opens In 1997. This is the implemen t ation portion of a previous recommendation. Universit ies often generate a fair number of transit trips, and involvement in the planning for the new university will hopefully ensure that access to transit is convenient. 39. Encourage the establishment of high-occupancy vehicle lanes on bridges or at toll plazas High-occupancy vehicle lanes are typically open to buses and to vehicles canying two or more people The advantage to the transi t system is a potential t ravel time saving at congested locations such as toll plazas. 40. Examine the need for an Improved southern transfer center. As development continues to occur in the southern part of the county, there may be a need for a large r transfer facility than the current bus shelter at Cypress Trace This might be coordinated with a park-and ride lot. 41. Consider a service extension to Pine Island. There is currently no transit service in this portion of the county, and near-tenn demand may warrant consideration of an extension of the Purple or Yellow route, or a newly-designed service. 146

PAGE 170

CHAPTER FIVE: ALTERNATIVE AND RECOIIIMENOA TIONS FIVE -YEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN: FINANCIAL PLAN Up to this point. the TOP process has not been constrained by fiscal considera tions in accordance with its strategic inten t. Demographics, survey results, community input in various forms, and peer and trend analyses have au been used to assess the demand for transit service and to ident ify mobility needs in Lee County The recom mendations presented above have been based on previous findings and Mure directions. The final step in the transit development plan process is to estimate costs for these recommendations and compare them against current and anticipated financial resources. LeeTran has performed a budget project ion which includes the time frame of the TOP (i e., through FY 1999) Table 61 presents this budget. Table 62 presents the costs associated with the recommendations and the projected date of i mplementati o n These costs are based on several assumptions for items, ranging f rom unit cost per bus shelter to the average cost of a new route. These are the m ost reasonable assumptions available. but cost esti mates should be refined at the time the recommendations are imp lemented, when greater detail will be available Table 63 incorporates the costs of the recommendations into the original budget projection, thus showing the fiscal impact of imple me ntation As can readily be seen, a shortfall in LeeTran's budget occurs in FY 1995. Thus, potential funding sources must be identified for the recommendations. Among potential sources are State Urban Corridor funds, State Service Development funds, Surface T ransportation Program funds available through ISTEA, and additiona l local funding sources 147

PAGE 171

-... .. Table 61 Projected Base Five-Year Budget for leeTran Expe nMS FYM FY95 FYH FY 9 7 Capital $1,653,000 $1, 970 000 $1, 970 000 $1,670 000 Operating $4, 477,2 99 $4 611,618 $4 7 4 9 967 $4,892 466 TOTAL EXPENSES $8,130 299 $6,581 818 $8 711 987 $6,562,466 ' . R8YenUH FYM' FYI5 l'iYH FY97 > > CAP1TAL Federal Section 9 ( 80% ) $ 1 322 .400 $1, 06 5,307 $584 000 $584 ,000 Local ( 20 %) $ 33 0 ,600 $266 32 7 $1>46, 000 $1>46,000 OPERA TI NG Federal Ope46, 000 $8 10, 184 $67 5 000 $ 1 360 2 1 0 so $0 $666, 536 $ 2 8 8 ,84 7 $4, 530,757 ( $ 1 238 482) FY99 $ 7 30, 000 $5 190,417 $5,920 417 FY99 $584 000 $ 1 4 6,000 $828, 8 1 9 $675,000 $ 1 380 210 I $ 0 $0 $67 6,534 $ 2 95,262 $4 588 ,825 ($1, 353 591) 5 I i .. "' .. "' "' ...

PAGE 172

Table 12 Estimated Cost of Recommendations .. "' . ., Annual Numbei-of A cUo n Unit Coet Openotlng ., Unit. Coet . 1. Bus Rep l acement $220 000/bus 16 buses $187 000/trolley 7 trolleys 6 Improve Frequency $250 000/yeai / roule 2 routes $500 000 7 Congested Corridor $200 000/corridor 1 corridor $200,000 13. $5,000/shetter so $0 16. Kiosks $200 4 $30 000 staff 17. M arketing Program $50 000 marketing per year $80 000 activities 21. Implement T ransportation $6, 600,000 1 $25 000 Cen ter 28 System Map $5,000 Developmen $0 I Cost 30 Operations Analysis $75,000 1 -32. Evening Service $2 5,000/route 3 routes $75,000 33. Guaranteed Ride Home $10 000 per year $10,000 37. Sunday Servioe $325 ,000 $325 ,000 38. New U niv ersity Se.rvice $250 000 $250, 000 41. Pine I sland Service $250 000 $250 000 -----------------... -99 1995 1997 -99 1997-99 1998 -99 1997 1999 I l .. loo j

PAGE 173

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVEI..OPIIIENT PU.N, 1995 Table 63 Projeclad LHTran Budget, Including Recommendation Item FYH FYH FYt7 FY98 'FY88 Orig i nal Operating $4,611,618 $4,749 ,967 $4,892,466 $5,039,239 $5,190,417 E xpenses Operati 119 Expenses $780 000 $ 780 ,000 $ 1 165,000 $1,465, 000 $1,715, 000 Resulting from ReconvnendatiOns Revised Operati n g $5 ,39 1 618 $5, 529 ,967 $6,057,468 $6,504 239 $6 ,905 417 Expenses Original Capital $1,970,000 $1,970,000 $1, 870,000 $730 000 $730,000 Expenses Capital Expens es ResuHing from Recomme nda tions' $105,800 $55 ,000 $7, 460 ,000 $55,000 $55,000 Revised C a pital $2 ,075, 800 $2 025 ,000 $9, 130,000 $ 785 000 $ 785 000 Expenses TOTAL $7 ,4t7, 418 $ 7, 554 ,H7 $15 187 ,4M $ 7,219,231 $7 ,110, 417 EXPENSES Original Operating $4,675,466 $4 356 327 $3 ,76 5,596 $3 ,800,757 $3,836,825 Revenue Operating Revenue Resulting $105 000 $105 000 $137 500 $170 ,000 $195,000 from Recommendations Revised Operating $4, 780 498 $4,461 327 $3 ,903,096 $3.970 757 $4 ,031, 625 Revenue Capi tal Revenue $1,33 1 634 $730,000 $730 ,000 $730 000 $730 000 TOTAL REVENUE se, 112,122 $5 191 327 $4 133,016 $4,700,7 57 $4 ,7 11 825 NET ($1 355 296) ($2,363,$40) ($10 554 370) (S2 588 ,4t2) ($2 ,928, 582 ) 150

PAGE 174

APPENDICES APPENDICES 151

PAGE 175

APPENDIX A LEE COUNTY CENSUS DATA TABLES

PAGE 176

this page IS blank

PAGE 177

Ta ble A 1 Population and Population Density Lee County 1990 Tract Land a rea Popula ti o n Popul::n mlle sl Dens Tr8ct 1 024 1.120 4 724 Tract2 0.3$ 568 4,32 5 Tr&e:t3 .01 1.31 <4,469 3 ,415 Trect3.02 1 .33 <4,060 3,11 8 r,.,,. 2 .85 4 ,$45 1 SM Tr.ct 5.0 1 3 7 7 8,287 2 199 uo 4.307 3 .902 r""e 1 .88 (.816' 2.!M T""7 o ... 3 531 -T<>d& 0.57 2.1 2 0 3.702 r""'" 1 .00 3 ,114 3,034 T ract 10 1 .79 5 ,788 3 ,218 Tract 11 2.02 $,433 3.180 Tract 1 2 14 .49 2.629 1 6 1 T.-.ct13 2.30 2 791 1,2 1 $ TntCt 1 4 2 .11 7 ,176 3 ,401' Tract 1 5 .... 8,030 4 ,887 r....1B 3.27 6.039 1 .... T ract 17 Ot 1 .2:3 3,396 2 ,77 1 Tteet 17.0 2 3 .78 7,161 1.&94 Tract 17.03 2.16 2..504 1 .157 TnKt 1 8 2 .:>0 5 ,750 2,602 Tract 19 .01 6 92 6.600 954 Tract 19.02 2422 ._ 364 Ttac:t 101. 0 1 1 $.66 sn .. Trtd 10 1.02 3 1 .06 2.159 70 T r.x::t t 0 1 0 3 8.52 659 n Traeat02.01 7.06 1.SSS 2:!6 T t&et 1 0 2 0 2 1 4 .13 341 Tteet 103.01 4.34 6 .711 1 648 Tred 103.02 2 46 3.399 1 369 Tnd 1'03.03 1 86 4,53 2 2,433 T ract 1 03 0 4 3 94 6 ,635 1 682 T rect 103 .05. 1.$0 3 .97& 2 ,663 Ttld 104.01 16.44 2.995 182 Tract 1 0 4 0 2 6 36 5.371 1.001 Trad 10
PAGE 178

Table A 1 (contin ued) Population and Population Density Lee County 1990 Tract Landa rea (sa: miles} Population Population T..a20< 4 ,tf ,_, .. .,, '' ..... -TQC:t205.02 .... 3 003 2 ,5f7 T-206 2 .oe 3 ,366 1.813 T r act 20 7 2 1 2 2, 503 T-208 2 .00 ...,. ...... Tr&<:t )()t 2$ 0$ 2,095 Trect $02 1 1 0 1 7 ,1$4, 840 T,_C( 303 32.83 f t79 66 TracUOt..Ot 1 0 04 2 787 Tract 401.02 7. 1 8 11&8 124 Traet40t.03 Ul 76$ ... t..a40t ()-4 17.27 3 952 229 T ract 401.05 111.54 $6$ $ T ract .02. 01 .... ... 42 TlaCl<02.02 1 6.4 7 ... ., TIOCI <02Jll u o ..... .. T -4112.04 1 2. 1 0 3 ,1&4 ,,., T.ad 4DS.OI ... 1 ,$62 401 TrKt..OS.02 2.83 Tract 403 .03 4 0 4 4T2 "' Tr'fd 40!,04 2 28 3 166 1 ,3$(1 1 09 2.6 12 2. 395 Tract 403.06 1 2 02 4 ,109 342 lr&CI 400.07 6 66 204 .. traa403. oa fUSS .. Traet 501 6 39 7 ... TtaoctS02 o .eo 12.347 t.2e0 T tldl503.01 ...... 2,32 5 T taet 503 02 12. 81 2.060 eo Tract 503 0 3 71.61 1 ,617 2 3 r-soc .... 4 181 ..... T..a!IJO lM S.581 ""' T-506 ... -' ""' T t8Ct60 1 .... ).$79 2.267 Trxt802 ) .160 t .n5 Traa602.99 o .oo 0 T ra2. 0 1 t4.0) 3 ,272 233 T raet802 .o2 3.23 2,196 .,. T raet901 2 t ) ., A-4

PAGE 179

Tabl e A-2 Age Dletri b utlo n L" C o unty, 1990 Tract 0 -17 18-24 25...U 45-54 N-59 ISO yura ears ears rs ... andover Trac:t 1 13 264 571 32 26 154 TNc:t 2 m 56e 1 44 5 1 ., T-3.01 1,181 20 1 ,38< 340 '"' t!O T -102 . , 474 I ,:WS - 1165 r ... 772 371 1,228 568 2118 1,303 T ... S.GI 3.251 -' 2.119 151 :IDS m TNd5.02 1 720 .oea 372 503 -rr.:te .rn -.... c a 105 lloct 1 ooe ... 1 .258 265 <38 r ... e 1!11 '" 383 ,., n 1 .,217 T..c!t 151 208 852 ... 150 -Tract 10 tell 0$1 1.n1 629 '1JIJ7 1 ,115 T,.;:t 11 1,281 8tll 2 .225 <()1 251 1 350 TI8C112 876 2S6 1155 2!;6 71 <01 Tract 13 4 7 8 23t 1st 267 1 30 ... .,._ 1 4 1,4 30 862 2.olol9 711 181 1 373 Tract 15 1 ,$U 1,087 2.624 720 358 1 700 T..:t 16 874 268 1, 315 Me 262 2,718 Ttxt 17.01 518 2Q1 1,027 284 196 1,08'2 Tt8Cl 1 7.02 967 513 1 655 818 378 2,831 T-17.03 127 1 82 371 165 117 1,532 TI8C1 18 828 321 1 303 838 :leO 2.ot6 Tract 19 .01 let 326 1,683 568 328 UIO lloct 1t.o2 874 .71 1.8t8 915 1134 217 T ... 101.01 S8 59 90 116 S8 288 1-101.02 115 13 208 82 13G 1 ,822 T111C1101.03 150 133 206 55 11 104 Tract 102.01 ol88 135 838 1 00 .a 183 Tf11C1102.02 190 268 977 380 211 2,100 Tmct103.01 1,857 617 2.381 412 :112 1.118 Tf11C1103.02 850 303 l,ot6 321 122 107 Trld 103.03 1 004 267 u.s
PAGE 180

Tab le A (c:ontlnued) Age Distribution Lee County, 1890 Tfllc:t 0 18-24 25...U 45-64 N-It to years .... ars ..... ..,. ..... llfld over -..m uoe 52:3 1,(74 512 215 1,217 T'*":!Ool 136 611 2SO 122 NO Troct205. 0 1 102 16 182 188 2,322 TNet 205.02 533 220 032 318 238 1 7 4 1 noet208 '482 2(1 1,0311 '352 182 1,0110 T-207 53ol 1119 811 280 85 82. TNct208 4 n 106 820 230 211 2,383 T,..,301 550 153 w 302 115 266 llocl302 1,107 5119 2. 1.0 6S6 m 1,58( 7 .... 303 s1e 124 5011 2IU 117 521 TNCI <401. 01 !66 233 1,1)oll 355 125 ol67 Tr-.:1401 ,02 210 61 278 125 182 TNet 401.03 2SO 118 274 16 11 39 l'loc1 401 .()( 918 170 1 152 555 302 855 TNCI-'01 05 138 40 2110 25 .. 58 T riCio002, 01 127 87 22 4 40 28 119 T-(()2.02 288 S1 286 85 51 131 Trocl oi02.03 11112 228 1 101 416 117 t. f1S T-(()2 ()( 11811 1!12 751 2113 11 4 1,115 T tlld 403.01 586 11 9 eoe 55 23 1&> T,..t403.02 17 1 30 158 7 1 0 5 Troclo003 .03 18( 58 178 13 25 15 Troci.OO ()( 418 .,.,. (SO 201 185 1,738 <603..05 453 97 568 248 118 1 ,131 'lllcl403.06 67< 158 800 384 225 1 ,1187 T,..,o003.07 33 28 85 30 0 108 T,..,o003 .08 11 4 17 1 5 0 7 7,..,501 8 24 320 1 .58S 582 384 2,731 TNet502 3,32 4 Sl51 4,101 1 ,140 551 1 ,6TO 71101503.01 306 82 487 267 1 4 1 1 ()(2 7 .... 503.02 224 115 50( 143 ,,. NO 7 .... 503.03 165 113 291 239 101 728 T,..,S()( 783 2118 1 ,116 286 182 1,44$ T II01505 742 227 9()( 308 1119 1.211 TNet506 11811 231 1,242 811 375 1 ,732 T II01801 331 175 826 265 211 1.n1 T-602 ,_..,212 148 581 387 235 1,589 TNeteo2.119 0 5 0 0 0 0 TI8Ct503 1 4 36 10 71 118 !117 TtKt701 550 110 957 $78 328 1,B12 TII01702 354 .. 446 311111 211 1 ,11115 TII01801 12 70 148 54 73 131 T,..UOI. OI 0 () () () 0 () Trocl802 01 421 165 77 3 365 282 1,266 T,..l802.02 180 65 408 232 232 1 081 Trocl 901 611 .. 248 116 119 303 A-6

PAGE 181

Tract T-1 Trod2 Trw::l3.01 ;rroCI3.02 Trac:t5.01 Trod5.02 : . TractS Tract 7 Troct8 T-9 Tract10 Tract11 Tract 12 T""'13 Tract 14 Tract 15 Troct16 Tro
PAGE 182

TIIIC1203 T-204 T-205.01 .,_" Trac:t205.02.: TIIIC1206 .. r,..)or TIIIC1208 . TIO48 119 >48 2S 41 355 2S3 116 15 33 517 316 >462 4 1 3 577 603 217 162 175 307 403 423 435 111 0 53 .01 ... 28 0 123 138 34 S40 129 474 .505 an .. ;:. 219 488 ,. ,, '\ '113 ., S17 149 154 72 47 203 42 57 68 294 2S4 149 39 28 267 304 526 18 4 591 940 218 193 101 362 402 408 424 315 0 50 417 3n 27 0 151 150 20 270 81 111 80 176 134 '1108 211 133 :182 104 304 111' 171 81 588 388 110 74 217 152 68 30 70 15 212 241 28 8 3S 2S 6S S2 308 219 222 157 104 S4 22 34 32 30 246 147 291 18 8 389 892 186 162 108 356 255 308 304 288 0 47 224 10. 0 252 103 30 127 110 1 96 9 0 327 895 130 107 82 158 '113 267 111 1n : o 82 178 100 .. 0 .. < 177 122 ' 28 Over $50000 123 301 108 ; 272 218 : 184 1S4 1102 451 1:1!1 133 58 31 715 28 58 60 257 250 Sol 13 8 n 92 219 .. 7 84S 910 : 245 219 12ll 240 m 489 274 491 0 222 259 232 101 0 725 551 225 Medlen Income $18.897 $31,944 $20.389 $25,713 $23,381 $28,014 $21,192 137,718 $30,7;8 $20,539 133.218 $30,313 $29,762 $46,588 $22,443 131.429 $34,519 $28,8S6 $30,205 $27 ,11 5 131,705 $28,125 $16.875 $22,>465 $24,495 $32,857 $33,750 $32,417 $34,057 '$30,972 $32,131 $23.081 $26,795 $24 ,767 $29,7>46 $23.854 136.571 $0 $45,556 $21 ,965 $23,420 144,545 $0 $411,261 $49.491 $70,31)9

PAGE 183

Ttlld None Available Troct1 106 T..:l2 300 Troc13.01 122 T..:l3.02 2 .. T roc14 8 1 Troc15.01 4T8 Troct5.02 507 T..:l6 443 TNCt7 215 Tr-=t8 171 T..:l9 40 Troctto 184 Trtet11 <88 T..:l12 0 T..:l13 37 Troct 14 w Ttacl15 158 T..:l 16 82 Troct11.01 103 Tred17.o2 19 Tr-=t17.03 87 Troct 18 42 Troct 19.01 309 Ttld 19 .02 142 T roct 101 01 3 Troct 101.02 34 Trxt 101.03 0 Troct 102.01 5 T r-=t102.02 !13 Tr-=t100.01 90 Tr.ct 103.02 49 TtK1103.03 43 Troct 103 .04 49 Trac:c 103.05 31 T roct104 01 7 T roct 104.02 9 Troct 104.03 82 T..:lt0$.01 18 Trace 1os.o2 64 7..:1106.01 27 Tf'ld 106 .02 88 Troc1107 92 Trae1108 01 40 Trx.t 108.02 m Ti'ld 108.03 ., Troct201 911 T..:l202 ., One Table A-4 Vehicle Availability Lee County 1990 Two Three Available Available Available 138 34 0 362 152 0 G02 500 18$ e.s 4 11 82 894 701 181 1,051 700 m 378 310 83. -SOt 3S6 137 -' 315 86 715 m 4 5 322 473 m 1,177 1159 204 1 638 888 88 334 410 81 484 406 67 1.487 1 207 'Z74 1,838 1,405 188 1 ,347 975 188 860 529 89 1 815 t.t75 1 058 285 18 898 1,272 284 1,52. 1,049 236 2.282 1 ,189 285 119 118 38 741 'Z72 0 22 130 47 153 3 19 85 1 200 644 180 628 1.230 1 75 5G5 513 150 597 811 110 829 1,182 320 822 710 187 318 510 till 822 851 27V 1 582 2 293 551 3n 459 135 1 .047 144 123 662 719 159 8110 351 88 1 <02 1,165 41$ 604 501 85 1 018 595 61 481 568 82 1,195 581 115 456 573 181 Four Five or more Available Available 0 0 o ., 0 43 38 <0 6 63 18 ee 4 8 'Z7 1t' 12 25 15 8 4 43 48 4 9 24 14 6 12 50 40 8 65 0 59 0 28 19 5 10 50 8 0 8 48 10 47 8 62 21 4 0 0 0 4 0 5 4 42 3 51 20 'Z7 0 26 0 59 0 49 21 60 0 31 13 116 19 26 13 17 13 .. 0 4 10 61 8 2 4 0 27 10 11 11 56 0 91 14 A

PAGE 184

Table A-4 (continued) Vehicle Availability Lee County 1990 Tract None One Two Three Four Five or more Available Available Available Available Available Av a ilabl e Tract 203 192 959 639 170 27 6 Tract204 29 281 362 119 46 11 Tract205.01 194 1 .200 268 3 1 13 15 T rac1205.o2 44 1 .007 500 184 54 0 Tract206 149 116 546 119 39 11 Ttae l201 52 429 1 22 .. 0 Tract 208 11 3 1.395 378 129 0 0 Troct 301 12 126 I 397 -,53 39 24 Tract302 60 1 .053 1,113 353 19 36 I Trac t303 4 $ 331 295 78 13 2 4 Tract .-101 .01 22 240 452 125 11 48 T ract401 .02 11 84 122 39 1 4 1 I Tract401.03 6 57 118 27 20 0 T racl401.04 18 5 2 5 760 212 43 21 I Tract401.05 0 52 00 1 0 5 0 T racl402.0 t 0 5 11 8 47 30 11 Ttact 402.02 7 69 163 37 0 5 Tract 402.03 64 676 686 122 37 22 Tract 402.04 32 487 555 150 6 0 Tract 403.0 1 0 150 252 48 30 T lllct403.02 0 8 68 4 3 0 0 Tracl40 3.0 3 0 26 113 0 0 0 Tract403. 04 285 928 380 37 1 2 1 5 Tract -403.05 58 660 290 77 30 0 Tract 403 06 143 1.080 544 66 38 6 Tract-403. 07 0 48 38 1 9 0 5 T r ac l 403. 08 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 Trac:t 501 68 1.502 1.173 235 43 36 Tract502 96 1 .258 2.380 562 158 36 T r act 503.01 1 4 508 47 3 66 6 1 T roct 503.02 1 9 437 359 76 30 0 Tract 503 03 27 399 179 1 24 20 Tract504 49 716 748 153 34 16 Tract sos 11 698 515 1 27 17 5 Tract 506 98 908 1.021 2 1 8 46 0 Tlllct601 54 1 ,172 564 46 29 6 Tract602 56 645 576 193 22 26 Tract602.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tract&l3 0 226 178 43 0 7 T ra 8 7 003 715 121 47 16 Trac17 0 2 50 905 532 132 15 20 Tract801 6 110 1 0 1 11 0 1 Tract SOt 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tlac:t 802.01 23 510 699 116 48 31 Tract 802. 02 23 536 490 84 6 4 Tract901 19 92 180 48 0 0 A-10

PAGE 185

Table A -5 Work Commuting Patterns Lee C ounty, 1990 Trac t Cent ral Suburb Out o f Citv County Troct 1 131 .. 6 Tract2 482 131 65 T111Ct3.01 t345 728 120 T-3.02 t081 702 133 Trtet4 11.S 970 128 Tract$. 01 1868 851 129 Tract 5..02 814 322 100 TIICI8 t254 S01 101 Tract7 1163 529 gg Trtet8 535 252 2 Tract 9 1079 348 105 Trect 10 10.3 907 129 Tt8Ctl1 868 235 Tt1Ct 12 619 541 n Tl'IC113 666 5t2 71 Tract 14 2162 147 1 247 Tract 1 5 2152 1782 320 Trect16 958 1190 171 Tract17. 01 no 832 96 Ttaet 17.()2 1105 1885 1.S Tt.ct 17 .03 449 343 55 Tt'Kf 18 1133 1267 155 Trac t 1 0.0 1 740 1846 8 9 T!O
PAGE 186

Ta b le A -5 (continu ed ) W ork C om muting Patte rns L e e C ounty 1990 Tract C en tral Suburb Out of Cltv Co u ntv Troct20 3 1 04 7 IWet402.01 152 171 17 T roct 402.02 179 170 78 T roct402 03 653 689 190 Tract 402 04 468 577 126 T""'' 403 .01 269 311 70 T ract403 .02 118 79 25 Traetoos oo 114 78 36 Tract 403. 04 S68 8ol Tract .403. 05 291 573 108 Troct403 08 400 854 131 T!8(:1403. 07 32 82 34 Tracl 403. 08 3 34 0 TlliCt 501 856 1339 3 1 8 Tract 502 1880 3521 1039 TlliCt503 .01 liS 387 352 Tract 503 0 2 ,. 332 327 Tract 503.03 .. 45 431 94 Traet504 95 657 907 Tract505 o 7 50 7t'b .. Troct508 1 20 1 053 1091 .' Trott61ll 407 839 T rott61l 2 120 eos 161 T ract 602 99 0 5 0 -; Tract61l3 1 0 146 86 Tract 70 1 551 829 1:42 Tract 702 188 539 81 ' Tract eOt 9 290 6 T racl801.0t 0 0 0 Trott 802 .01 169 1222 83 Tract 802.0 2 88 7 86 3 2 Troct901 0 383 67 A -12

PAGE 187

Tract 0-9 minutes Tract1 60 Troot 2 112 Ti'ai:t 3 01 331 Traot3.02 253 Traot4 231 Tra::l S.01 267 -15.02 215 TI'ICI $ 342 T-7 286 Tracl8 181 Tract9 Tract 10 888 Trac1 1 1 1055 Tract 12 308 Tract13 235 Tract 14 889 Ttael15 825 Traet 1 6 370 Tract 17,01 292 Tract1:7.02 463 Tract 17 .03 156 Tr&ct18 336 Tracl19.01 4 Tracl19.02 441 Tract 101 01 28 Tract 101.02 86 Treet 1 01.03 35 T reet 1 02. 01 58 Trac1102.02 66 Tractt03.01 534 Tract 10302 150 TIOCt 103.03 351 T rsct 103.04 420 Traclt03.05 115 Tract 104 01 130 Trace 104 .02 28!1 Trael104.03 630 T r act 105.01 178 Tract 105.02 Ttad 106.01 215 Tract 106.02 164 Tract 107 m Tn>
PAGE 188

Table A-6 (continued) Travel Time to Work Lee County, 1990 Trac t 0 9 10-19 20-29 30-39 Over40 minutes minutes m i nutes m i nutes minutes Tract 203 83 488 480 542 386 Tract204 119 265 364 250 6S Tract 205.0 1 42 186 145 116 98 Tract20S.02 180 596 419 272 160 Tract 206 176 652 m 169 m Tract207 los 456 203 153 83 Tract 208 131 365 156 215 72 Tract 301 118 164 -342 348 113 r ...,t302 366 SS4 1060 -412 Tract 303 74 157 175 164 174 Tract 40 1 .0 1 1 03 263 305 35 1 156 Tfact40 1 .02 41 126 133 7l) 94 Tt3C:t 401.03 1 0 93 140 141 so Tract 401.04 140 669 S07 275 167 Tract 40 1 .OS 60 28 89 53 66 Tract 402 .01 21 56 95 88 63 Trac:t <402. 02 8 64 90 71 188 Tract 402.03 256 273 194 560 432 Tract 402.04 94 266 219 227 342 Tract 403.01 1 8 137 208 159 108 Tract.W3.02 8 eo 57 42 32 Ttael 403.0 3 0 28 101 2S 7 4 220 222 1 4 8 189 129 Tract 403.05 267 175 145 196 176 Tract 403.06 368 295 203 369 127 Tract 403 .0 7 7 26 20 68 1 6 T ract 403. 08 0 19 8 0 10 Tract S01 270 939 590 508 166 Tract 502 598 1525 1 913 1422 826 Tract503.01 110 236 229 141 91 Traet503.02 65 330 154 162 6 2 Tract 503. 03 100 162 48 177 54 Tract 504 336 585 422 358 142 Tract 50S m 445 304 309 89 Tract 506 571 655 586 283 119 Tract 601 37 6 251 241 212 257 Tract 602 294 247 202 182 130 Trac1602 99 0 0 0 0 0 Tract603 54 37 29 35 48 Tract 701 429 373 173 205 342 Tracl 702 1SO 164 so 1 38 244 Traet80 1 144 85 38 14 10 Tract80 1 .01 0 0 0 0 0 Tract802 .01 404 447 1 72 188 132 Tract 802.02 324 231 117 64 38 Tract 901 283 77 20 1 6 30 A-14

PAGE 189

Tabl e A 7 Means o f T111vel to Wortt Lee Co u nty, 19 90 Tract Drove Carpool/ Public Othe r W alke d or Al o ne Van pool Tra nsporta t ion M eans Worke d a t H o rne Tract 1 78 21 7 6 69 Tr\1C12 4J 1 1 4 35 4 1 48 T*l3.01 1,618 '39 38 29 .. Tracl3.o2 1.116 589 22 49 140 T-4 1 .844 475 9 41 75 Troet5. 01 1.135 813 75 152 73 Tract5.02 884 353 104 48 6 7 Troet6 1.079 '" 90 109 1 01 Tnoct7 1 .054 .95 47 100 95 T-8 608 113 9 32 51 Trace 9 1,271 135 6 35 85 Tract 1 0 2.394 429 15 37 104 2 ,448 545 7 0 101 2 8 3 Tract 12 1 .078 104 9 22 79 Troet13 900 253 6 13 67 Tract 1 3.208 330 14 63 265 Trac t 1 5 3,350 682 10 83 129 Ttaet 1 6 1.983 237 0 32 65 Tract 17.01 1 .395 190 0 43 30 T-17-02 2 .&U 322 10 24 139 Trtel11.03 618 123 6 15 67 Tr.at 18 2.241 162 0 39 113 T1'8CI19.01 2.205 353 2 2 2 4 7 1 Troet19.02 2 .562 58S 64 ISS 170 T ract 10t.Q1 266 29 0 6 18 T rtc;l 1 01.02 2$9 89 0 18 26 Tracl101.03 262 $5 0 18 0 T r &CI102 .0 1 733 87 0 17 2 1 Tract 102.0 2 1.321 262 7 37 47 Trocl103. 01 2.475 468 19 so 52 Trtcl103.02 1 32T 230 33 36 31 T roct 103.03 1.687 286 7 34 4 7 Tr&Ct 1 03. 04 2.604 410 7 3S 28 T...ct103 0S 1.667 193 7 18 32 Tract1G'. Ot 1.266 193 0 10 1S Tract 104.02 2 .061 448 0 49 45 Tract10.C.03 4.90S 794 9 74 126 Tra
PAGE 190

Table A 7 (continued) Means of Travel to Work Lee County, 1990 Trac t Drove Carp ool/ Pub l i c Other Walked or Alone Van ool Trans o rtation Mean s W o rked at Home Tract 203 1,427 414 1 3 1 00 Tract 204 8G9 123 8 s Traet 205 0 1 412 152 6 8 9 Trae\205.02 1,3-W 259 0 0 51 Trac t206 1 ,238 1 69 10 26 1 33 Tract 207 771 210 0 8 2S Tt1Ct 208 723 173 1 8 16 33 Tract 301 907 89, 23 15 76 TI3Ct302 2 .595 686 2 5 23 1 07 T rae\303 572 1 65 0 13 Trae\.01.01 902 250 0 20 23 T111C1.01.02 3$5 97 5 16 31 T ract..01.03 7 3 0 16 0 T ract401 .04 1,605 131 0 8 65 Tract 401. 0 5 170 7 0 53 3 1 2 Tract <402. 01 290 33 0 0 17 Trae1 .02.02 335 8 1 5 0 6 T rad -402 .03 1 371 301 0 25 35 Troci.02 .0. 86$ 260 0 23 23 Trac.1403. 0 1 ISS 8 18 20 T ract .03.02 1 92 19 0 8 3 T ract 403.03 166 5 2 0 10 0 Trac1 403.04 Nl 137 0 24 16 Trae1403 .05 700 206 19 24 23 Traet-403.06 1,076 22 7 3 1 12 39 Tract 403 0 7 127 10 0 0 11 Tract <103 08 2 1 16 0 0 0 Tract 501 2 1$5 239 1 46 66 Trac t502 5 ,354 788 55 57 1 86 Tlac\503.01 640 1 00 17 16 81 TlliCI 503.02 654 102 0 17 0 Tract 503.03 333 43 113 20 6 1 Trac t 504 1,489 219 1 .. 40 Tract SOS 1,097 2 7 5 0 59 29 Tract506 1 ,7 36 0 54 89 Tract SOt 898 244 0 64 173 Tract602 643 104 0 69 70 Trac160 2.99 0 0 0 0 5 T ract 603 11$ 19 0 0 48 Tract 701 1 ,139 291 0 38 54 -1702 526 1 4 3 0 1 9 120 Tract 801 115 1 3 4 4 0 133 Tract 801.01 0 0 0 0 0 T ratl802.0 1 1,1 16 112 1 0 so 186 Troct 802.02 611 86 0 51 1$8 I Trao1901 238 38 0 2 8 146 A -16

PAGE 191

APPENDIX B SURVEY FORMS

PAGE 192

this page IS blank

PAGE 193

BUS ROil'rE COLOR: -------I!EG11LNI BUS LEE COUNTY AREA TRANSIT RIDERSKIP SURVEY Dear Bus Rider: Please help. us improve your bus service. Fill out this form now. Check the spaces or write the information asked. Fill out the survey, front and back. Hand it in to the driver before you get off the bus. Thank you tor your help in this survey. LEE TRAil: LEE COUNTY TRANSIT 1. What was the closest stree t intersection or place where you qot on this bus? Street Intersection/Place: ----2 What time did you board this bus? 6:30 a.m. 9:00 a .m. 2:30 p m 7:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. 2:30 p.m 3. Where did you START OUT b!ore qettino on this bus? Work Shoppinq Home Doctor school Transfer (Previous Bus Route Color; f. Where are you goinq to get off this bus? Street -----------------------------------------------s. How m.ny blocks did you walk to get to this bus? 1 block 4 or more 2 blocks Other 3 blocks ____ oon't know 6. Is the bus stop you used to oet on this bus conveniently locate d? Yes No 7. What is the reason you are going on this trip? Worlc Home Shopping Doctor Don't know School Other 8., on the averaqe, how any Qays a week do you take this bus ride? 0 5 1 6 or more 2 -3 . 8

PAGE 194

t. Tell us tbe !
PAGE 195

LEETRAN OPERATOR SURVEY I The following is. a list of possible c:omplaints passeng ers may voice to bus operators. P le ase rank the S complaints you hear mo>t frequently (I being the most frequent) __ fare is too high __ infrequent service _bus doesn't go where I want _bus is l ate __ bus leaves stop too urly __ bus is not clean bus i s not cornfocuble __ ne<:d Sunday ser;lce 2. What ls your opinion of these complaints? Are they valid? passengers cannot get information bus schedule too hard t o understand eating or drinking on the bus smo!ting on bus ,_.:,_ route or destination Dot clur no bus sbe ltmlbeneh .. ... need even in&. service _OTHER (specify)----3 The following is a l ist of possible impro vements to the trJJUit sy>tem. P lease ranJc all the improvements that you th ink would be helpful (I most helpful). __ operate new, smaller vcb1cles provide better route and schedule information __ maintain buses more frequently __ give more time in sche dules __ OTHER (please specify)------lower the fares put up shelters at bus scops __ operate Sunday service reduce beadways 4 Do you know of any safe l)l problems on any routes? P l e ase dtscribe S Are there any schedule s or pans of sched ules which are d ifficu lt to maintain? __ yes _no If yes, wh iob routes?----------------6 Are there an y fOllie s wh ich sbould be modified in any way? If so, bow? B-5

PAGE 196

7. In your opinion, is night service necessary? _yes _no 8. ln your opinion, is Sunday service necessary? _yes no 9 Are there any other comments that would be helpful to us? THANKS FOR YOUR HELP! 8-6

PAGE 197

APPENDIX C FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OUTLINE AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

PAGE 198

this page IS blank

PAGE 199

NON-USER FOCUS GROUP STRUCTURE LEETRAN GENERAL INTRODUCTION Who I am Why we are here Not a transit sales pitch Outline of how we will proceed Defone TOM QUESTIONS I. Whal are some of !he reasons you do no1 use !he lra!ISil sys1em or carpool in Lee County? (Probe all participaniS for reasons and follow up) 2. I'd like to share some answers to this question from tranSit surveys in other places and get your re.actions (Ask all !hal have nol been mentioned). does not go where I want to go 100 far lo walk (how far is not 100 far?) does not run when I want to travel (when?) nol frequenl enough unsafe (bus/bus stops?) can I slop off on my way can't come and go as I please don't know how to use don't know where to get information takes 100 long not comfonable not clean rude operators/persoMel costs too much nol dependable (how not?) dislike olher passengers (why?) like to drive dislike waiting (how long is good to wait?) bus only for those with no choice routes are not direct don 'I like 10 lra!ISfer need my own car for business pwpose.s (how often?) need my own car for personal business (how often. what for? will be stranded if I miss the bus or carpool worried aboul an emergency might have to work late 3. Now I'd like to ask you what it would take to persuade you to ride transil or consider rides.baring? (Probe all participaniS for possible enlicemeniS) {Discussion can go for up to 30 minutes) C-3

PAGE 200

4 Again, here are some aru wen from $1l1Veys talcen in other ploces. Please ldl me if they apply to you ( ask all that have not been mmtioned): direct serviee without trarurers more frequent service (how frequent) convenient times of service (when?) more bus stop signs more passenger waiting shelters better bus schedules and maps more bus routes (where ?) more convenient transfer points and times (where/when?) lower Com (how low?) free coupon to try the bus newer buses (wha t about old?) more vanpool information more TD infonnation eas\er way to schedule TO trips a guaranteed ride home S Here are some rusons riden have given us why they like transit and ridesharing. Do you think any of these would persuade you or your friends? save on gas minimize wear and tear on car no place to puk too expensive to park more relaxing than drivina can read/sleep/do work traffic congesrion is too bad to drive reliable transportation safer meet peOPle quiet 6 Do you ever ride ttansh in aDOtber city when you travel? (If anyone does .. ) Do you like it? Is it better than Lee County's syslem ? What about it is better? 7 Any final suggestions for improvements to LeeTran? C-4

PAGE 201

LEE COUNTY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS A. WHERE WE ARE I How much awareness of and interest in transit does the community have? What about carpooling and vanpooling? 2 How is lhe bus system perceived in the community? 3. What is your perception of uansit's r o l e in. the community? 4 Is the transit system responsive to c()mmunity needs? How are those needs communicated to the transit system? s. Is the transit system easy to use? 6 Is information on transit, carpooling and vanpooling readily available in the community? 7. What is your opinion of the transit fare? 8. Is traffic congestion a problem in Lee County? If so, what role can transit play in allevia ting this problem? What role can carpooling or vanpooling play? 9 Is there a parking problem in Lee County? If so. how does this affect transit s role in the community? How does this affect carpoolinglvanpooling? B. WHERE WE WANT TO GO 10. What goals have th e community and elected officials voiced for transit? Are there goals regarding carpooling and vanpooling? II. How can the transit system better meet community needs? 12. What do you see as appropriate goals for the transit system? What are app ropriate goals for TOM strategies such as carpooling, vanpooling and flex time? 13. How do the following resources and constraints affect the ttansit system and TOM programs in their goals? a. Community attitudes toward transi t and TOM b. The polir:ical environme-nt c. Soc:ioeconomie and demographic characteristics of the community d. Geographic characteristics of Lee County C-5

PAGE 202

14. What is happening in Lee County in remu of residential and commercial development? How much? Where? How
PAGE 203

APPENDIX D TRANSIT RELATED GOALS IN THE LEE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

PAGE 204

this page IS blank

PAGE 205

TRANSIT-RELATED GOALS IN THE LEE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan for Lee County was reviewed to identify the existing body of polic ie s that support These policies are quite extensive, covering a wide range of transit related issues. The policies presented in this section we re compiled from 15 key elements of the Comprehensive Plan They are: Future Land Use Map Growth Management Development Design Residentia l Land Uses Commercial Land Uses Industrial Land U ses Fort Myers Beach Un i versity Community Major Int ra-County Transportation Corridors Access Roads, Safety, Buffering, Landscaping, and other Modes of Tra nsporta tion Mass Tra nsit Service Transit Development Program Coordinated System of Aviation Fa cilities Service Coordination Growth Management GOAL 1: FUTURE LAND USE MAP. To provide for a high quality of life by planning for population growth, public arid priVate devel opment, a nd the proper distribution, location and extent of future l and uses by type, density, and intensity consistent with the efficient and adequate l eve ls of services and facilities and the protection of n atural a nd man made resources Source: Lee County Comprehensive Plan, Revised June 18, 1993, Future Land Use Element, pp. 11. D-3

PAGE 206

Objective 1.1: Future Urban Areas. Designate on the Future Land Use M ap categories of vary i ng Intensities to provide a full range of urban activities These designations are based upon soil conditions, historic and develop ing growth patterns, and existing or future availability of public facilities and services . Policy 1 1.2: The In t ens ive Development areas are clustered near the center of the map-in and a r ound Fort M yers North Fort Myers and Cape Coral Sy vi rtue of their cen t ral locat i on the county's current development patterns and the ava il ab l e and potentia l l eve l s of pub li c serv i ces, th ey are well suited to accommodate high densities and intensities Planned mixeduse centers of high density residential, commercial, and office uses are appropriate in these locations. As Lee County moves toward becom ing a metropolitan complex of a half-million people, these centrally located urban nodes can offer a d iversity of lifestyles. cosmopolitan shopping opportunities and specialized professional services that befit such a reg i on The standard density range is from e ight dwe lling un its per acre ( 8 dulacre ) to fourteen ( 14 du / acre ) Max i mum density i s twenty-two dwelling units per acre (22 du / acre) Policy 1.1 3: The Central Urban areas can best be described as the "urban core" of the county. These consist mainly of the City of Fort Myers, the southerly portion of the City of Cape Coral, and other close In areas near these cities; and also the central portions of Bonita Springs lona/MacGregor and Lehigh Acres This i s the part of the county that is already most he avily settled and which h as or wi ll h ave the highest levels of urban service-water sewer roads schools e t c It is also the areas in which public services can most read ily be expanded t o serve the outward expans i on of development at urban leve l s of dens ity and intensity that can be expected and wh ich should be fostered Resident i al, commercial, public and quasi public, and limited light industrial land uses will continue to predominate in the Central Urban area. This category has a standard density range of five dwelling units per acre (5 du per acre) to ten dwelling units per acre (10 du/acre) and a max i mum density of frfteen dwe lli ng units per acns (15 du/acre ). PoUcy 1.1.4: Most Urban Communities are freestanding settlements that are somewhat removed from the Central Urban area Included among them, for example are

PAGE 207

Polley 1.1.7 : parts of Lehigh Acres. San Carlos Paril Fort Myers Beach Bonita Spring s and parts of Sanibel, Pine Island, and Gasparilla Island Although Urban Communities have a distinctly urban char acter they should be developed at sl ightly lower dens it ies. As vacant positions of these communities are urbanized they will need t o maintain their existing bases of urban serv ices and expand and strengthen them according ly. As in the Central Urban area, predominate land uses in the Urban will be residential, commercial pub li c and qu a si-public and light I ndustry Stand a rd ranges from on e dwelling per acre ( 1 dulacre ) to s i x dwelling per acre (6 du/acre) a ma x imum of ten dwe lling units per acre (10 du/acre) The lnd ystria l Development areas play an Import ant role in streng t hening the county's economic base and w ill become increasingly important as the county grows in size and urban comp lex i ty To a great ex1ent these are the areas to which Lee County must l ook for expanded job opportunities. inves tme nts and product i on opportunities, and a ba l anced a nd sufficient tax base These a reas have spec i a l loca t i onal requirements that are more s tring e nt than those for residential areas, including transportation ne eds (e. g., air. ra il, highway) ; industrial levels of wa ter, sewer fire protection, and other urban services; and locations that are convenient for emp l oyees t o reach Whereas the other Future Urban Areas will inc lude a broad combination of resident i al commer cial, public, an d industrial land uses, the Industrial Development area i s to reserved mainly for industrial activities per se as well as for selective land us e mixlures such as the comb i n ed use of industrial, manufacturing r esearch property buffered recreational areas ( except where pr e cluded by airport hazard regu l ations) and office ciomplexes Of specifica lly r e lated to adjo i nin g industrial uses) that constitute a growing part of Florida 's economic development sector Ancillary minor retail commercial uses designed to s up port the surrou nd in g indust rial land uses may be allowed at a ratio of 1 square foot of commerci a l uses to 20 square feet of industrial land use in association with an Industri a l Planned Developmen t. Ancillary minor retail commercial uses not part of an Industri a l Pla nned Development m ay not exceed 30 000 square feet. Polley 1 1 8 : The Public facili t ies areas include the major publicly owned rands w ithin the county such as schools, parils airports, and other governmental facilit ies Due 0-5

PAGE 208

to the scale of mapping, only those facilities in excess of about twenty acres are so designated on the future land use map. The a llowab le uses within these areas are determined by the entity owning each such parcel and the local government having zoning and permitting jurisdict ion Polley 1. 1.9: The Unive!'ljitv Community land use category provides for Florida s 1Oth University and for associated support development. The location and tim in g of the development with in this area shall be coordinated with the development of the University and the provision of necessary infrastructure. All development within the University Community shall be designed to enhance and support the University In addition to all other appli cable regulations, development within the University Community shall be subject to cooperative master planning with, and approval by the Board of Regents of the State University System. Objective 1.2: D-6 Prior to development in th e University Community land use category, there shall be established a Conceptual Master Plan which includes a generalized land use plan and a multi-objective water management plan. These plans shall be developed through a cooperative effort between the property owner, Lee County and South Florida Water Management District. Within the University Community are three district sub-categories: University Campus, University Endowment Area, and the University Village. The University Window overlay, although not a true sub-category, is a distinct component of the total university environment. To gethe r these functions provide the opportunity for a diversity of viable mixed use centers. Overall average density for the University Village shall not exceed 2 5 un i ts per acre Clustered densities with in the area may reach fifteen units per ac re to accommodate university housing. The overall average intensity of non residential development w ithin the University Village shall be limited to 10,000 square feet of building area per non-resid ential acre allowed pursuant to the Year 2010 Overlay. Specific policies related to the University Community are inc luded within the Lee Plan under Goal 20. Southwest Florida Regional Airport Area. Designate on the Future Land Use Map adequate land in appropriate locations to accommodate the projected growth needs of the Southwest Florida Regional

PAGE 209

Airport and the business and indus trial areas related to it through t he year 2010. These categories are a lso considered Future Urban Areas. Policy 1 2.2: The Airoort Commerce areas are commerc i al and industrial lands adjacent to the airport needed to accommodate projected growth through the year 2010. These areas may include mixed-use developments consisting of l ight manufacturing or assembly, warehousing, and distribution facilities; offices ; ground transportation and airport-related terminals or transfer facilities; hotel/motels meeting and other services; and ancillary commercial uses. Because this area is located within the Six Mile Cypress Basin and is also a primary point of entry I nto Lee County spec i al environmental and design review guidelines will be applied to its development to maintain the appearance of this area as a primary point of entry into Lee County. Objective 1 3 : I nterstate H i ghway Interchange Areas. Designate on the Future Land Use Map specialized categories for land adjacent to the interchanges of Interstate 75 These categories are also considered Future Urban Areas. It is important to make maximum beneficial use of these critical access points and at the same time avoid irreconcilable conflicts between competing demands such as through traffic vs. local t raffic, conservation vs. development, commercial development vs. industrial development, and tourist commercial facilities vs. general shopp in g facilities. Development at these interchanges is to occur as Planned Developmentsthat i s developments that are designed as in tegrated, cohesive rather than as separate, unrelated projects. This will m in imize adverse traffic impacts and provide appropriate buffers. visual amenities, and safety measures. Each interchange area is designated for a specific primary role : General, General Commercial Industrial Commercial, and Industrial. These categories are also considered Future Urban Areas. Policy 1.3 1 : The Ind ustrial Inte rchange areas allow essentially the same uses as those permitted in the Industrial Deve l opment areas-that is comb i nat i ons of light industry, r esearch, and offices. In certain uses such as restaurants and hotels will be appropriate if they are part of an integrated office park or industrial center D 7

PAGE 210

Policy 1.3 .3: The General Commercial Interchange areas are intended primarily for general community land uses: retail planned commercial districts, shopping, office, financial, and business. Policy 1.3.4: The Industrial Commercial Interchange areas are designed to permit a mixture of light industrial and/or commercial uses. This category does not permit heavy industria l use. Policy 1.3.5: The Universijy Village Interchange land use category is designed to accommodate both interchange land uses and non-residential land uses related to the Universijy. Development within this interchange area may or may not be related to, or justified by the land use needs of the University. Land uses allowed within this area include those allowed in the Industrial Commercial Interchange and the associated support development allowed in the Universijy Village. The overall average lntensijy of non-residential development shall be to 10,000 square feet of building area per non-residential acre allowed pursuant to the Year 2010 Overlay. See definition of Associated Support Development in the Glossary. Cooperative master planning and approval by the Board of Regents shall be required prior to devetopm ent within this la nd use category. Additionally, any development this land use category which meets or exceeds the Development of Regional impact thresholds, either alone or through aggression, shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 380 F.S. Objective 1.8: Policy 1.8.3: D-8 Planned Development District Option. Provide an option to landowners outside the Future Urban Areas to increase a'llowabte densities for development that will be totally independent of county subsidized facilities and services. Performance Standards 1. Self-Sufficiency: Capital Costs All internal improvements (wate r sewer, roads, water management recreation) must be installed to county standards at the developer's expense and t he developer must provide the capital costs of all off-site improvements and services required by the project (e .g. arterial streets, transit service extensions, solid waste disposal, public protection).

PAGE 211

Reference: GOAL 2: This Comprehensive Plan goal is included in Goal1 of the TOP. GROWTH MANAGEMENT. To prov ide for an economically feasible plan which coordinates the loca t ion and timing of new development the provision of infrastructure by government agencies, private utilities, and other sources. Source: Lee County Comprehensive Plan, Revised June 18 1993 Future Land Use Element, pp. 11-17. Objective 2.3: Public Provision of I nfrastructure. The Capital Improvements Program shall give the highest priority to the planning, programming. and construction of urban services and in the existing devel oped areas where faci l rties are inadequate. Next priority shall be given to service expansions in the existing developed areas, fo llowed by further expansion into other p ortions of the Future Urban Areas . Sufficient shall be i dentified and protected for utility facilities that will be necessary to support the proposed level of development. Policy 2.3 .2: -The cost for the prov i sion and expansion of services and facilities that benefit new development shall be borne primarily by those who benefit. Such funding may inc lude (but not to) impact fees. special taxing or benefit districts, community development districts dedication of land and facilities in-lieu-of fees and capital construction, operation and maintenance funds Reference: GOAL 4: This Comprehensive Plan goal is included In Goals 1, 2 and 6 of the TOP. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GENERAL. To encourage creat ive site design to maximize the variety of housing and commerc i al development and recognize the unique attributes of each parcel of land. D-9

PAGE 212

Source: Objective 4.1: Polley 4 1 1 : Policy 1.2: Lee County Comprehensive Plan, Revised June 18, 1993, Future Land Use Element, pp. 11-23. Maintain the current planned development zoning process which combines site planning flexibility with rigorous review. By the end of 1991, take specific steps to further promote the creation of mixed-use developments, to reduce the impact on collector and arterial roads. Development designs shall be evaluated to ensure that land uses and structures are well integrated, properly oriented, and functionally related to the topographic and natural features of the site, and that the placement of uses or structures within the development minimizes the expansion and construction of street and utiltty improvemen ts Development designs shall be evaluated to ensure that the internal street system is designed for t he efficient and safe flow of vehicles and pedestrians without having the disruptive effect on the activities and functions contained within or adjacent to the development. Polley 4 1.3: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a "Planned Village" conventional zoning designation, which w ill requ ire compatible mixed-use development with Integrated design characteristics in which to capture a meaningfu l percent of the automobile trips generated for residential projects over 160 acres within Intensive Development, Central Urban, Urban Communtty land use categories. Policy 4.1. 4: Amerid the Zoning Ordinance to create a ''Traditional Neighborhood" (TN) zoning district, a conventiona l zoning district that allows mixed uses wtthout the need for planned development approval. At the same time, raise t he DCI threshold if the developer seeks rezoning to TN rather than a planned development category. Policy 4 1.5: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce other obstacles to mixed-use developments. D-10

PAGE 213

Policy 4.1 .6: Reference: GOAL 5: Objective 5.1: Polley 5.1.3: Reference: GOAL 6: Source: Objective 6.1: By the end of 1991 study the possible Incentives which would encourage mixed-use development. and initiate appropriate amendments to the Lee Plan at that time This Comprehensive Plan goal is included in Goals 1 and 2 of the TOP. RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. To accommodate the full range of housing types, densities, and price ranges within the county. All development approvals for residential land uses must be consistent with the following policies, the general standards under Goal12, and other provisions of this plan. During the rezoning process. direct high-density residential developments to loca t ions that are near employment and shopping centers; have access to shopping, parks, and schools; and are accessible to mass transit and bicycle facilities. This Comprehensive Plan Is Included In Goals 1 and 2 of the TOP. COMMERCIAL LAND USES. To p romote orderly and well-planned commercial development at appropriate locations within the county. Lee County Comprehensive Plan, Revised June 18, 1993 Future Land Use Element, pp. 11-26. All development approvals for commercial land uses must be consistent with the following policies, the general standards under Goal 12 the commercial standards found under Goal 13, and other provisions of this pl an D-11

PAGE 214

Polley 6.1.1: Commerc i al developments requiring rezoning and meeting Development of C o unty Impact (DC I) thresholds shall be developed as commercial planned developments designed to arrange uses in an integrated and cohesive unit in order t o : provide visual hannony, sign control and screening; reduce dependence on the automobile; promote pedestrian movement within the development; utilize joint parking, access and load ing avoid negative impacts on surrounding land uses and traffic circulat i on; protect natural reso urces ; and provide the necessary services and facilities where they are inadequate to serve the proposed use. Polley 6 1.11: Intensive commercial land uses which attract or produce large volumes of traffic shall be adequately buffered and screened from adjacent residential uses to preve nt blight and noise pollution. Reference: GOAL 7: Source: Objective 7.1: Thi s Comprehensive Plan goal i s Included In Goals 1 and 2 of the TOP INDUSTRIAL LAND USES To promote opportunities for well-planned industrial development at suitable locations within the county. Lee County Comprehensive Plan, Revis ed June 18, 1993, Fu ture Land Use Element, pp. 11-28. All development approvals for industrial land uses must be consistent with the followi ng policies, the general standards under Goal12, the industrial standards under Goal 14, and the other prov isions of the plan Polley 7.1.1: Industrial developments requiring rezoning and meeting Development of County Impact (DC I) thresholds shall be developed as planned industrial developments designed to arrange uses as an i ntegrated and cohesive in order to: provide compatibility, sign control and screening; 0-12

PAGE 215

reduce dependence on the automob i le; promote pedestrian movement with i n the development ; utilize joint parking access and l oading facilities; avoid negative impacts on surrounding land uses and traffic circulation; protect natura l resources ; and prov i de the necessary serv ices and fac i lities where they are i nadequate to serve the proposed use. Policy 7 .1.2: Industrial l and uses shall be located in areas appropriate to their special needs and constraints i ncluding but not limited to considerations of: topography ; choice and flexibility in site selection ; access by truck, air, deep water and rail ; commuter access for home-to-work trips; utilities; g r eenbelt and other amenities; air and water quality considerations; proximity to supportive and related land uses ; and compatib i l ity with neighboring uses. Reference: GOAL 18: Source: This Comprehensive Plan goal is included In Goals 1, 2 and 5 of the TOP. FORT MYERS BEACH. To manage growth, development, a n d redevelopment throughout the Fort Myers Beach plan area which includes the entire Fort Myers Beach Fire D i strict, the boundaries of which are indicated upon the Future Land Use Map To ma i ntain and enhance the area's unique natural resources, quality of life, public and private infrastructure (including roads, public transit wastewa t er treatment faci l ities, potable water transmiss ion system surface water management system. beach accesses historic resources and other commun i ty facilities) To ensure that residents and visitors will have adequate protection or evacuat i on opportunit i es in the event of a hurricane or other natural disaster and to ensure the ability to reconstruct all necessary facilit i es, public and private, in the event a disaste r occurs. Lee County Comprehensive Plan, Revised June 18, 1993, Future Land Use Element, pp 11-56. D-13

PAGE 216

Objective 18.3: Transportation. By 1992, the county shall prepare and approve plans for transportation improvements and incorporate these improvements in the cap i tal plan, such improvements to be co mpleted by 1995. Policy 18.3 .3: As part of the design process, the county shall consider ways to establish pull-overs and turn-offs for the pickup and discharge of passengers from all trolley and mass transit vehicles and requiring that such pick-up and discharge be done only at specified transit stops. Polley 18.3 .8: Prior to the ex pend it ure of public funds for the construction of new parking facilities within the Ft. My ers Beach Study Area, an analysis of the relat io nship of the to the level-of-serv ice on con strained and backlogged r oads shall be u ndertaken in order to determine if the location size. and function of the facility is appropriate and consistent with the adopted CRA plan. Reference : GOAL20: This Comprehensive Plan goal is Included in Goals 1 and 2 of the TOP UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY. In order to ensure that development the University Community land use category pro tects and enhances the ability of Florida's tenth university to provide secondary education as described in the Mission Statement of that ins titut ion and to assure that land uses or development activities do not interfere with, disrupt, or impede the efficient operation of that inst itut i on the following Objectives and Policies shall apply to all development within the University Community land use category. Source: Lee County Comprehensive Plan. Revised June 18. 19g3, Future land Use Element, pp. 11-68. Objective 20.1: Future Land Use. D-14 In order to ensure that the location and timing of development within the University Community is coordinated with the development of the University

PAGE 217

and th e provision of n ecessa ry in f rastructure ; and that a ll asso ci ate d support develop men t w i thi n the University Community i s des i gned to enhance the Univers i ty; all development w ithin the University Community shall be subject to cooperative master plann ing which shall conform to the follo w ing policies Polley 20.1.5: In order to Cfeate a cohes i ve c'?mmunity, site design within the University Community shall uti lize alterna tive modes of transport at ion such a s pedestrian networks m ass transit opportunities s i dewalks bike paths and s i mil a r faci li ties. Site design sha ll link related l and uses throu gh th e use of alternative modes of transportat i on t hus reducing au t omob il e traffic with i n the Unive rsity Community Policy 20 1.6: Lee County shall fac ilit ate mass transi t opportunities connecting th e Community to other parts of the County. Polley 20 1 1 0 : Prior to the commen cement of deve l opment within the Univers ity Com mun ity land use c a tegory the Board of Regents a nd Alico Inc sha ll work i n conc ert with the Board of County Commiss i oners to estab li sh a n area-wi d e Conceptua l Maste r Plan for th e Univ ers ity Community land u se category Thi s master p l an sha ll at a minimu m prov i de for the coordination of major roadw a ys, utilities, mass tran sit, hous i ng, and the conceptual water management plan within the context of anticipated generalized land use and ant icipated development density/int e nsity. A determination of the estimated cost of providing the infrastructure shall be included A methodology to determin e the entity(s) responsible provid i ng this infrastructure specific a ll y identify in g the ob li ga tions of the County in accordance wit h its commitments to the Board o f Regents s h a ll a l so be estab li shed In frastructure for th e purpose ofthi s p l anning study as a pacl
PAGE 218

GOAL 24 : MAJOR INTRA-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. To provide for efficient in tra-county vehicular travel by planning an integrated system of transportation corridors, possibly of limited access design, that connect urban centers within t he county. Source: Lee County Comprehensive Plan, Revised June 18, 1993. Traffic Circu l ation Element. pp. 111-17. Objective 24.2: Transportation Authority. Reference: GOAL 26: Investigate the creation of a transportation authority which would be responsible for all tollway fac ilities and mass transit systems in the county, including funding of construction and maintenance facilities and operat ions. This Comprehensive Plan goal is included I n Goals 1, 4 5 and 6 of the TOP. ACCESS ROADS, SAFETY, BUFFERING, LANDSCAPING, AND OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTA T ION. To insure that relevant side issue s in the tra nsportation planning process are properly addressed Source: Lee County Comprehensive Plan. Revised June 18, 1993, Traffic Circulation Element, pp. 111-20. Objective 26 2 : Efficiency and Safety The county will continue a program system modifications to increase t r avel safety and efficiency and will reduce times on the Cape Coral bridge approaches by 1990. Polley 26.2.1: In orde r to pursue more efficient use of existing road space conserve energy, and reduce peak hour vehicle usage in congested areas, the coun ty w ill D-16

PAGE 219

Objective 26.4: promote for others a n d i m p l e ment itself : Variable or staggered work hours Car pooling and ridesharing Incen tives and programs to Increase the use of mass transit. Other Modes of Transportation Consider th e need s a n d opportunities for a ll owing and enco urag ing the use of oth e r mod e s o f transpo rta tion whe n conduct i ng a n transportat i on p l a nning and eng in ee ring studies. Polley 26. 4.1: The mass transit policies under Objective 29.1 of thi s plan shall be cons idered during road w ay studies. Reference: This Comprehensive Plan goal Ia Included In all of the Goals o the TOP. GOAL 29 : MASS TRANSI T SERVIC E Source: O bjective 29 1 : To provide transit service to res i dents and v i sitors ( espe cially the transportalion-disadvantaged popu l alion) In the concentrated population centers of Lee County, and to ensure that thi s serv i ce is integ rated with other mode s of tran spo rtation Lee County Comprehensive Plan Revised June 18 1993, M ass T ransit E l ement pp IV-1. Ridership. The county w ill make efforts to in crease public transit ridership to 1 5 million trips annually by 1993. Polley 29 1.1: Coordinate the p l anning and inst a llati on of walkways bicycle p at hs and other bicycle a menities with mass transit and roa dway systems through th e deve l opment o f a master plan for the county. 0 1 7

PAGE 220

Policy 29.1.2: Provide for the construction of bus shelters and tum-off lanes on adjacent arterials and collector roadways where needed. A program will be developed to accomplish this following the completion of the development program (see Goal 30). Policy 29.1.3: Establish park-and-ride lots and routes for commuters and visitors to serve high demand locations where roadway facilities are limited (e g downtown Fort Myers the beaches, etc.). Policy 29.1.4: Continue to investigate the development of multi-modal transfer facilities paratransit service, and vanpooling to complement conventional public trans it serv i ce especially where major trip generators or attractors exist or are proposed. Policy 29.1.5: Consider the needs and contributions of mass transit service when amending other portions of this comprehensive plan (particularly the Traffic Circulation and Future Land Use elements) and when considering amendments to the Future Land Use Map. Policy 29.1.6: Maintain public transit service where it is currently available in urban areas and expand public transn service to (and between) the future urban areas as delineated in the Future Land Use element where feasible. Policy 29.1.7: Develop and maintain convenient public transit between new or expanded urban areas and existing destinations such as central Fort Myers and Cape Coral, other centers of employment, and shopping, medical, educational, and recreation centers Polley 29.1.8: Evaluate possible mass transn service to Southwest Florida Regional Airport on a fu llcost basis, based upon an experimental program to be conducted during 1989. Objective 29 .2: D-18 New Development. By 1989, require that larger new developments provide convenient access to mass

PAGE 221

Policy 29 2 1 : Cons i der amend ing the county development regulations to requ ir e that deve lopments provide, where a rational nexus can be established : Objective 29.3: Bus tum-off lanes on a djacent arterials and collectors: Bus s helters with rou t e infonnation displays; Bicy cle storage areas near ma jor bu s stops; and Walkways for access to bus stops Opera t i ng Policies. Ma intain a pub lic transit serv i ce w hich offers reliability access i bility, safety convenience, afford able prices, and efficiency (as measured by Policy 29. 3 1). Polley 29 3. 1 : Provide service which will p rovide operating standards of 14 passengers per revenue vehicle hour, 1 passenger per re venue vehicle mile, and an operating revenu e (farebo x recovery) at a min imum of 25% of operating expenses. Polley 29.3.2: Ma int ain high standard s in mon i toring the fin a nci a l operation of the transit system and continuing to seek out ne w and innovativ e funding sources Polley 29.3.3 : Continue to widely disseminate mass transit scheduling and s ervice lnfonn ation throug hou t the transit service area Policy 29.3. 4 : Devel op conve n i ent schedules and othe r mechanisms to encourage downtown emp loyees to use m ass transit for commuting tri ps ; a nd establish flexible schedu li ng during 1989 for county employees to relieve congestion on mass transit and roadway faciliti es Objective 29. 4 : Coordination. All m ass transit plans shall be coordinated with state, regional, a n d other l ocal governm ent a l agencies and special needs groups. Policy 29.4. 1: Continue coord i nating mass transit activ ities with the M etropolit a n Planning Organization and the Aori
PAGE 222

Policy 29 4 .3: Co-operate with the private sector to i ncre ase the v i abil ity of priv a tely funded transit service es pecially in areas with a l arge seasonal populat ion. Objective 29 .5: Corridor Protection. By 1991 formally consider the establishment of exclusive mass tran si t corridors in at le ast two different l ocat i ons Policy 29 5.1: Consider the demand for mass tra ns i t and particularly for future mass transij righ t s-of-way or exclusive corridors wh ile conducting all major transportation studies Reference: GOAL 30: Source: Objective 30.1: Thla Comprehensive Plan goal Ia Included In all of the Goal a of the TOP. TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM To develop a transit d e velopment program (TOP) for the county Lee Coun ty Compreh ensive Plan, Revised June 18, 1993, M ass Transit E le m ent, pp. IV-3. TOP S tudy Co mpl ete a study b y the year 1989 ( t o be performed by a private consulting firm specializ in g in transportat i on and tra nsij development program pl a nn i ng) to examine enhance and i mprove th e f uture of mass t ransit in Le e County. Policy 30.1.1: Dev e lop and conduct a ridership survey in order to asses and I dentify the existing and potential ridership profile Polley 30.1.2: Develop a transit demand model In order to identify and analyze existing prob lems and n eeds Polley 30 1 .3: Develop t r ansit syst e m a H ematives and e valu ate them aga inst i nstitutional procedures and constraints. D 20

PAGE 223

Objectiv e 30. 2: TOP lmpleiT' 1tion Select and implem ent the desired trans i t system from the transit development program study with in o n e year after the completion of the study Polley 30. 2.1: Pri oritize the transit system alternatives Polley 30.2.2: Develop a n initi a l funding program other th a n from ad valorem tax es to imp lemen t the d es ired transit sys tem aHemauves With full considerat i on given to establishing a dedica ted service o f f unding for m ass transit Polley 3 Q 2.3: Iden tify l ong-term fund i ng support strategies to ensure the implementation of the transit develo p ment program. Polley 30.2.4: Rev ise the in t erim future mass transit map at the first avaU able opportunity following the completion of the transit development program Reference : GOAL 99: Th i s Comprehensive Plan goal Is Included in all of the Goals of the TOP COORDINATED SYSTEM OF AVIATION FACILITIES. To deve lo p and m a i ntain a coord in ated system of aviation facilities to facilitate the safe cost-e ffe ctive, a nd efficient movement of commerce consistent w ith community values and eco nomic objectives Source : Lee County Comprehensive Plen Revised June 18, 1993, Ports Aviat i on, and Related Facilities Element pp IX-17 Objective 99.4: Access Ensure th a t a cc ess routes to avia tion f a cili ties are properly in teg rated w ith other m odes of transportation. Polley 99.4.1 : The Port Authority sha ll ccordinate surface and water transportat i on efforts with its avia t ion f acilities through annual transportation ana lysis stud ies to be coordinated w1th the county transportation department. D-21

PAGE 224

Policy 99.4.2: The Port Authority shall coordinate with the Florida High Speed Rail Commission to attempt to provide access for airport passengers and cargo to high speed rail facimies that may be constructed with in Lee County and shall make necessary provisions in each airport's master plan for this eventuality. Policy 99.4.3: The Port Authority shall coordinate surface transportation planning for the Southwest Regional Airport with the county Tr a nsportation and Engineering Department and th e Florida Department of Transportation regarding a southern access to the airport. Reference: GOAL 108: Source : This Comprehensive Plan goal is included In Goal1 of the TOP. SERVICE COORDINATION. To provide for efficient and effective coordination of provision of public serv i ces by Lee County and its special districts, bodies boards and other entHies Lee County Comprehensive Plan Revised June 18, 1993, Intergovernmenta l Coordination Element, pp. X ll-1. Objective 108 .3: Policy Coordination By 1989 the Lee County E xecu tive Advisory Committee shall be re-established in order to provide an intergovernmental policy coordination p olicy. Policy 108.3.3 : Lee County shall continue to : Reference: D-22 . utilize the Metropo lrta n Planning Organization (MPO) for matters of coordination in transportation p lanning and Imp lemen tation; and utilize the Technical Advisory Committee to the MPO in matters r equ i ring communication cooperation, and coordination between Lee Cou nty and othe r jurisdictions. This Comprehensive Plan goal Is included in Goals 1, 2 4 and 5 of the TOP.

PAGE 225

GOAL 109: GROWfH MANAGEMENT To coordinate the plans and po lic ies of Lee County, its municipalities and adjacent local governments so as to guide, manage and regulate urban growth in a compatible fashion. Source: Lee County Comprehensive Plan, Revised June 18, 1993, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, pp Xll-2. Objective 109.1 : Effects of New Development. By 1990. the review of impac ts of planned developments on the municipalities within Lee County and on adjacent counties, regional agencies and other governmenta l units shall function in a coord inated and efficient manner. Policy 109 1 6 : The county shall coordinate transportation planning and road imp rovement s with other jurisdict ions through the means described under Goal28 of this plan. Reference : This Comprehensive Plan goal Ia Included in all of the Goals of the TOP. 0-23

PAGE 226

APPENDIX E LIST OF DEFINITIONS: SELECTED PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND MEASURES

PAGE 227

this page IS blank

PAGE 228

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS County/Service Area Population -For 1991 and prior years, county population is used to approximate the service area popu lat ion for each of the Florida transit systems and is taken from the Florida Statistical Abstract for each year. The only exception is Smyrna Transit System (SMTS) for which the population of the city of New Smyrna Beach is used to approximate the service area population for these years. This measure provides a suitable approximation of overall market size for comparison of relative spending and service levels among communities in the absence of actual service area population. However, in 1992. FTA began requiring transit systems to provide service area population in their Section 15 reports. As a resuh, this is the measure that is now utilized in this study. Passenger Trips -Annual number of passenger boardings on the transit vehicles. A trip is counted each time a passenger boards a transit vehicle. Thus, if a passenger has to transfer between buses to reach a destination he or she is counted as making two passenger trips. Revenue Miles -Number of annual miles of vehicle operation while in active service (available to pick up revenue passengers). This number is smaller than vehicle miles because of the exclusion of deadhead miles such as vehicle miles from the garage to the start of service, vehicle miles from the end of service to the garage, driver training, and other miscellaneous miles that are not considered to be in direct revenue service. Total Operating Expense -Reported total spending on operations, including administration maintenance and operation of service vehicles. Total Operating Expenses 11984 Sl -Total operating expenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of determining the real change in spending for operating expenses. Total Maintenance Expense-Sum of all expenses categorized as maintenance expenses; a subset of total operating expense. Total Maintenance Expenst 11984 $1Total maintenance expenses deflated to 1984 do llars for purposes of determining the real change in spending for maintenance purposes. Qperatlng Revenue Includes passenger fares, special transit fares, school bus service revenues, freight tariffs, charter service revenues. auxiliary transportation revenues subsidy from other sectors of operations, and non-transportation revenues. Total Employees-Total number of payroll employees of the transit agency. It is useful to note that the increasing tendency to contract out for services may resuh in some significant differences in this measure between otherwise similar properties. It is important to understand which services are contracted before drawing conclusions based on employee levels. All employees classified as capital were excluded from this report. E-3

PAGE 229

Vehicles Available for Maximum Service-Number of vehicles owned by the transit authority that are available for use in bus serv i ce. Vehicles Operatad in Maximum Service-The largest number of vehicles required for providing service during peak hours (typically the rush period). EFFEC TIVENESS MEASURES Vehicle Miles Per CaRita -Total number of annual vehicle miles divided by the service area's population This can be characterized as the number of miles of service provided for each man woman, and child in the service area and is a measure of the extensiveness of service provided in the service area. Passenger Trips Per CapitaAverage number of transit boardings per person per year This number is l arger in areas where public transportation is emphasized and in areas where there are more transit dependents, and is a measure of the extent to which t he public utilizes transit in a given service area. Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile The ratio of passenger trips to revenue miles of service; a key indicator of service effectiveness that is influenced by the levels of demand and the supply of service provided. Average Age of Fleet Traditionally, a standard transit coach is considered to have a useful life of 12 years. However, longer service lives are not uncommon The vehicle age and the reliability re cord of the equipment, the number of miles and hours on the equipment, the sophistication and features (i.e., wheelchair lifts, electronic destination signs, etc.), and operating environment (weather, roadway grades, and passenger abuse) all affect the maintenance needs and depreciation of the bus fleet. EFFICIENCY MEASURES ODtratlng El!Denst Per Capjta Annual operating budget divided by the county/service area population; a measure of the resource commitment to by the community. Operating Expense Per Pauenger Trip Operating expenditures divided by the total annual ridership; a measure of the efficiency of transporting riders; one of the key indicators of comparative performance of transit properlies since it reflects both the efficiency with which service is delivered and the market demands for the service. E-4

PAGE 230

Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile -Operating expense divided by the annual revenue miles of service; a measure of the efficiency wiih which service is delivered and is another key comparative indicator. Farebox Recovery Ratio of passenger fare revenues to total operating expenses; an indicator of the share of revenues provided by the passengers. Revenue Hours Per Employee Reflects overall labor product ivity Passenger Trips Per Employee -Another measure of overall labor productivity. Average FarePassenger fare revenues divided by the total number of passenger trips E-5

PAGE 231

APPENDIX F INVENTORY OF TRANSIT PROVIDERS IN LEE COUNTY

PAGE 232

this page IS blank

PAGE 233

I NVENTORY OF TRANSIT PROVIDERS IN LEE COUNTY Th is appendix provides b as ic informa tion on existing pub li c and private transij services operating in Lee County. These inclu de fixed-route service operated by Lee County Trans it, transportat ion disadvantaged service provided by Goodwheels tax i service and airport limousine service. Informa t ion on Le eTran and Goodwheels is drawn from published sources identified in the body of this report. The remain ing inform at ion was gathered by CUTR via telephone interv i ews. F-3

PAGE 234

LEE COU N TY TRA NS IT 1 993 Operat ing Data 10715 East Airport Road F o rt Myers FL (813) 277 1 Contact : James Fetzer GE NERAL INF OR MATI O N Type of Serv i ce Service Area Serv i ce Users SERVICE HOU RS Fixed Route Motorbus Lee County General Public OPERA TIN G STATI STI C S Monday-Friday 5 : 35am-7 : 40p m Peak Veh i cles Operated : Saturday 6 : 30am-7:40pm Vehi cles Ava i lab l e : Sunday P E RSON NE L Trans i t Operat i ons Adm i nistrative Maintenance Total FARE STRU C TURE Base Fare Senior CHize n Fare Hand i capped P re-schoo l Children Tran s fe rs Month l y Pass Sen ior C i t i zen Pass S t u dent Pas s A ll Day Pass no serv i ce 52 0 4 0 11. 5 67 5 10 T ri p Fu ll F are T i cket 1 0 Trip Student T i cket 1 0 Trip Sen i or C i tizen Ticket F-4 $0.75 $0 35 $0 35 FREE $0 10 Annual Passenger Trips : Annual Vehicle Mi l es : Annual Revenue Mi l es: Annual Veh i cle Hours: Annual Revenue Hours : Average Age of Fleet: Annua l No o f I nc i dents : Annua l No of Roadca ll s : Annua l Gallons of Diesel : $25 00 trips) $ 15 00 t ri ps) $20 00 (unlimHed trips) $2 00 $7.50 $5.00 $3.50 26 36 1 748 916 1,668,841 1,553,220 93,764 88,134 7 4 2 24 97 335 ,479

PAGE 235

GOODWHEELS, INC. 7941 Mercantile Street North Fort Myers, FL (813) 731-2935 Contact: Deloris Sheridan SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS Goodwheels is the designated Community Transportation Coordinator for Lee, Hendry, and Glades Counties. GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service Service Area Service Users SERVICE HOURS Paratransit Lee, Hendry, and Glades Counties Transportation Disadvantaged OPERATING STATISTICS Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Vehicles Operated: Saturday no service Sunday no service Holidays no service PERSONNEL Total Employees 56 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budgeted Operating Expense Budgeted Capijal Expense FARE STRUCTURE No fare is charged to eligible riders. $1,517,868 nla Annual Passenger Trips: Weekly Passenger Trips: Average: Range: 36 213,800 n/a 4 096 n/a F-5

PAGE 236

YELLOW CAB COMPANY 2040 Crawford Street Fort Myers, FL (813) 332-1055 Contact: Carty or Wayne Young GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Serv i ce Serv i ce Area S erv i ce Users SERVICE HOURS M onday-sunday PERSONNEL 24 hours Tax i Lee Char1otte, and Co lli er Coun ti es General Public OPERATING STATISTICS V ehicles Operated Sedans : 20 Weekly Passenger Trips : nla Tota l Employees 5 + con t ra ct driv ers Average: nla Range: nla Dally Veh i cle Trips: nla FARE STRUCTURE $2 75/first mile ; $ 1.50/ e a ch additio n a l mile up to 1 5 miles Fla t rate th erea ft e r COMMENTS Yellow Cab Checker Cab Green Top Cab, and Aerobus Charters operate out of th i s facility. F-6

PAGE 237

BLUE BIRD TAXI 2547 Katherine Street Ft Myers, Fl (813) 332-1647 Contact: Phil or Judy Griffin GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service Serv ice Area Service Users SERVICE HOURS Monday Sunday PERSONNEL Total Employees FARE STRUCTURE 24 hours 32 Taxi Lee County General Public OPERATING STATISTICS Veh i cles Operated Sedans: Weekly Passenger Trips: Average : Range : Daily Vehicle Trips: $2.75/first m i le ; $1. 50/each additional mile; $0.30/minute wait time; $1.00/each eX1ra person COMMENTS Entire fleet are Ford l TO Crown Victorias 10 16 n/a n/a n/a 100-560 F-7

PAGE 238

UNION CAB COMPANY 1864 Cranford Avenue Ft. Myers, FL (813) 334-2224 Contact: Hayward Owens GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service Service Area Service Users SERVICE HOURS Monday-Sunday PERSONNEL Total Employees FARE STRUCTURE 24 hours 5 Taxi Lee County General Public OPERATING STATISTICS Vehicles Operated: Sedans: Station Wagons: Weekly Passenger Trips: Average: Range: Daily Vehicle Trips: $2. 75/first mile; $1.50/each additional mile; $0.30/minute wait time; $1.00/each extra person F-8 3 1 n/a 10-80 nta

PAGE 239

MAJESTI C LIMO S ER V I C E 15501 McG r egor Bou l evard Su ite 10 F t. Myers, FL (813) 4 89-4473 Co ntact Bob Polker G EN ERAL INFO RMAT ION A i rport taxi and l imo serv ice Type of Service Serv i ce Area Service Users All Lee Cou nty, parts of Coll i er and Charlotte Counties Genera l P u blic SERV I CE HO U RS O P E RATING STATISTICS Monday-sunday 24 hours Vehicles Operated: Sedans : 2 PERSONNEL Sma ll Vans: 7 Large Vans : 3 Total Emp l oyees 3 + 10 15 Weekly Passenger Trips : nla Independent drivers Average: n/a Range : n/a Daily Veh i cle Trips: n/a FARE S TRU CT UR E $1.35/mile; $1.35 d r op charge COMMENTS Fares set in conjunction w i th th e Port Authority approved upper limit. F-9

PAGE 240

APPLE TRANSPORTATION 15501 McGregor Bou l evard Sufte 6 Ft. Myers, FL (813) 463-2888 Contact : Michelle Byrne GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service Service Area Service Users SERVICE HOURS Monday-sunday PERSONNEL Total Employees FARE STRUCTURE 24 hours 15-20 Airport taxi and limo service Lee County General Public OPERATING STATISTICS Veh i cles Ope r ated: Sedans: Small Vans: Large Vans: Weekly Passenger Trips: Average: Range: Dai l y Vehicle Trips : Zone fare system approved by the Port Authority COMMENTS n/a n/a n/a nla nla n/a 20-100 Wou l d not specify the numbe r of vehicles operated or e l aborate further on the fare structure. F-10

PAGE 241

CITY OF CAPE CORAL PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Community Resources CCMS P .O. Box 150027 Cape Coral. FL (813) 574-0573 Contact: Mitzie Hammer GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service Service A rea Service Users SERVICE HOURS Paratransit City of Cape Coral Transporta t ion Disadvantaged OPERATING STATISTICS M ond ay-Friday 8:00 a.m 4:00 p.m. Vehicles Operated : 15 -pass. buses: PERSONNEL Small Vans: Large Vans : Tota l Employees 6 Weekly Passenger Trips: Average: Annual Passenger Trips: Daily Vehicle Trips: FARE STRUCTURE $5.00 per round trip ; fiveand ten-trip passes available COMMENTS Operates exclusively with in the City of Cape Coral. 2 2 1 nla 218 10 440-12,000 20 medical F-11

PAGE 242

APPENDIXG COMPLETE TREND DATA TABLES: LEETRAN, 1988-1993

PAGE 243

this page IS blank

PAGE 244

G'l w PRFORMANCE INDICA TORS SeMc:e Ate1 Pop Tolal Mo-(000) Table G1 Lee County Tra n s i t Dir ec tl y-O perated Motorbus Perform an c e Indicators 1911 1 989 litO 1ti1 1!192 307.50 324.52 335 II 344.03 331.34 nla nla nil nla 189.00 1 130 .24 1.122.58 1 .320.<16 1 352.41 1,451 .67 4 368 .2 4 7 0!Q.23 9 ,96U7 U90.39 9 182.6 1 1 051 .97 1.200 .49 1,268..58 1 457 .58 1.502.80 993.53 1,126.74 1. 188.16 1 338.44 1 ,419. 04 90. 19 13.89 70,645 st.n 94 86 87. 73 70.56 87.25 88.12 90.89 472.00 4 72.00 458.00 388.20 388.20 $2,291 .90 $2, 796.64 $3,132 .78 $3,127.88 $3,106.95 12 .005.65 $2, 339 .86 $2. 495.2e $2,356 .85 $2.242 .75 $743.93 $568.75 $328.85 $669 .34 $ 636.86 TcQI-(000 ol 1964 S) $64Ul $475116 mt. n $504.34 $459.72 TOCal Cac>bt (000) $159.71 $693.22 $2,333.37 $25 .50 $96.49 TOIIIlocal (000) st. 430 cn $ 1 666.56 $1,670.e6 $2.428.56 $2,!130 4 1 ()petollng R...,..,.,. (000) $447 91 $513 .06 $676 75 $728 .30 $691.12 Passenger Fore ROY...,.. (000) $44t .ee l-4 93-94 1 543.9 4 $611.59 $ 567.49 T olal E,..,.,YMO 58.00 88.00 61.30 64. 1 0 63.60 T ranopQI!allon ()pol1lljng 43.00 56.00 4 1.60 4 7 .90 4 9 .80 Mo;menanoe 10 .00 11. 00 13 .70 10.50 11 .00 -El"- 5.00 1.00 8.00 5.70 2 .70 VellidosA_Ior_SeMc:e 29.00 noo 3 7 .00 36.00 36.00 -()per-... _.....,.-22.00 25.00 22.00 24.00 25.00 Spore Rollo 3 1.8 2% 32. 00% 58. 18% 50.00% 44. 00% Total Gallons Conau-(000) 216.41 255.12 295.91 334 16 322 2e 1993 % Cham 1 988-1 3 350.81 14.08% 189.00 nto 1. 741 .92 5U2% 9 497.60 117 42% 1 .116U4 S8.64% i 1 .553 .22 56.33% 93.76 3 .96% 88. 13 0 .46% sn .so .06% $3,122.94 35. 64% $2.186.66 9.03% $780 .11 4 .86% $54623 -15.14% $43 .69 -72.14 % $2.180 .80 5 1.15% $705. 31 57 44'.4 -88 30. 14 % 67.50 1 6 .38% 52.00 20.93% 11.50 15.00% 4.00 -20.00% 36.00 24.14% 29.00 18 18% 38."6% nla 335 .41 55. en%

PAGE 245

EfFECllVENESS MEASURES SERVI CE SUPPLY Vehiele Milos Per Capito SERVICE CONSUMPTION P-r Tripe Pel Cepla .. Passenger Trips Per Revettue Mile Possengor lripo p,r Hoo< QUAUTY OF SERVICE A-.gO 5.-J (RMJRH.) ... . Average Age of Flee1 ( I n yurt) N..-a/Incidents Telal Roadcalb Revenue M;IH (000) Revenue Miles Between Roadealls (000) AVAli.ABILITY Revenoo Pet Route Mile (000) Table G-2 Lee County TransH Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures 1188 1Nt 1tll0 1H1 3 42 3.70 3 79 4 24 3.70 3 .46 3 94 3 93 1.14 1.00 1.11 1.01 12. 95 15.91 19.63 15. 35 .. .. 11.32 15.97 17.67 15.19 .. 6.80 9.00 4.59 5.42 30.00 31.00 17. 00 . 418.00 304.00 218.00 168 .00 33.12 36:35 66.01 78 73 2 38 3 .71 5.45 7.97 2 .10 2.39 2.59 3 64 1H2 1H3 %C= 15811-1 3 4 54 4.76 ... 39.05% 4 38 4.99 34 .92% 1 02 1.13 .54% 15. 97 19.84 53.22% 15.61 17.62 55.62% 6.42 7.42 9.12% 21.00 24.00 .00% . 163.00 97.00 .79% 67.57 64.n 95.42% 8.71 16.01 573.68% 3.85 4.12 95.57%

PAGE 246

G'l "' EI'FICIEHCY IIIEASURES COST EFFICINCY ()peniliog Ex-.,.. c.pu Operomg Ex-Pef PNk VeNcle (000) Opollli!V -Pw ...._ Tl'p Operlli>g -P p....._-Opollli!V -Pw--Oporllling Ex-Hour Ell-Pit """""' -Maintenance Ex.p. Pe, Opcwatlng &p. OPERATING RATIOS F-Roc:ov.fY LOcal -...... Oper!D>g e-... ()peroting -Per Oponti!V -VEHICl-E UTlUZATlOH --""--(1)00) VoNcle Haut1 Pot Peak-( 000 ) __ .,.._.,.._ Rev""uo Milt ,., Toul Vehicles (000) . -uo HoliiO Pit Toul Voh-(000) LA80R PRODUCTIVITY R......, Hoon Pef (000) P-Tripo (000) ENERGY UTIUlATlOH __ .,.._ FARE Average Ftre Table G..J Lee County Trans i t Directly-Operated M otorbus Efficiency M easures 1H8 1989 11190 1991 $ 7A8 $8.62 $ 9.35 $ 9.09 $ 104.50 $111.87 $1.2.<10 $ 190 .:13 12.02 12. 12.37 12.31 $0.53 $0.00 $0.31 $Q.35 $2 .31 SZ.Aa $2. 80 $2.30 $ 28 20 $39 .63 $08 59 $35.50 $0 7 5 $0.50 $0 .28 $0.50 32. 38% 20. 30% 10.09% 21.% 19.22% 17. 66% 11 36% 19. 55% 52 .55'.4 59 59% 53 30% n .so% 18.49'11 18.3$% 21.60% 2328'll. uz 08.112 57.66 60 73 .. 10 2 96 3 .21 3.82 0.90 o.to 0 90 O.i2 30 .26 34 .14 32.1' 3 7 18 3 .03 2 .1. 1 82 2 .45 1 .51 1.0. 1.10 1 37 1U9 16.51 21. 53 21.10 us "-71 .29 _36 $0 .311 $0 ... $0 1 $0.05 1QZ 1Q3 'IC.ChanJ: 1-1 3 $ 9 .38 $ 8.90 19. 07% $ 12 .. 28 $1 20 .11 1.4 95% 12.1 $1.711 -11. 7 % $0 .3" $0.:13 -37 52% $2 .111 $2.01 $30, 18 $35 .-13 35.22% $0.05 $0.50 -32.92% 20 50% 2 4.96 % -22.81 % 18 .27% 19.36% 0 73% 75 .01'11 611. 83% 11. 60% 2U7% 22.58% 15 90% 80.11 &1.19 30 .23'11 3.79 3 .61 -12 .03 % OIM 0.113 -US% 39 .42 43.15 25.94% 2 52 2 .45 19 07% 1A3 1 .31 -13.68% 22 83 25 .91 32.2!)% .. 68 "-117 2.33% $0.39 $().35 -11.10%

PAGE 247

APPENDIX H COMPLETE PEER REVIEW DATA TABLES: LEETRAN 1993

PAGE 248

this page IS blank

PAGE 249

:r "' PERFORIIAIICE INDICATORS SeNice Alee Pop dllien (000) ServM:e Area Slzo (_,. rrllts) p.._ T,_. (000) ""(000) Vallielo Mlos ( 000 ) R..........,Mios(OOO) Vel>ltlo H9 Tolal-e..po... (000) Tolal ""-( 000 ) Tc:UI Local R-(000) -(000 ) p.._ F--(000) T ota1 Efll:Jioye es -..ancee._ Vehiclea Available fof' Maximum Se.W:.. v.,.,. ()pefNd In Mulmum Service Sj)Qre Rallo Total G .. Cooo-(000) Table H 1 System Total Perfonnancelndlcators 10-49 Motorbus Vehicle Category CHAP RAU TALT "=' T-T50.27 1 60 00 19.56 60.50 80 .211 2.586-01 3,783.5-4 3.940.23 5,798. 84 18,197.38 11,837. 35 1,318.15 1,523 .7 4 1.W. 4 1 1 ,189. 52 1 479 36 1,495 .97 94.47 106.68 129. 44 85.29 10353 1 22 33 128 .60 295 .00 195 20 $ 3 973 56 $5,479.01 $ 5.382 50 $832.112 S1.253 n $1, 208 .00 $957 .91 $148 4 9 $2.448 .30 12. 677 0 1 $4,803..32 ss. m .70 $ 1,429.57 $ 1 ,4211.37 $ 1 m .90 $ 1 347.32 $ 1,403.08 $982 70 89 00 108.40 132. 80 82.20 72 00 18. 20 1 3.80 22.40 3 1 .70 3.00 14.00 1 4 90 56 00 56.00 48 .00 43 00 41.00 41.00, 30 23% 36.59% 17. 07% 341. 79 492.44 482 70 VOLT LUB8 ARTS Voll.llla I u bfwxlt Gale_ .... T-T-T197. 30 183 33 184.00 132.00 59.00 90 .00 3.241-41 3,249.58 2,3711.20 ' 10,...,3 .88 1M91 06 7 ,169.22 1,575.13 1 278.82 1,424. 90 1,49 1 .13 1.238 03 1,<009. 58 1to&.03 88 .13 74 .32 109.18 88.13 69 87 275.40 161 20 2118.90 $3 ,955.92 $2, 567 62 $3 212.73 $1,195..45 $582.78 $490 .11 $ 1 097.23 $390-01 $134 .88 $3 ,013.08 $1.647 79 $ 1 3<3.28 $ 1.()<3.78 $ 1 405.95 $lM2.22 -75 SIT1.71 96. 10 65 70 61. 90 70 .10 50. 00 SO-eo 19. 40 1 0.30 7.40 8 .60 5.40 4.00 37. 00 36. 00 43. 00 34. 00 31.00 JO.OO 8 8 2% 16.13% 4 3.33% 487 .93 348.38 36.36

PAGE 250

::c j. PERFORMANCE INOICATORS Setvice AIM Population (000) seMoe Area Size miles) -.-m>o (OpO)" Paosenge< Miles (000) Vel>ieiO Milos (000) R....,uo Wos(OOO) . Vei>Cia Hours (000) ' Revenue H<>iciM, 1n Maximum service ,_ . ,, Spare Ralio Total Consumed (ooO) Table H 1 (continued) System Total Perfonnance Indicators 10-49 Motorbus Vehicle Category JACK LEXI LCTS JaelltGn uxl-Leo County Total Total Total 196.64 214 ,10 3!0.81 114.00 7-4.00 189.00 716.27 1,060.66 1,748.92 2,695.15 .on.65 9,497.10 1 039.49 ; 857.19 1,668.84 974.48 641.58 1,553.22 75.39 n.e1 1).78 66.28 75 66 88.13 3t5,00 .151.00 3n.30 $2,696 .51 $3,296.74 $3,122.94 $726 7li $642.31 $710 .11 nla $273 .65 $43.69 $ 1 953.21 $2,521.23 $2,110 .10 $890.56 $887.11 $11)5.31 $61J.19 $64U7 $104 ... 52.ro 64 70 67.$0 : 39 .00 . $2.00 10.10 12 00 11.10 460 7.20 4.00 40.00 40.00 3&. 00 .. 30.00 30 .00 ROO 33. 33% 33 33% 38.48% 305.58 :. 229.82 ECAT SCAT COLU e.-. -Columbus Totol Total Tota l 225.00 290.60 170.22 42 00 96 20 160.00 1 ,260 87 1 .3 1 7.85 1,352 96 6 139A8 5 119.96 4,922 89 1 ,106.33 1,119.66 1.017.23 1,078 .35 1,056 02 t,003 01 76.19 76 .91 66.40 75.32 73 00 65 .72 2'14.70 211.20 171 .00 $3,293. 60 $2,898.66 S2,571.n $ 7 96.$6 $440 .22 $800.21 $2,264 90 $708.55 $315.09 $1,9;27.96 $1, 908.58 $1,668 13 $734.96 $625.96 $66 7 97 $621.85 .;. $535 .06 $655.18 63 10 52 50 75.10 44.00 44.60 48 1 0 14 .60 11. 30 21. 90 4.50 6.60 5 .10 30.00 35.00 32 .00 25. 00 20. 00 19.oo I 20. 00% 75.00% 66 42% 243.28 277.82 237 70

PAGE 251

J: 0. Table H 1 (continued) S ystem Total P erfonnance Indi cators 10-49 M o torbus Vehi c l e Categ ory GREN LAMT LAFT G ree nville Lakeland l.afay-Tolal Total TS.rvk:o Atea "-lollon (000) 3 16.16 110 .00 99.70 Servioe Area sae (square mil&$) 797. 00 90.00 45.00 l"asseoger 'r,._ (OOOJ 1 ,073.82 981.91 1,490.50 Passenger Miles (000) 5,118.67 4,351.02 4,884 4 1 _.,.. Milos ( 000 ) 898. 68 896.02 591.75 ---(000) 664. 78 663.41 496 .22 Vehicle Hours (000) 55.41 52.53 39 .26. nue HotJo:l (000) 54.54 51.91 39.01 R0U10Miloo 253.00 152.00 65,00 Total ()petMing Expense (000) $2,037.ol6 $ 1,474 .66 $ 1,684.81 TOial Exf*.'S" (000) $393.&4 $22V8 $183.34 Total Capital Ex-(000) $623.28 $2,445 .84 $ 1 3.57 Tota l Loca l -ue (000) $1,432.23 $2; 126.66 $ 1 14o.92 Operallng nue (000) $ 1, 054.69 $896. 7 6 $333 .69 . .. Passenger Fate-( 000 ) $587.59 $41 7.31 $322.23 T ota l 53.00 40.00 24.30 .. < T,..__, Opetlllng En1>1o)'ooi 34 .00 33.20 22.70 -En1>1oyees 1 2 .00 5.20 0 .00 Admini&trative . 7.00 .. 1.60 1 .60 Vohicloo AY11iablo to< Maxm.m Servk:o 24.00 21.00 16.00 VehiciM ()pe(a48cj' in M.xm.n sOtvk:o . 18.00 1 4.00 12.00 Spare Ratio 3 3 .33% 50.00% 33. 3 3 % Total Gallons C""'a.med (000) .. 203.53 271.46 183.62 SPCT Peer Grou p Br11va r d T<>Cal n 417.74 206.12 427.00 154 7 2 132.00 1,896.05 1,483.&4 7 228.00 476.25 1,146.79 416.37 1 093 31 17-.49 5,9 7 5.92 15.30 73.95 477.00 225.$ $944.40 $3,036 .33 $281.1)9 $8 7 6 .97 $464.23 $ 783 .09 nra $2, 523 .05 nla $991.99 nta $743.35 23.60 68. 1 5 19.50 49.54 0.00 12.72 4.1 0 5 .89 26.00 36.13 11.00 26.56 154 55% 43.25% 82.93 280.68

PAGE 252

:X: 0, EFFECTl\IEHESS MEASURES SERVICE SVPPL Y Vehic::ie Miles Per C8plta SERVICE CONSUMPllON p.._ Pot C.pb Pan. Trips Per Revenue Mile PaH. Trips Per Revenue Hout QUAUTY OF SERVICE ,: A-Speed (R.MAl. H l Average Aqe of Flool (in YNfS) . N..-r of ln<:ldenCi.. Total Roadealls Reverlue Mileo Boiweon lncidenb (000) Revenue Miles Between Roa
PAGE 253

:I: EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPI.Y Vehicle Min Per Cll)lla SERVICE CONSUMPTION "'"-T._,. Pass Trips Revenue Mile Pus. T._,. Per R_,ue Hour QUAI.JTY OF SERVICE A"'roge Speed (R.MJR.H.) A"'ragt 1>/Je ol Fleel (in Y'"'fS) N-oll-Total Roadcal$ Revenue Milos 1.-(000) .. Revenue Mile RoadcaUs (000) AVAILABILJTY Revenue Miles' FW Route Mile Table H-2 (continued) System Total Effectiveness Measures 10-49 Motorbus Vehicle Category JACK LEXI LCTS Jldcson Leldnglon Loo County T-Total Total 5.29 4 .00 4,76 3.64 5.05 Ut 0.74 1 .28 1 .13 10.81 14.28 1U4 14.70 11.12 17.62 18.07 11.10 7A2 2.00 1 .00 24.00 616.00 615.00 97.00 487.24 841.58 64.72 1.58 1.37 18.01 3.09 5.57 4 .1 2 ECAT SCAT COLU Eoeambla -COlumbus Total Total TOial 4-91 3 .65 5 9S 5 .60 4.53 7.95 1.17 1.25 1 .35 16.74 18.05 20.59 14 . 32 14.47 15.26 11.40 11.60 9.79 14-00 20.00 24.00 60.00 350.00 131.00 77.02 52.8(1 41.79 17 97 3.02 7 .66 4."1 3.83 5.87

PAGE 254

:I: a, Table H (continued) System Totsl Effectiveness Measures 10-49 Motorbus Vehicle Category GREN LA lofT LAFT EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Greenville Lakeland Laloyette Tota l Total Total SERVICE SUPPI. Y Vehicle Miles Pet C01>ita 2 .84 8 .15 5 ,94 SERVICE CONSUMPTION p....,ngor T""' Pot Coplta 3.40 8.93 14.96 . Pau. Trips Per Re\'enoe Mile 1 .21 1 .11 3.00 P .... Trllo Pet-.., H""' 19 .69 18 9 1 38.21 QUAUTY OF SERVICE A-Speed (R ,M,/R. H ) 16 .22 17 .02 12.72 AIIOet ollneiclent& 19.00 7.00 18 .00 Total Roadeall$ 568.00 t89.00 61.00 Revenue Miles' Bet-n Incidents (000) 46.57 126 .20 Z/.57 Revenue Mks Between Roadcalfs (000) 1 .56 4 .67 8.13 Revenue l.iles Por Route-' 3.50 5 81 5 .84 SPCT Peer Group Bnovard Total -n 1 14 7.33 0 .32 13 21 0 .32 1 .55 8 .62 24.09 27.34 15 .57 5 .79 8.79 3 .00 42. 19 15 .00 307.20 139.46 1 55.44 27.89 7.79 0,88 7.28 --

PAGE 255

:I: "' EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Ol>efaliog Per Cap;ta ()peratmg Exp. Per -Vellielo (000) Operating Ex-. Per Pass. Trip Op. Exp. Pet p.._, Mile Operating Exp Per Revenue.. Operating Exp. Per Revenue Hour Mainlonaiooa Jq;. Pet R.....U. Milo MaOU. Exp. Pet ()per1Ciog Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Fa.--.ry Local R ovenue Per ()per. Exp. Operating R......, Per ()per, Exp. VEHICLE liTlUZATION vehicle u;,.._,... Peak v..-(OOO) Veh::e Hours Per Peak v..-(000) Rev.nue Miles Per Vehicle Mile Revenue -. Per TOial Vahldos (000) Revenue Hours Per TOUI Vahldos (000) LABOR PRODUCTMTY R-Hours (000) Passenger Trips (000) ENERGY UnUZimON Vehicle Milri Per -FARE Average Fare Table H-3 System Total Efficiency Measures 10-49 Motorbus Vehicle Category CHAP RALE TALT Rale:Sh Tallahaaee Toea Total $79 .04 $34.24 $40.n $92.41 $133.63 $131.28 $1.54 $1 .45 $1. 36 $0.69 $0.30 $0.45 $3.34 $3.70 $3.60 $46.59 $52 92 $44.00 $0.53 $0.85 $0.81 15.93 % 22.88% 22.41% 33.91% 25.61% 16.26% 67.37% 67.61% 109.24% 35.98% 26.03% 33.03% 30.65 37.16 38.72 2 .20 2.60 3 .16 0.90 0 .97 0.94 21.24 28.42 31 .17 1.52 1 85 2.6S 0 .98 0.96 0.92 28.12 34.90 29.70 3.98 3 .09 3.43 $0 .52 $0.37 $0.25 VOLT LUBB ARTS Vofusia Lul>boc:k Gainnvtlle Tol>l TOial Tota l $20.05 $13. 95 $17.<48 $116.35 $82.50 $107 .09 $1.22 $0.79 $1.36 $0.38 $0.18 $0.45 $2.65 $2.0 7 $ 2 .28 $36.24 $29.02 $45.98 $0.80 $0.47 $0.35 30.22% 22. 79% 15.26% 23.82% 24. 50% 27 .13% 77.66% 64.43% 69.86% 33. 96% 40.81% 43. 76% 46.33 4 7.50 3.35 2 84 2 .46 0.95 0.97 0 .99 40.30 34.39 32.78 2 .95 2.45 1 .62 1.14 1. 34 1.13 33.79 49. 46 38.29 3.44 3 .67 39.16 $0.29 $0.19 $0.37 ----

PAGE 256

0 EFFICIENCY MEASUIU:S COST EFFICIENCY Clperoling Eln Lellngton Leo County Total Total T-$13.71 $15.40 suo $89.88 $109 89 $120.11 $3.76 $3.05 $1.79 $1. 00 $0.81 $0 .33 $2.77 $3.92 $2.01 $40.68 $43.57 $35.43 $0.75 $1 00 so .so 26.95% 25.55% 2A.98% 22.67",{, 19.46% IUS% 72 .4$% 76 .48% 69.83% 25.61% 26.91% 22.58% 34.65 28.67 64.19 2 .51 2 59 3.61 0.94 0 96 0.93 24 36 21.04 43.15 1.66 1.89 2A5 1 . 26 1.17 1.31' 13.59 16.70 25.91 3.411" 3.73 U7 $0.85 $0.59 $0.36 ECTS SCAT COLU Eaealri>la Sa-Col-Total Total Total $14.64 $9 97 $ 15.11 . $131.75 $1 .... 83 $135 36 $2 .61 $2.20 $1.90 $0.54 $0.57 $0.52 $3.05 $2.74 $2. 56 $43.73 $39 .68 $39.13 $0.74 $0.42 $0.80 24.20% 15.20% 31.12% 18 .88% 25 .48 % 58.53% 65.82% 65.64% 22 31% 21. 61% 26 76% 44.21 55.96 53.54 3 05 3.85 3 60 0.96 0.94 0.99 35.94 30.17 31.34 2.51 2 09 2 05 1.19 1.17 0.88 19 .98 21.09 18.02 4.54 4 03 4.28 $0.49 $0.41 $0.48

PAGE 257

::r: Table H-3 (continued) System Total Efficiency Measures 10-49 Motorbus Vehicle Category GREN LAliT lAFT EFFICIENCY MEASURES GreenviUI Lalense Pet Capita $6.44 $f3Af. $16.90 O!>eralilg Exp. Pet Peal< Vehicle (000) $113 19 $105 .35 $140.40 Elq>ense Pet Pass. Trip S f.90 S f.50 $1.13 Op, Exp. Pet Passenger -$0,40 $0.34 $0.34 Operating Exp. Pet R-Milo .. $2.30 $3,40 Opetaling Exp. Pet R4venue Hout $37.36 $28. 41 $43 19 .... Exp. P.or---$0. 44 $0.26 10.37 Malnt Exp. Pet OpeoxRocovety 27.86% 28 .29% 19.13% local Revenue Pet Oper. Exp. 70.29% 144.21% 67.72% Opemjng Revenue Per OS*. Exp. 51.77% 47.24% 19.81% VEHIClE UTIUZATION Vohida M;leo Pet Peak Vehicle (000) 49.93 64.00 49.31 VetMc::le Hours Per Peak Vehide (DOD) 3.06 3 .75 3.27 ReYenuo Milos Po< Vehicle Milo 0.98 0.99 0 .84 Revenue Mies Pet Total Vehicleo (000) 36.67 42.07 31.01 R...,..,. Hou11 Pet Total Vehicles (000) 2.27 2.47 2.44 LABOR PROOUCTMTY ReVenue Hou11 Pet Ernc>i<>YOO (000) 1.03 1 .30 1 61 P .... nger Pet Employee (000) 20.26 24.55 61.34 ENERGY VTIUZATION Vehicle Milos Pet Gallon 4.42 3.30 3.62 FARE $0.53 $0.42 10.22 SPCT Peer Group Brevard TOial S2.26 $20.14 $85 .85 $114.99 $7. 1 5 $2. 17 $0.64 $0.50 12.26 $2.77 $61 .71 $41.73 $0.67 $0.61 29.76% 22.05% rio 23.52% ria 79.15% nia 31 .92% 43A6 45.59 1 .59 140.14 0.87 0 .95 14.94 31.07 0.55 2.06 0.55 1 12 5.59 27.45 5.77 8.17 nlo 10.42

PAGE 258

APPENDIX I LEE COUNTY CENSUS TRACTS: DISTRIBUTIONS AND SCORES

PAGE 259

this page IS blank

PAGE 260

Tabl e 1-1 Le e Coun ty C ensu s Tra cts: Distributions an d Scores Census Tract % Eldofly Scono %Low Sc:oto %0.Vollic:lt s-. P-.ona lneomo HHo HHo Scor. 1 00 14% 1 0 46% 18 2 38% 16.7 2 00 24% 1 0 2 4 % 6.8 37% 16 7 3 0 1 22% 1 0 18% 1.9 7% 3 9 6 8 3 02 1 9% 1 0 25% 6.8 14% 13.3 2 1.1 4 00 29% 1 0 16% 1. 9 4% 1 0 3 9 5 .01 12% 1 .0 29% 18 2 19'k 13 .3 32 5 5.02 12% 1 0 49% 1 8 2 38% 16 .7 35 9 6 .00 13 % 1 0 24% 6 8 30% 16 7 24 5 7.00 13% 1 0 21% 6 8 16% 13 3 21. 1 8 .00 57% 4 0 20% 6 8 13% 3 9 14 7 9.00 21% 1.0 6% 1.0 3% 1 .0 3 0 10 00 30% 1 0 13% 1.9 7% 3 9 6 8 11.00 2 1% 1 0 16% 1 9 16% 13.3 18 2 12 00 15% 1 0 3% 1.0 0% 1 0 3.0 1 3 00 33% 1 6 10% 1.0 4% 1 0 3 6 1 4 .00 19% 1 0 9% 1 0 7% 3 9 5 9 2t% 1 0 12% 1 9 5% 1. 0 3 9 16 00 1 6 7% 1 0 2% 1 0 3 6 17.01 32% 1 6 10 % 1 0 6% 3 9 6.5 17 02 40% 1 6 5% 1 0 2 % 1 .0 3 6 1 7 03 61% 4 0 1 3% 1.9 6% 3 9 9 6 16 00 36% 1 6 4% 1 0 2% 1 .0 3 6 19.01 44 % 1 6 9'/o 1 0 1 0% 3 9 6 5 19.02 48% 4 0 14% 1 9 4% 1. 0 6 9 101.01 43% 1. 6 8% 1 0 1% 1.0 3 8 101. 02 75% 1 6 1 6% 1 0 3% 1 0 18 1 101. 03 16% 1 0 0% 1.0 0% 1. 0 3 0 102.01 11% 1.0 4% 1 0 1% 1 0 3 0 102 02 44% 1 6 6% 1. 0 2% 1 0 3.6 103.ot 1 7% 1 0 8% 1 0 4 % 1 0 3 0 103 02 21% 1 0 1 6% 1 9 4 % 1 0 3 9 103 03 26% 1.0 8% 1. 0 3% 1.0 3 0 10 3 04 24% 1 0 S% 1 0 2% 1 0 3 .0 103.05 29% 1. 0 S% 1 0 2% 1 0 3.0 104 .01 13% 1.0 S% 1 0 1 % 1 0 3.0 104 02 17% 1 .0 6% 1 0 0% 1 0 3.0 104 03 20% 1 .0 6% 1.0 2 % 1 0 3 0 10 5 0 1 30% 1.0 6% 1 0 2% 1 0 3 0 1 05 02 45% 1. 6 10% 1 0 3% 1 0 3 .6 106 .01 39% 1 8 7% 1 0 2% 1 .0 3 6 1 06.02 48% 1 6 11% 1 9 7% 3. 9 7.4 1 07 .00 46% 1 8 8% 1 0 3% 1 0 3 6 1 08.GI 53% 4 0 1 2% 1. 9 3% 1 0 8 9 108 0 2 42% 1 8 1 5% 1 9 11% 3 9 7 .4 1 08.03 48% 4. 0 6% 1 0 3% 1 0 6 0 201. 00 50% 4 0 16% 1 .9 5% 1. 0 6 9 20 2 00 16% 1 0 7% 1.0 3% 1.0 3 0 203. 00 23% 1 0 19'/o 1 9 9% 3 9 6 8 204. 00 29'-' 1 0 8% 1 0 3 % 1 0 3.0 1 3

PAGE 261

Table 1-1 (contin u ed) Lee Cou n ty Cens u s Tracts: Distr i b u tions a nd Scores eo ..... Traet % Eldo
PAGE 262

APPENDIX J LEETRAN VEHICLE INVENTORY AND PROPOSED REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE

PAGE 263

this page IS blank

PAGE 264

Table J-1 Vehicle Inventory and Pro posed Replacemen t Schedule Modlf Year Velliclo and Typo VINe .. Condition AnCIolod -0... 1ml Bluebe'd Bus -1995 19'19 81ueb'td Sus Poor 1995 U179 Bluebird But Poor 1995 t979 Bluebird But Poor 1995 1979 81uebifd But Poor 1 995 1979 Bluebird S u a Poor 1995 1979 BNebird But Poor 1995 1979 Bluebird But Poor 1994 1961 Bluebird Bus Poor 1994 1981 Bluebird But Poor 1994 1981 Bluebird But Poor 1994 1981 -Bus Poor 1994 1987 ao,.rtown r-,. Good 11197 1987 ao,.rtown T-Good 1997 1987 ao,.rtown T-y Good 1997 1986 Moll';' Trolley Poor 1997 1988 Lazy "Nr-POO< 1998 1988 Lazy "N" Trolley POO< 1998 1988 lazy "N"T-y POO< 1998 1988 Orion II Sua. Good 1 998 1988 Orion II But Good 1998 1988 Orion II But Good 1998 19811 Orion I Bvt Good 1999 1989 Orion I Sua Good 1999 19811 Orion I Bus Good 19H 1989 Orion 1 -Bus Good 1999 1989 Orion I Bus Good 1999 19811 Orion I Bus Good 1999 111119 Orion I 8us Good 1999 1989 Orion I 8us Good 1999 1989 Orion I Bus Good 1999 1989 Orion I Bus Good 1999 1989 Orion I But Good 1999 1989 Orion I Bus Good 1999 1989 Orion I But Good 1999 19a9 Orion I Bus Good 1999 1994 lloyortown T-y Good 2004 J-3