USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Assessment of operational barriers and impediments to transit use

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Assessment of operational barriers and impediments to transit use transit information and scheduling for major activity centers
Portion of title:
Transit information and scheduling for major activity centers
Physical Description:
vi, 174, 138 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Hardin, Jennifer A
Tucker, Lisa
Callejas, Linda
United States -- Dept. of Transportation -- Office of Research and Special Programs
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
National Center for Transit Research (U.S.)
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
National Center for Transit Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida
Available through the National Technical Information Service
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Springfield, VA
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Management -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Time-tables -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Scheduling   ( lcsh )
Choice of transportation   ( lcsh )
activity centers   ( trt )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 171-174).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Funding:
Performed for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration and Florida Dept. of Transportation under contract no.
Statement of Responsibility:
Jennfier Hardin, Lisa Tucker, Linda Callejas
General Note:
Cover title.
General Note:
"December 2001."

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:
aleph - 029924318
oclc - 48947672
C01-00121
usfldc doi - C01-00317
usfldc handle - c1.121
System ID:
SFS0032233:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

. A ncHNlCALREPORTSTANDUU>TTTtP G 1 R$PCr\NO. 2 Ac;;co$.$1onNo. 392-11 6. Assessment of Operationa l Barriers and Impediments to Transit Use: Trans i t December 2001 Information and Scheduling for Major Activity Centers e 1. hMOft) Hardin, Jennifer, Tucker Lisa, and Callejas Linda a. 9 Perlonning O!piz.olloo"l Nom ondAddross 10. \'oii:WII.UrrlNo. National Center For Transit Research (NCTR) University of South Florida CUT 100 11. ConnctorGr$rtNo 4202 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, FL 33620 DTRS98-G-0032 12. $pon5omgAtyKqHimo 13. lypo ol' Repott Ponod CoYorecl Office o f Research and Special Programs Florida DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee washington, DC 20590 Tallahassee, F l orida 32399 14. 1 5 Supported by a Gran t from the USDOT Research a n d Special Programs Administration, and the F l orida Department of Transportation The decision to use public transit as a means of attema t ive transportation is a somewha t complex process The potentia l rider must know that a public transportation system is available how to cont act the public transportation system for information on how to use the system for each desired trip, w here to go to catch a bus how t o recognize bus stops, which side o f the street to stand on to catch a bus going to his destination how to make transfers, the tare and tare media accepted for each t ri p as well as how to read a n d understand bus system maps and schedules If the indiv i dual must watt for a bus, the final decision t o ride may also be impacted by the safety and comfort of the bus stop env i ronment T h e on-board experience whi ch includes passenger comfort and driver courtesy and assistance will a l so be important to the rider's overall impress i on and opi nion of public transit. Prob l ems encountered in any of the transit experie n ce elements described above can resul t in a dec ision to find alternative means of transport Many barriers encountered in t he transit experience may be rectified by transit agencies wit h re l atively little e xpense. This project prov i d e d a pre limin ary assessment of the issues or problems encountered by existing and po t ential trans i t users in the overall trans i t experience that may become barriers t o us ing transit In addit i on, the project i n c ludes detai l ed analyses of two identified barriers with t h e po tent ial to be overcome with a feasible level of effort and i nvestment of resources by t r a n s i t age n cies: the user friend li ness of printed trans i t information materials and the l eve l of tra n s i t service provided to major activity centers Following t he analyses summary recommendati ons a r e offered t o facilitate the elimination of theSe two i dentified barriers to transit use throughout Florida as w ell as s u ggestions for future research. t 7. Kty WorCf 18. Transit Barriers Bus Schedules, Route Availab l e to the public through the National T ec h nicallntormat i on Service Maps, Trans i t Schedu l ing, Transit (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650 and L i teracy, Major Activity Cente rs, Nonthrough the NCTR web site at http://www.nctr.usf .edu / Users 19. SocuityCieAif .(drisnpotQ 20. s.oriy Clos
PAGE 2

. : ' ''''" . ":' -:-r ,:_; \ ''c,,P/ State of Fl orida Department of Transportation Public Office 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee FL 32399-0450 ( 850) 414-4500 Project Manager : T a ra Bartee Planning Administrator National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research Univers ity of South Florida 4202 E Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 Project Director: Project Manager: Project Staff: (813) 974-3120 Dennis Hinebaugh Transit Program Director Jennifer A. Hardin, Research Associate Li sa Tucker, Research Assistant Linda Callejas, Research Assistant The opi nions findi ngs and c onclusions e x pres s ed i n this publi c ation are those of the author s and not neces s arily tho s e of the U.S. Department of Transporta t ion or th e State of Florida Departme/11 ofTransportation

PAGE 3

---O PERATIONAL BARRIERS & I M PEDIM ENTS T O T RANSIT USE:----Introduction Currently, there are 22 fixed-route bus t ransit systems in operation within the state of Florida. These systems operate in a variety of environments, from l arge, densely populated urban areas such as Miami, Florida, to more rural environments such as those found in Ocala, Florida, and Indian River, F l orida. The systems a lso vary in size from those operating more than 200 buses to systems operating 1 to 9 vehicles. Despite all of this variation, the 22 fixed-route bus systems in Florida all share a common goal to increase ridership and enhance community mobility Increasing transit ridersh i p is a complex task that may invo l ve a mul t itude of important variables, includ i ng many that are actually external to the transit system, such as land use and density (i. e., location and concentration of residences, employment centers, and other commercial/recreationa l areas), income, and auto ownersh i p rates. The external conditions, whi l e having tremendous impact on ridership, are, in many ways, outside the control of individual transit systems. However, a number of the variables that may affect transit ridership can be influenced by public transit systems By addressing these variables, transit systems may be able to accomplish the goals of both inc r easing r i dership and enhancing community mobility, even i n situations where the external variables mentioned previously are not particularly favorab l e fo r tra n s i t. The individual dec i s ion to use public transit as a means of personal transportation is a somewhat mul tifaceted process. The decision requires that potentia l passengers have knowledge of availab l e transit services, information on how to use the service, as well as info r mation related to the cost and method of payment for the service. Potentia l passengers will also base their dec i sion to ride on whether or not the transit service trave l s to the places they wou l d like to go at times that they would like to travel. Individual riders must know where to go to catch a bus, how to recognize bus stops, and p erhaps even how to transfer between vehicles. Passengers must also understand bus schedules and route maps in order to plan their trip. The decision to use transi t will also be impacted by the level of safety and comfort associated w ith the bus stop environment, as well as the overall experience on board a transit vehicle. Each of these variables represents a potential barrier to using public transit. If potential passengers experience difficu l ties related to any of these variables, their decision to use public transit may be reversed Many of the potentia l barriers described in relation to the transit experience may be rectified by transit systems wi t h relatively littl e expense. The objective of the present project is to i dentify those issues or problems encountered by existing and potential trans i t users in the overall transit experience that may become barriers to using trans i t This document presents the results of these efforts. This report i s divided into two parts with a total of four distinct chapters. Part One is ded ic ated to the identification of potential barr i ers to accessing transit experienced faced by non users. Chapt er One contains an extensive review o f Final ReptNt Introduction

PAGE 4

----IOPERAnONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----local, state, and national literature pertaining to potential barriers to using transit in the United States. Chapter Two presents the results of a review of the barriers identified by current transit on-board passenger surveys conducted by CUTR for transit systems throughout the state of Florida. The information presented herein is drawn primarily from comparable customer satisfaction data collected from nine transit systems of varying size in Aorida. Part Two builds on the identification of potential barriers presented in Part One by selecting two of the potential barriers (transit information and scheduling for major activity centers) for further investigation in the through various types of observational tests. Chapter Three, the first chapter included in Part Two, examines the potential for printed transit information materials to become a barrie r to transit use by presenting the resu lts of field tests designed to measure the understandability and effectiveness of existing printed transit information in Florida. The chapt e r closes with recommendations offered to improve the user -friendliness and usability of printed transit information materials. Chapter Four focuses on transit scheduling to serve major activity centers. The field tests conducted for this chapter compare transit access to identified major activity centers in 13 communities throughout Florida with the operating hours associated with each activity center and offers recommendations for further assessment of transit scheduling practices. Introduction

PAGE 5

OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENT S TO TRANSIT Us;e----Table of Contents i PART ONE : IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIM E NTS TO TRANSIT USE Chapte r One: Tran sit Barriers Literature R e view ....... .............. .... ....... .... ..... ... .. .......... 3 Publi c T r a n sit i n t he Unite d States .. .. ......... . ... .. .... ... ........ ... .... ..... .. ... ..... ..... .. .... .... .. ... 4 F ixed Route Transit in F l o rida ... ..... . ... . . ...... ........ ..... . ... .. ................ .. ... ... ........ ...... . 6 Publ i c T ransit Saf ety and Security ...... . . .. ... .... . . .... . . .... ........ .... ..... ..... ....... . ........ 7 Trans i t I n forma ti on and Market ing ....... ........ .... .... ... . ............. . . . . ... ...... .... ... ... ... 1 4 Serv ice Availability and Conveni enc e ..... ....... .. ....... .. .. ............. . .. ... ..... ....... .... .... ... 25 Conclu sion ......... ..... .. ... ..... . ........... .. . ... .. ...... .......... ....... . .. ....... ..... . . ... .. ........... .. 40 Chapte r Two: Florida Tran sit Customer S atisfac;t ion ... . . . ... ......... . . .... .... ... . .. . ... 4 3 T rans i t Custome r Satisfaction Index .. ... ...... .... ........ ...... ........ .... ...... . .. . .. ... . .. .... .... ..... .. .43 Selected System s ..... .... . . ... .. ...... .. ........ . .. .. ..... . .... .... .. ... . .. ... ....... ... ...... . ... ..... .... ... ... 43 Sat i sfaction Items ... ..... .. .... ..... .... ... .. .. ... ............. ........ ... .. ... ..... .. . .. .... .. .. .. . .. .. .. ........ 4 7 1999 T ransit Custom e r Sat i sfaction lndex .. . .. . .... .......... ....... ... ..... ...... .. . .. ... .. . ... .... ..... 48 1999 T r a n si t Custo mer sati sfa cti on l n dex . .. . . ..... ..... ..... . ... . . . .... ... . .... ........... ..... .. .49 On Board Qu e sti o n n a i r e It e m M a trix ... . .. ... . . ..... . ....... . . .... . .. .......... . ... .. ...... ..... . . .. .. .49 Resul ts ... ..... ... ......... ............... ... ............. .... ... ...... .. . .... ... .. ... ........ ....... .... .... .... .......... 51 Concl usion ...... ..... ...... ........... .. ......... ....... ....... ..... .. ........... .. ......... ... .... ........................ 56 PART TWO: INTRODUCTION TO THE BARRIERS TO TRANSIT USE FIELD TESTS Ch apter Three: Transit Information 8o. M arketing : Efficacy F i eld Test ................ ...... 59 Mettlodology o. o .. ........... oo o . . ........ o . ...... o ....... ....... ..... ...... o .... . oo ........... o ... 60 Observat ional T ests ...... ... ...... .. ....... ....... ... .. .. .... ... .... ..... .. ......... .... ........ . ...... ......... . o60 Pilot Studies ........ . ... ooo .... oooo o .. oo .... . ............. . 6 1 F i eld Test Sampl e Deve lopment . oo o o o o T rip Planning Activit ies & Obse rvations ..... . ... . ..... ........ ... ......... .. . . .. ....... .............. . 61 PostP lanning Intervi ews ... oo ......... . . o .. ... .......... ..... .... . . .... o o ....... o ..... . ........ 63 Data Anat y s i s ... ..... o o "o oo o oo .... o-64 Resul ts: Quanti tati ve Anal y si s of T ransit Trip P l anning Abili ty .. ... .. ...... . ........ .. . . .... ..... .. . 66 F i ndings ...... ............... ........ .. ... ........... .. ..... .............. .... ................. ..... ..... .. ............... 67 Pilot Stud y Findings ......... .... ... ... .... 0 0 0 0 .................. . ........... 0 ........... .... o 7 7 Pilot S t udy D iscu ssion ... ... . .. o.oo o .. oo ....... ...... o ..... ...... 81 Final Study Findings ...... ..... 0 .............. ......... ..... .... .... ............ o o ...... . .......... 8 2 Final Ropott Table of eo-.rts

PAGE 6

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Statistical Analysis .. .... ......... .................................................. ....... ......... .............. 84 Participants Who Quit One or Both Tasks or Were Unable to Complete in Allotted Time 94 Results: Qual itative Analysis of Participant Interviews ....................... ...................... ........ 9 7 Participant Reactions to Transit Trip Planning ... ... .. ... ..... ........ . ...... .. ........................ 97 Transit Trip PlanningThe Frustration Factor ........ .... .............................. .... ............. 98 Positive Responses to Transit Trip Planning ............................. .... ........................ ..... 99 Difficu l ties Encountered Using Transit Information Materia l s ........ .. .... .......... .. .... ............. 99 Overall Understanding of Transit ...................................................... .......... .......... 100 Layout of Materials ....... .. .. ... .. .......... ................ ... .............. ... .. ... ...... ............. ... 101 Using System Maps and Ind i vidual Route Maps ........................................ .. .............. 102 Using Timetables ........... ...... .. ......... ... .......... .. ... ................ .. ..... . .. .................... 103 Transferring . . ..... .. .... .. .......... .. ... .... ..................... .... ..................................... ... .. 104 No Difficulties Identified .......................... ............... ................. ................... ........ 104 Perceptions of Useful Design Elements: What Worked ............... .... .. ..... ....................... 105 Bus Route Identification: Using System Maps and Route Maps .................................. 105 Points of Interest and the Map Legend .. ... ........ .. .. .. ................ .............. ........... ...... 106 Using Timetables ... .... .... .. ... .... ...... .... ...... .... .......... .......... ................... .. ......... ...... 106 Nothing Was Understandable or Easy ............. .. .................. .. ................................... 107 Major Findings of the Transit Information and Marketing Fiel d Test.. .............. ........ .......... lOS Summary of Quantitative Transit Trip Planning Major Findings ............................. .. ...... 108 Summary of Participant I nterview Major Findings ....................... .. .. ...... .. ................ .... 111 Recommendations: Making Transit Information Materials More User-Friendly .. .... .. .. .......... 114 The Big Picture: T ransit Knowledge is Not Common Knowledge .. ................................. 114 Recommendation 1: Conduct Additional Research on Most Effective Design Elements .. 116 Recommendation 2: Educate Potential Passengers about T r ansferring .. ... ................... 117 Recommendation 3: Help Potential Passengers Use Transit Information Materials .... .... 118 Consistency is Key ............ ............ ...... .... .. ... .. ......... . ........ . ... ...... ............... ... 118 Provide Explanation about the Meaning and Use of Information .............. ....... ........... 119 Materials Should He l p Spatially Orient Passengers .............................. .. .................... 119 Use Contrasting Colors Whenever Possible ........... .. ...................... .... ...................... 120 Include Map L egends and Points of Interest Information .... ...... ............ ...... .............. 120 Avoid the Use of Small Print Type ... .. ... ................................ ................................. 121 Condusion .... .... . ..... ........ . .... ....... .... .. ..... .... ......... ..... .... . ...... ..... ......... ....... . 121 Chapter Four: Transit Scheduling for Major Activity Centers Field Test .................. 123 Methodology .... ... ... ..... .... ... ..... ...... ......... .. .... .. .. ............. .... ..... .. .. .... .. ............ .... .. 123 Major Activity Centers . .... . ....... ... ....... .. ... ..... ...... ........... ... ... ..... . ... .................... . 124 Land Use Categories and Operat i ng Hours ... ....... .... .. ........ ....... .... .... ... ...................... 125 Airports & Medical .... .. .......... ........... ........... ... .... .................................. ..... .. ..... 126 Shopping ......... .... .... ... .... .... .... .... .. ... ..... .. .. .. ... ......... ..... .... .. ..... .. .......... ......... .. 126 Business/Government .. .. .... ...... ..................... ... .. ................ ............ .. . .. ............. 127

PAGE 7

----OPERATION A L BARRIERS l!r. IMPE DIMENT S T O TRANSIT USiE----E d ucatio n ..... ..... ... . .. ..... ... .... ... .................. ... .... ........... . . ..... ................. 127 Recreation .................. .. .............................. ....... .................... .... ....... .............. ... 127 Transit Routes and Frequency of Service ... . ..... . ........... ......................... ... ........ ... .... 127 Transit Scheduling for Major Activity Centers Analys i s .... .................... ............... ... ... 129 Results: Exist i n g Conditions of T r ansit Service to Majo r Activ ity Center s . .. . ... ... ........ .... .. 131 Airports .... ... .... .... ... .... . . ..... ... ... .... ..... ... ..... . . ...... . . ............ ...... ..... . ...... .... .. 132 Weekday Service .................... ........ ...... ..... ....... . ..... . ........ ...... ......... ... .... ... .. ..... .. 132 Saturday ... . .. . .. .... . . . ... ............... ..... .... ... ...................................... ...... 133 Sunday Service .............. .... ............. ...... .. .... .. ...... .. ......... ..... ............................... 133 Patterns and Assessment ... ..... ......... ...... ... ................................. ................. .... 135 Medical .................................... ......................... ................. .... ..... ..... .... .. .......... ..... 136 Weekday Serv ice .... .. .... ....... ... ... . .. ........ .. .. .... ... ........................................ ... .. 136 Saturday Service .. .... ..... .......... ..... .. ........................... ............ . ... ...... .......... ..... .. 137 Sunday Serv ice ..... ... ...... .................. ................ ... ...... .. .... ....... .... ... .. .... ...... ....... 137 P atterns and Assessment ......... . ... . ........ ................ .. .......... ... ..... .... . .. ... .... ... ... . .. 139 S hopp i n g . ..... .. .. oooo o o ................. o ... . 139 Weekday Service ............. ..... ................ .. ... ........... .. o ........................................... ... 139 Saturday Service ..... . 0 ... ... .... 0 0 ................. 0 o. o o o. o .. .... ...... ... 0 0 0 o 141 Sunday Service o . .... o o ... 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o o . ... .. .. ... .... ... 0 o o 141 Pattem.s and Assessment . .... ... ......... .... ... ........ .... ... .... ..... ...... ... ............... ... ... . 1 4 1 Business/Government o o o o o ooo o o o . ....... .. .. .. .... ooooo ... . .. .. .. .. ... .. o 141 Patte r ns a n d Assessment ...... ...... ... .................................... ........ ... ... .. .. o .............. 142 Education .. ............. ......... .. ... ...... ... .. ......... ..... .. ..... .. .. ..... ........................... .. ........ 144 Weekday Service ... .. ... o ........... ..... .......................................................... .............. 144 Saturday Serv ice .. ..... ......... .. .. .. ............ ...... ...... .. .... ..................................... .. .... 144 Sunday Service ...... .. ........ ... .... ................ .. .. . ... ................ ....... .... ... ...... ..... ... ..... 146 Patterns and Assessment .. .. .. .... ... ........ ... ..... ..... ... ............... ... .. .. .... .. .... ... ..... 146 Recreation ..... ............................. ... ..... ............ ..... .. ...... .. ..... ..... ... ........................... 146 Shift Recreation Shift Recreation Shift Recreat ion Week day Service . . ... .. ... . ....... o o o ... ........ ...... .. ... .. ... o .... .. .... .. 14 7 Saturday Serv ic e .. .. ......... ... ................. oo . oo .... ..... .... ... .. .. 148 Sunday Service ....... o ....... .......... 0 .................................... 148 Patterns and Assessmen t .. . ... .. .. .. ........ .. . . . .... .. .... o ................... .... o o o .. ... .... ... .. o o. 148 Non-Shift Recreat ion Non-Shift Recr eation N on-Shift Recreation Weekday Service .............. ..... ..... ....... ...... o o . o .o l50 Saturday Service o o o . o ...... ....... .. ....... o ...... 150 Sunday Service .. ....... ... .. ..... .... .......... ......... ... ....... ......... ..... 150 Patterns and Assessment . ..... ... o . o . ,oo .. ... .. ..... .. . .. .. 0 o 151 Conc lusion .... oo . o o .. .. .. ... ...... .. o o .......... .... ... .... .. .... 0 ............ o151 Results: L eve l of T r ansit Service Access to Major Activity Centers ....... .. ...... ................. 153 Airport Activity Centers oo .. ... ... . .. ... .... ... ............. o ................... .... o .... 153 Medical Activity Centers o .. o . ..... . . ... o .. .. .. ... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. oo ........ ,,.oo .. ... .... .... ... o . 154 Final Report

PAGE 8

----'OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Shopping Activity Centers ........ ... ............. ....... ............... ............ ... ......... ... ... ... ......... 155 Business/Government Activity Centers ................. ....... ........... ........................ ... .......... l56 Education Activity Centers ......... ............................ ........................... ....................... 157 Recreation Activity Centers ....... ..... .................... .... .......... ......... ... .............. .. ............ 158 Major Findings of the Transit Scheduling for Major Activity Centers Field Test .. ................. 160 SUmmary of Major Findings Existing Conditions of Transit Service to Major Activity Centers . ....... ........... ... ................................. .... ............ .... ... ...... .... .. .... .............................. 160 Summary of Major FindingsLevel of Transit Service Access to Major Activity Centers ... 162 Recommendations: T r ansit Scheduling for Major Activity Centers ................ .. ...... .. .......... 166 Recommendat ion 1: Conduct Assessment of Transit Service Access to Major T ransit Attractors ........... ........................................................... .... ............... .... .......... ...... .. 166 Recommendation 2: Evaluate Scheduling Process and Priorities .............. .................. ... 167 Recommendation 3: Develop Guidelines for Level of Transit Service Access Standards .. 167 Recommendation 4: Assess the "Hub and Spoke" Configuration of Transit Services .. ..... 167 Recommendation 5: Consider Increasing Evening Span of Transit Service .............. .. .... 168 Afterw-ord ...................................................................... ........... ............................... 167 lliiJiio!lretf)t\1f .... ..... ... ................. ..... ..... ...................... ....................................... lL73L Appendices ...................................................................... ........................................ 173

PAGE 9

-----OPERAnONAL BARRIER S & IMPEDI MENTS TO TRANSIT U S ;E----PART ONE: Identification of Potential Barriers & Impediments to Transit Use As noted in the Intr oduction to th is report, the overall transit experience i s a mult i tude of components, any of which could become a potential barrier to transit use. For instance, the overall transit travel time for an indiv i dual could be comparable to driving time; however, if that individual has no idea h o w to contact a trans i t agenc y for informa t ion, this fact may never be k nown. Part One d raws upon availab l e lite r atu r e and data to i dentify as many of the issues and/or problems as possibl e that are encountered by existing and potential transit users as a basis for identifying barr iers to transit use. Preliminary identification of potential barriers to transit use is accomplished through an extensive rev i ew of local, state, national, and internat i onal research and data, as well as a review of Florida on-board passenger survey data collected from t ransi t systems throughout t he state. The l i terature review compiles information on barriers that are/we r e reported to r estrict usage among current trans i t ri d ers, as well as those barriers that inhibit use among the popul ation of potential transit users. All identifie d barr i ers a r e included in the review that follows, w i thout regard to th e potential costs associated with the resolution o f identified problems. The literature review is supplemented w ith in f ormation on barriers to transit use ident i fied by current transit users in on-board passenger surveys conducted by CUTR for 9 transit systems throughout F l orida. These data provide insight into the aspects of existi n g transit serv ice in Florida that are the l east satisfying to current riders and thu s are a lso potential barriers to transit use among the population of potential riders in F l orida The results of Part One form the foundation for Part Two of the report, wherein two components of the transit experience identified as barriers are exami n e d i n greater detail. Speci fically, the overall usefulness o f transit information materials as a trip planning tool and scheduling at major activity centers are empirically t ested and evaluated. The goal of this report i s to provide professiona l s in the field w ith spe<:ifk strategies and recommendations to address these barr iers. For the research community, the r eport is designed to s t imulate additional research on transit barriers PART ONE Identification of Potentiill Transit Bllrrlen

PAGE 10

this page IS blank

PAGE 11

-----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Chapter One: Transit Barriers Literature Review The results of the transit barriers literature review are presented in the following sections Several extensive literature searches were conducted using the TRIS literature database made available from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and CUTR's Resource Information Center (CRIC). Every attempt was made to obtain and review the most current literature available. All literature were reviewed for their relevancy to the topic and summarized. The literature reviewed addressed barriers that restrict usage among current transit riders, as well as those barriers that inhibit usage among potential transit patrons. Based on the results of this data collection effort, the results of the review have been synthesized into the three categories of potential barriers to using transit determined to be the most significant personal safety, transit information and marketing, and service availability and convenience. It should be noted that the literature presented in this review does not include all data reviewed or all categories of potential barriers. Rather, the articles summarized herein were chosen for inclusion in order to represent the range of issues involved with each identified potential barrier. It is also important to note that none of the potential barriers addressed should be considered i n a mutually exclusive fashion. Rather, all of the barriers are, in many ways, interconnected. For example, perceptions of personal safety and security are often shaped by such operational characteristics as wait time and overall knowledge of the system. All identified barriers have been considered without regard to potential costs associated with the resolution of each identified barrier. However, the barriers are presented in the literature review in the order of highest priority: those that appear to have the greatest relevance to Florida transit systems and the greatest potential for transit systems to address are presented first. The review begins with a brief discussion of transit in the United States, based primarily on the document, Americans in Transit: A Profile of Public Transit Passengers, published in 1992 by the American Public Transit Administration. Next, a review of trans i t in Florida based on National Transit Database (NTO) performance evaluation data collected by CUTR for the completion of the Performance Evaluation of Florida's Public Transit Systems is provided These overviews are followed by a discussion of potential transit barriers identified through a review of available literature. These data have been organized into the following sections: publ i c transit safety and security, transit in f ormation and marketing and service availability and convenience. As described previously, the potential barriers are presented in rank order: those that appear to be the most l ikely barriers, according to the literature reviewed and given the nature of Florida's transit systems, are presented first.

PAGE 12

----OPERATIO NA L BARRIER S 8t IMPEDIME NTS TO TRANSIT U S ,E-----Pu b li c Trans i t i n the U ni t ed Sta t es In late 1 992, the American Public Transit Association (APTA) published a special report written by Jim Linsalata and enti tled, Americans in Transit: A Profile of Public Transit Passengers, which explores the socioeconomic characteristics of the transit-riding population in the United States Whil e the data presented in this report are almost 10 years o l d, the document rema i ns the most comprehensive study of transit use in the United States. The report desc r ibes the "average public transit rider" in terms of gender, age, race, ethn i city, income, and trip purpose, as well as addressing future trends in transi t. The ridership data presented In the report we r e collected from a survey of 136 transit systems of varying size within the United States. APTA reported that the size and d i versity of the sample accounted for a l most 60 percent of total transit ridership in 1992. U.S. Census data also were used i n compiling the rider profi l es. Transit ridership in the United States has been experienc ing a per i od of revitalization. An increase in the number of modes offered the application of technologies, and the advent of innovative approaches to providing services have contribu ted to inc r easing growth of ridersh ip According the APTA Transi t Ridership Report more than 9 mill ion trips we r e made on transit systems in 1999. This represents an increase of over 500,000 annual trips since the Americans in Tfansitreport was published (1992) According to that study, the majority of transit ri ders were female In smalle r cit i es, a distinct majority of riders were fema le. For example, in places with populations of less than one million, fema l es made up approximately 60 percent of trans i t riders. In some cases, rural transit systems reported that ove r 7 5 percent of their riders were female. At the nationa l level almost seven percent of all transit r i ders were senior citizens, and smaller cities and rural areas had an even g r eater pe r centage of senio r r iders. In communities with popu lati ons of less than 50,000 persons, 18 percent of riders were 65 and older. APTA contends that this high percentage indicates that transit is an indispensab l e service for seniors for important trip purposes such as medical care, shopping, recreation, and other non-work travel. Further, it was not uncommon to find that many senior citizens in rural areas relied exc l usive l y on transit for their transportation. Within the U.S. transit market, ethnic and racial minorities were found to be another large and important ridership segment In areas with populations of one m ill ion or more, approximately 49 percent of ride r s were African-Americans or Hispanic. In contrast, areas with populations of less than 50,000 reported an average of six percent of African American riders and nine percent of Hispanic riders. Nationwide, 45 percent of riders were White 31 pe r cent were Afri can American, 18 percent were Hispanic, and 6 percent wene considered "Other."

PAGE 13

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----The study also revealed that minority groups use transit in disproportionate amounts compared to their population shares. African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities made up a larger percentage of transit riders in the more populous areas than did Whites. The proportion of White riders in areas with populations less than 50,000 was found to be 82 percent, but in areas with populations between 200,000 and 500,000 persons this share dropped to 48 percent, and Whites made up only 45 percent of transit ri ders in areas with populations with one million or more. It i s also notable that many transit systems serving small cities and rural a reas reported a relatively high percentage of Hispanic riders. The APTA report also forecasted an inc reased demand for transit services in the future, based on the growing non-White population and the fact that Hispanics have the highest birthrate in the Uni ted States. While the 1992 APTA special report forecast that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) would result in a dramatic Increase in the number of persons with disabilit ies who have access to public tran s portation, the author reports that at the time of writing, transit riders with disab il ities comprised less than two percent of the total ridership nationally. However, when New York City was excluded, this percentage increased to just less than three percent. The authors also reported that, as the community size decreases, the percentage of rider s with disabilities increases Accord ing to the author, i t was not uncommon for 10 to 15 percent of the transit rider s in smaller areas to have disabilities. Much as with the senior population, people with disabilities often rely solely on public transportation for their mobility. Transit holds great economic importance in the most populous areas of the country because approximately 70 percent of transit use is related to business and educational activities More than half of all trips made using public transit in the United States are work trips. The APTA study also reported that approximately 15 percent of transit trips are made for school purposes and the re ma inder are trips taken for the purposes of shopp i n g med ica l, social, and recreation. The study found that trip purposes varied significantly in communities of different sizes. For example, in areas of less than 50,000 persons, almost 61 percent of transit trips were taken for medical, soc i al and recreational purposes, and 21 percent were for work trips. In those areas with populations of at least one million persons, almost 55 percent of transit trips were taken for work and approximately 15 per cent were for medical, social, and recreat iona l purposes. With respect to income, almost 28 percent of transit riders at the national leve l have an annual income below $15,000. Again, when New York City is excluded, this percentage increases to 38 percent. In areas with a population of less than one million, more than half of transit riders declared an annual income of less than $15,000. In areas with populations less than 50,000, more than 61 percent of rid e rs had annual incomes less than $15,000. Although there were riders with higher incomes in areas of all population sizes, APTA demonstrates that it is those riders with lower incomes, often with few other transportation alternatives who constitute the largest market of transit riders in the United States. Nationwide, 28 percent of transit rid ers Chaptier One

PAGE 14

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8r. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---earn incomes below $15,000, but only 17 percent of the general population is in this income category. The author claims that this emphasizes the importance of public transit to lower income populations. Finally, Unsalata draws several overall conclusions from the aforementioned data on public transit ridership in the United States. First the results of this study ind icate that minorities and low income workers comprise a large proportion of public transit passengers nationally. Secondly, public transit does serve a very important function in the social system. Specifically, for many population segments, such as women, seniors, people with disabilities, minorities, people with low incomes, and students, public transit is the primary, or sole, means of transportation available to meet travel needs. Thirdly, public transit clearly performs a vital economic role by providing access to employment. The author also contends that the characteristics of transit riders vary from community to community. The average transit user In large urban areas appears to differ significantly from the average rider in rural areas. Finally, Linsalata forecast that transit demand will continue to grow into the 21" century, alongside growth in the overall U.S. population and urbanization. Fixed-Route Transit in Florida The following analysis of the state of fixed-route transit In Florida is based on data collected as part of the FOOT-sponsored research entitled, Performance Evaluation of Florida's Public Transit Systems (1999). The information in this report Is compiled from National Transit Database data submitted by the transit properties in Florida. All data presented are FY 1998 data, as this is the most recent, validated information available. While this researclh does provide excellent data related to the performance of Rorida's transit systems, it does not include information on socioeconomic characteristics of transit users in the state. Unfortunately, no comprehensive document is currently available that provides the type of socioeconomic profile of transit riders in the state of Florida that was developed on a national leve l by APTA in 1992. While it would be possible to compile this information from pa.ssenger surveys conducted at the various transit systems, such an analysis i s beyond the scope of the present project. Florida has shown consistent growth in population for more than a decade. At the same time, Florida's commitment to public transit has also grown. Like the population in Florida, the transit systems operating in the state exhibit great variation and diversity. One transit system in South Rorida operates more than 200 buses, while 7 systems operate between 1 and 9 buses. The 14 rema in ing transit systems in the state operate between 10 and 200 buses. Between 1984 and 1998, the state population increased by 467 percent. While federal funding for transit has declined as a percentage of total transit funding from 20 percent in 1984 to 9 percent in 1998, the state of Florida has increased its financial commitment to transit from 1 percent of total

PAGE 15

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E----funding to nearly 12 percent in 1998. Local financial commitments to transit also remain significant, with local governments contributing more than 51 percent of total transit funding in 1998. The use of fixed-route transit continues to grow in Florida. Between 1984 and 1998, statewide fixed-route ridership increased by 39 percent. Between 1997 and 1998, ridership increased by nearly 3 percent from 171 million trips to approximately 176 m illion trips. In addition, total ridership has increased by almost 17 percent since 1992. Since 1984, the amount of service provided, as represented by service miles, by Florida s fixed-route bus and rail systems has increased by 63 percent. This measure has increased by a full 25 percent since 1992. Although the operating cost per service mile has increased by 58 percent for all modes since 1984 the costs associated with bus transportation reveal a more positive trend. Between 1984 and 1998, the cost per service mile for bus service increased by only 52 percent, which is a lower rate than inflation during this time period. Despite the significant commitment to public transit in Florida and the favorable performance of Florida's transit systems, a great deal of mismatch exists between the hopes and expectations for public transportation and the role that these systems have been able to play in community mobility. As Polzin (2000) has noted, although r idership has grown at a rate that approximates population growth in the state, transit has not been able to re tain its share of the travel market, as travel growth exceeds population growth Use of a personal vehicle r emains the most popular mode of travel in the state of Florida. According to the 1 990 Census, approximately 77 percent of Florida's drivers reported driving alone as their primary means of travel to work. At the same time, traffic congestion in the state is growing at an alarming rate, population is increasing, and the environment is becoming more fragile (Polzin 2000). And while the number of public transit systems available in the state continues to grow, many potential barriers to using these systems exist which may prevent new users from trying transit and/or inhibit use among current users. These potential barriers are discussed in the sections that follow. Public Transit Safety and Security Concerns related to personal safety are cited within the l iteratu re as a deterrent to the public's utilization of mass tran sit. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) makes a distinction between transit safety and transit security. Safety refers primarily to programs designed to prevent or mitigate unintentional harm to people using transit. Thus, transit safety addresses issues of vehicle maintenance, alcohol and drug testing, and emergency management. Transit security refers to programs and procedures that are developed and implemented to reduce crime on transit. In the literature, issues of personal safety and the perception of safety are commonly referred to in relation to the reasons that people do not use transit or are anxious Lltenture RettltJw

PAGE 16

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----about using transit. Crime is perhaps most often cited as the primary personal safety issue, and several authors have examined the public's perception of, as well as the reali t ies of, crime on buses and the areas served by buses. The premise held by most researchers is that the perception of c rime significantly affects mode cho ice, and that the perception and degree of affectation vary according to the region and the level of urbanizatlon, as well as individual passenger characteristics. Reed et al. (1999) have examined passenger attitudes toward crime and crime reduction measures taken by transit authorities in the state of Michigan. Their findings indicate that transit patrons generally hold the following perceptions: passengers mostly feel safe when using transit; passengers feel less safe traveling after dark than during the day; those who use smaller transit agencies feel safer than those traveling in larger systems; passengers fee l less secure waiting at bus stops than they do when on the bus; and, there is dissatisfaction with the limited availability of weekend and nightt im e bus service, which could be related to safety if people must walk late at night The authors further contend that wait times are Indirectly a safety issue because the longer the wait at the bus stop, the higher the perceived level of possible crime. Of those passengers surveyed, 88 percent claimed that they rarely or never skip or alter their bus trip because of personal safety concerns. However, several of those who made such claims did admit to regularly takin g more inconvenient routes to avoid what they perceive to be unsafe areas or "unseemly riders." Of further note, the ratings of perceived safety are lower for females than for ma les The data also revealed that most perceived crime-related experiences are classified as "quality of life" offenses, such as obscene language/verbal abuse, public drunkenness, vandalism, and disorderly conduct. Property crimes and violent crimes are ranked second and third, but poor statistics from law enforcement and transit agencies make accounting for actual incident difficult. The security improvements most desired by the transit riding public were found to be emergency phones at bus stops and increased l ighting at bus stops. Further, Reed et al. (1999) assert that there s houl d be improvements in frequency and timeliness of buses so that wait times at bus stops are lessened. Based upon this study, the authors conclude that the greater is one's perceived exposure to crimes, the greater the appreciation of transit crime prevention measures.

PAGE 17

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----It should be noted that this survey was conducted among those who already utilize transit services rather than the general public. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this study in relation to the effect of transit-related crime perceptions on non-transit users. According to Ingalls et al. (1994}, although most transit c rim e studies are focused upon larg e urban centers, smalle r areas also have safety issues with which they must contend. This study co nsiders Gr eensbo ro, North Carolina, as a typical mi d sized southern city and examines the role of the public's fear of crime in relation to use of the city's transit system. Sim ilar to the studies conducted in M ichigan (Reed eta!. 1999), safety is cited as one reason for not using the bus in Greensboro; however, both residents in areas where bus service is available and bus riders considered crime to be a citywide problem rather than a transit Issue. In fact, the bus system was generally perceived as being safer than the community as a whole. However, the authors note that many a reas served by the transit syst em such as Downtown Greensboro, were considered to be u nsafe by users and nonusers. The authors also note that one's leve l of experience with the transit system appears to have an effect upon feelings of personal safety Those residents who do not utilize the bus system, but live in proximity to bus service, were found to be two to five times more concerned about personal safety on the buses than were those classified as riders The public perception of crime is, therefore, not necessarily based upon firsthand experience : For those who do have personal experience with transit related crime, the two primary problems reported were obscene language/disorderly conduct and public drunkenness Th i s study also found that non-user residents were two to three times more l i kely than transit riders to take precautionary measures for their personal safety More than 80 percent of non user residents claimed to avoid drunk or "strangelooking" people In addition, more than half of these respondents avoid groups of teenagers, traveling after dark, and traveling alone Transit riders a lso reported the tend en cy to avoid traveling after dark and "strange-looking" people. Women were found to be more like l y to take precautionary measures than were men. In addition to concerns related to tran.sit crime those factors cit ed as dete rrents to riding the bus include, in order of importance: hav ing a car; Inconvenience; no need for using a bus; unavailability of bus service near the home; lack of information about buses; and, Chapmr 0nt1 Literature

PAGE 18

-----'0PERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---- time inefficiency Although Ingalls et al. (1994) found that fear for personal safety does affect bus riders hip at some leve l in Greensboro, all of the factors listed above, when considered together, resulted in the authors' contention that the availability of basic service and information may be more important than personal safety for the focus of policy makers. Benjamin and Hartgen (1994) give further consideratio n of perceptions of public transit safety in Greensboro, North Carolina. This research prov ides an assessment of publi c perception of crime and the actual incidence of crimes on buses in the Greensboro a r ea. Studies to determine public perceptions of safety included surveys of residents along the bus system routes, surveys of bus riders, and bus operator surveys. This research i ndicated that almost one-half of the residents surveyed perceived crime on transit to be a problem, including a general fear of transit and/or the downtown area. Conversely, passengers and drivers indicated l ittle or no serious or violent crime on buses. However, offenses such as obscene language and disorderly conduct were considered problems by both of these groups. At the request of the authors, the Greensboro Police Department produced a report on the offenses that occurred on or near public transit in the preceding year. The authors' analysis of this report indicated that the "true" leve l of transit-related crime is actually lower than the perceived level of crime. However, the authors report that there is a low confidence level in the statistics reported by the police department because locations are typically identified by intersections, making it difficult to determine cr imes that occurred "near" transit routes or stops. Experience again appears to be a determining facto r in the public perception of crime on transit. Passengers and bus drivers each have a more positive view of personal safety on and near transit than do resident non-users. These differe nces were cross-tabu lated by race and gender and, although varied by proportion of responses, these variables were not found to be statistically significant in the explanation of the perception of crime. However, women were noted to be generally more cautious than men. The authors also questioned resident non-users regarding how a variety of service changes, safety actions, and other impro vements might affect ridership. The results indicated that, although safety related measures might lead to substantial ridership increases, the most effective ways to increase ridership actually related directly to service frequency, bus stop locations, and schedule information. The responses to the question regarding the one thing that should be done to encourage non-users to utilize the bus system are listed below in rank order: nothing; LitetatureReview

PAGE 19

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8r. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USoE----- change location of routes/stops/extensions; improve frequency/schedule; provide information, telephone, maps, publicity; offer free service for cultural events; provide better mass transit; provide disabled/medical and services; make service more convenient/easier; lack of car; reduce cost of riding/fares; and, improve bus stops (benches, shelters, etc). Benjamin and Hartgen (1994) recommended the following safety-related measures to increase ridership on the bus system in Greensboro: create environments on/near transit that provide the perception of safety; implement campaign to educate the public about the safety of public transit; and, implement economic incentives and system performance levels that will entice people to experience the level of safety on transit firsthand. Wallace et al. (1999) conducted a study of the public's perceived safety of transit following safety enhancements in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The safety improvements implemented by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority included the following programs and equipment: comprehensive new driver and refresher training related to safety and security; formal review and evaluation of accidents and incidents; security cameras at the two transit centers; security lighting at the two transit centers; security phones at the two transit centers; police mini-station at the primary downtown transit center; and, a security station located at the secondary downtown transit center and maintained by student security officers from a local university. The authors conducted a survey of transit riders following these improvements to determine the visibility of each component among the transit riding population. Several factors wene revealed that might relate to the perception of safety on city buses, including age, sex, and ridership patterns. With regard to age, approximately 45 percent of the riders surveyed were between the ages of 18 and 35, while only seven percent wene over the age of 65. The authors found that each 10-year increase in age was associated with a 12 percent lower probability of noticing the phones and security cameras that had been installed in the transit centers. Literature Review

PAGE 20

----IOPERATJONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----In general women felt less safe than did men, but also were more likely to notice security precautions that were undertaken by the transit authority, specifically increased lighting. Thirty-three percent of female respondents reported taking note of the increased lighting in transit centers. Although not explic itly stated, the authors noted that income might be a factor in ridership patterns and even in perceptions of safety. Thirty-five percent of the respondents reported a household income of less than $15,000 and another 30 percent declared a household income between $15,000 and $30,000. Only 5.7 percent reported a household income of more than $75,000. The authors noted that the higher the income of respondents, the less likely they were to notice increased police, increased lighting, and security cameras. Those measures that were found to be most effective in promoting perceptions of safety were a stronger pol i ce presence and increased lighting. Emergency phones and video cameras also were cited as having a positive effect on feelings of safety. Further, the authors hypothesized that the more often passengers use transit, the higher the perception of transit safety. Loukaltou-Sideris and Liggett (2000) provide information about how the physical environment at and near transit bus stops can impact the level of perceived and actual passenger safety. The authors discuss bus stop crime i n Los Angeles in terms of how the surrounding physical environment of the bus stop contributes to the transit crime rate The concentration of bus stop crime in Los Angeles occurs at specific stops within a 13-square mile area of the city and the authors contend that there is a significant s patial concentration of crime within the downtown and inner city region. Buses along these routes serve some of the poorest and most neglected, crime-ridden areas of the city, and it is the authors' assertion that this surrounding environment directly affects transit ridersh i p and passengers' perception of persona l safety while they wait for the bus. Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett (2000) claim that it is "astonishing" that bus stops within a small area a l ong the same route could have such varying crime rates While some stops seem immune to crime, others are consistently "hot spots" of criminal activity. The authors dte criminological research and their own observations as evidence that env i ronmental attributes a r ound the bus stop can play a vital role in the stop s safety and susceptibility to crime. The authors examined the physical and social environments of the 10 most dangerous bus stops in Los Angeles in 1994 and 1995, which were determined from data obta ined from transit police. Next, they conducted a survey among 212 riders waiting at the 10 bus stops and found that almost one-third of the respondents had been victims of crime on the bus or at the bus stop within the previous five years In addition, one-half of those surveyed claimed to feel

PAGE 21

-----10PERAT10NAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----unsafe and "always on guard" at the bus stop. These unsafe feelings were more prominent among women than among men. Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett's data indicate that most crimes occur in iso lated situations where there are numerous hiding places and escape paths for potential criminals, such as alleys and empty lots Of the 10 bus stops that were studied, none were found to have any of the elements that would mark the bus stop as "defensible:" all were located in seedy and litter-filled commercial areas; the surrounding environment was derelict and forbidding; most stops were not visible from surrounding shops and lacked adequate lighting; many of the stops were next to empty lots and vacant, dilapidated buildings; and, the desolate settings lacked either formal or informal surveillance. Further, the authors found evidence to support criminologists' contention that specific land uses are more likely to generate, or at least allow, crime than others. These negative land uses surrounding the 10 bus stops include: bars and liquor stores located close to eight of the 10 stops; check -cash in g facilities and pawn shops were located near high-crime bus stops; and "hot sheet" motels and adult bookstores and theaters also were common. To understand how particular features of the physical environment relate to bus stop crime the authors also studied 60 highand low-crime bus stops in Downtown Los Angeles. They examined the urban -form characteristics of the surrounding area, the bus stop characteristics, and the street characteristics Their analysis of these data led the authors to conclude that certain urban-form and bus stop characteristics seem compatible with crime. For example, crime rate s were higher at bus stops in areas with alleys and mid-block passages, near multifamily housing, liquor stores, check-cashing facilities, vacant build ings, and buildings marked by graffiti and litter. They determined that check-cashing establishments near bus stops have the strongest correlation with higher crime rates, followed by the p resence of alleys. With regard to street characteristics, Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett found that intersections with on-street parking have higher crime rates and those with heavy vehicular traffic are associated with lower crime rates. Those factors that positively affect the rates of crime are good visibility from the surrounding establishments and the presence of bus shelters. The authors conclude that their data provide evidence that environmental attributes affect crime at bus stops and that it is the "microenvironments that matter." Review

PAGE 22

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----The authors assert that, because bus stops are not permanently fixed, they may be moved up or down a street in accordance with passenger safety and the surrounding environment. Further, the general upkeep and deanliness of the immediate public environment of the bus stop indicates to transit passengers that "someone cares." Loukaitou-Sideris and liggett also suggest the retrofit of bus stops with shelters and lighting to make the passenger's wait more comfortable, less anxious, and safer. They also contend that transit agencies must recognize that bus stops are part of the overall transit system, and that agencies should focus their resources on the safety of their riders through the improvement and maintenance of the bus stop environment. Transit Information and Marketing Transit information and marketing represent two of the most fundamental means of "getting the word out" to the transit public. However, they are also often two of the least successful areas involved in transit operations. The completion of a transit trip is dependent on a passenger having enough knowledge and information to know that the service exists, where the service travels, where and how to catch a bus, what time the bus arrives and departs, and where to disembark. Without any piece of this information, the trip may not be made or, if it is made, may be accompanied by anxiety and frustration on the part of the passenger. Therefore, It is critical that transit passengers have access to easily available, up-to-date, and user-friendly transit information. This information also needs to provide geographic information to passengers that will assist in orientation and illustrate how to make transfers or connections. In addition, transit information should be prepared in such a way as to be understood by customers from a wide variety of demographic, socioeconomic, and/or educational backgrounds. As the following discussion illustrates, the lack of user-fliendly, reliable, and readily available transit information continues to pose a significant barrier to transit use in the United States. Everett et al. (1977) examined the effectiveness of transit pamphlets as a means of disseminating information about public transit systems. These authors acknowledge the importance of quality information systems and recognize that transit information "could certainly be one of the salient determinants of attracting riders to the system and/or increasing the effective use of the route network by existing riders." According to Everett et al. (1977), there has not been adequate study of what passengers perceive to be quality Info rmation systems. They contend that studies have focused upon existing informatio n systems or merely upon those that transit officials believe to be appropriate. The authors assert that passenger insight is crucial to the improvement of

PAGE 23

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E---information services and cite previous studies as examples that have sought the consumer's opinion. From 1964 to 1969, a telephone survey was conducted in Washington, D C., regarding transit information. The respondents were asked how they would navigate from one location to another; how they would obtain further information about transit within the city; and what type of bus information they wou l d like tha t was not being provided at that time The results of this survey led to new bus stop markers, bus route i ndicators, and timetable fol ders. Despite these improvements, survey respondents did not make fewe r errors i n trip planning or fee l the need for less transit information foll owing the addit i ons Furthermore, there was no noticeab l e effect on ridership. Everett et al. also descr i bed the results of a study compl e ted by Liff ( 1971). This research is cited as another attempt to make trans i t improvements based upon public needs. Although this research a l so found that improvements in infor m ation systems did not necessarily affect r i dership, other information was gathered from this study that may assist transit professiona l s i n designing transit information. As cited by Everett et al. ( 1 977), Liff d i scovered that relatively equal numbers of peop l e preferred to obtain their transit information via the telephone, transit map, asking bus drivers or ticket agents, or asking f riends/relatives. Very few people reported asking strangers on or near the bus for transit information. Th i s study also reported consumer preferences for transit information These results are listed below in rank order: i nfo rm ation on what route to take; information a s to what station to disembark; information about headways; l ocation of stops; time of arrival at destination; and, Information on crowding in transit vehicles. In addition, prefe rences r elated to transit information aids were found to be the following, in rank order: electronic route finder at trans i t station ; telephone information; trans i t informatio n sign; bus drivers; information booths; pocket schedules; Lltterature Ret1/ew

PAGE 24

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---- computer information at home; and, folding transit map It is notable that, although the folding transit map was the least preferred information aid, it is the one most commonly used. The final study cited by the authors was based upon infonnation obtained through an Urban Mass Transit Associa tion (UMTA) study (1969) in several areas of Mexico, Canada, the United States, and Europe. The preferred infonnation aids reported in this study, in rank order, were the following: pocket schedule; telephone infonnation; bus stop information; other people at the bus stop; fold-out map; electronic route finder; bus driver; and, sign on the front of the bus. The focus of the article by Everett et al. (1977) is those attributes of information aids that would serve to increase the accuracy of transit trip planning and trip-making The authors are specifically concerned with route and system schedules and maps that are distributed to passengers by t ransit authorities. The authors found there to be considerable variability in the effectiveness of printed schedule information, both in tenns of an individual's trip-makin g ability and the pamphlet's ease of use and adequacy, which may therefore affect the likelihood of a consumer to make a trip via transit. A high degree of uncertainty or unpredictability in planning a transit trip also was implied through a lab experiment conducted by Everett et al. (1977). The subjects in the study were asked to plan a trip using pamphlets from various transit systems. The overall inability of the group to answer basic questions led the authors to conclude that the uncertainty Invo lved in trip planning may serve as an important deterrent to the utilization of mass transit systems. The authors found that neither previous bus-riding experience nor the past use of route information was related to an individual's performance in the trip-making experiment. The information found to be most effective were single-route pamphlets, produced in two colors, with features such as bus stops clearly designated. The authors contend that such a study should be replicated in a field setting for comparative purposes and in order to draw further conclusions regarding the efficacy of pamphlets in trip planning. Rt!vi#!w

PAGE 25

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E---Abdei-Aty et al. (1996) present the results of a study designed to determine the propensity of commuters to utilize public transit in Santa Oara and Sacramento Counties in northern California. The authors conducte d a telephone survey to determine users' levels of satisfaction with the transit system and with the information that was available. Non-transit users were questioned about their f amiliarity with transit, what types of information they would need to use t ransit, and their likelihood to do so. Of the five percent of respondents who used transit at least once in the two weeks p rior to the survey, 25 percent did so because a car was not available every day, and 15 percent used t ransit because they wanted to save money. Approximately 72 percent of the transit users surveyed reported being either satisfied or very satisfied with the transit informat ion With regard to specific items 22 percent of surveyed transit users considered t ransit route maps as the most important, and 1 6 percent ranked information about waiting t imes the most important of information items. Those factors considered least among users were fare, wa lk ing time to transit stop, and seat availability Among surveyed non-transit users, approximately 41 percent indicated that the frequency of transit service was one of the most important info rmat ion items Waiting times at transit stops, transit route maps, and operating hours were considered important, as well. A small percentage declared walking time to transit stops, park-and-ride, and seat availability to be important elements of information. It is worth noting that 38 percent of nontransi t users surveyed indicated that they might consider using transit if more information was available to them, and almost one-half stated that they were extremely likely to use trans i t if this condition was met. Those socioeconomic characteristics affecting the propensity to use trans i t, as identified by Abdei-Aty et al. (1996}, were found to be the following: women were found to be less likely to use transit, possibly because of safety concerns ; those over 70 years of age were more likely to use transit if information was available; automobile owners were less likely to use transit; and those with lower incomes were mone likely to use transit than those with high incomes. Furthermore, the association between income and mode choice was found to be statistically significant. Approximately 53 percent of the respondents in this survey earned annual incomes of less than $30,000 and 25 percent had incomes between $30,000 and $50,000. Ctlapter One Utenture Review

PAGE 26

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Abdei-Aty et al. (1996) also determined that those commuters who do not use transit but already receive traffic reports are among those most likely to utilize transit information when it i s available, thereby potentially increasing their transit use. Despite these findings, the authors assert that their study was not designed to determine the effects of an integrated system that provided both transit and traffic information. However, they contend that "it would not be unrealistic in cases of substantia l delays" for more drivers to obtain information on commute estimates and utilize the transit system. According to Abdei-Aty and Jovanis' (1995) research, there is a paucity of studies relating transit informa t ion systems to travel behavior and mode choice. The effect of inte ll igent transportat ion systems (ITS) on public transit use is the topic of this article. Research was co nducted in northern California to gather data about travel habits and public perceptions of trans it. Transit users were asked to rank the three aspects of transit information that most needed improvement. Twenty-two percent of respondents chose transit route map changes and 16 percent selected information on wait t imes Those items least selected by the respondents were fare information, walking time to the transit stop, and seat availability. In the attempt to assess the likelihood of automobile driving commuters to utilize public transit when provided with the necessary information, AbdeiAty and Jovan i s (1995) developed a model to measure these propensit ies Their results show that travelers with longer distances are less likely to consider public transportation as an option. Factors that were noted to increase the likelihood of commuters using transit were income (earning less than $30,000 annually); having one car in the househo ld; and age (those under 20 years of age were more likely to consider using the transit system). It was found that drivers who already receive traffic information were likely to choose transit at least once per week, when given adequate transit information. Of the non-transit users who previously declared that they would use transit if adequate informat ion was provided, approximately 49 percent indicated they would choose transit when they were provided a hypothetical customized scenario Based on their findings, Abdei-Aty and Jovanis (1995) contend that, if ITS were imp lemented to provide transit information, the number of commuters utilizing public transit could possibly be tripled The following improvements were cited as having great potential in affecting commuter mode choice: electronic displays of actual bus and train arrival times; computerized maps and trave l directions; and, real-time information on current delays and estimated travel times on alternate routes and competing modes.

PAGE 27

-----OPERATIONAL BAR RIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----Southworth {1996) contends that, because of the diversity of transit users, the form of public transit in format i on is just as important as the content of transit information The author reports that too frequen tly info rmation systems are difficul t to use and often ignore the special needs of non-English speakers, children, the elderly, those who are not familiar with the area the illiterate, the vision-impaired, the hearing-Impaired, and those who are disabled in some other way. Transit information systems must be designed to accommodate the many groups who use transit if the benefits of the system are to be fully realized and If the public is to be adequately served. Due to varying levels of English proficiency and prose, document, and quantitative l ite racy, transit information, in its typical format, may serve to overwhelm, rather than inform potential transit users. Southworth asserts that the information should be presented in a palatable way to minimal literacy levels and diverse language backgrounds. These conside rat ions led Southworth to promote the use of electron ic methods of commun ica t ion in transit information centers because computer systems are able to provide an individually tailored plan of travel based on the user's needs. The author recommends the following design guidelines to achieve a successful transit information system: several leve ls of on-screen help for different skill levels ; interactive systems that allow users to make specific reque sts; maps and aerial views denoting the organization of streets and paths; maps with recognizable images of landmarks; sequentially arranged walk-through images of routes with an overview of the environment; and, graphically-presented route information acco mpanied by written and spoken descriptions of the route. Whelan (1988) contends that automated vehicle location and control (AVLC) technology i s a superior method of schedule information to printed materials or other automated scheduling systems. This assertion is based on OC Transpo (Ottawa, Canada) customer perceptions of what constitutes good service and the ti meliness and level of detail that automated vehicle lo cato r inform ation can provide in comparison to these other methods. Based on the total calls to an automated telephone i nfo rmation system called Telerider, and a live telephone call center, Whelan determined that approximately 58 percent of callers to the Telerider system and 7 in 10 callers to the center were actually seeking "assurance" rather than hard schedule information Common perceptions of transit customers included: Uterature Revit!w

PAGE 28

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---- there are frequent changes in service; there are frequent bus delays and schedule changes; and, the information provided is superior to the predictions made at the time of schedule printing. Whelan states that these views indicate the level of confidence transit customers have regarding the Ottawa system. When asked what type of information they would most like to see at a bus stop, transit users overwhelmingly responded that schedule information at the bus stop would be their preference. This could be achieved through combining AVLC with Telidon (videotex) technology so that changes in service are updated as they are determined and are displayed immediately at the bus stops. Bakr and Robinson (1978) call for better application of the t ransitmarketing concept through the broaden ing of marketing ideas and the integrating of strategies in order to meet the needs of transit users. The authors contend that the success of a transit system is contingent upon adequate and appropriate bus stop signage. Further, assessing the public's preferences for information is essential to creating effective signage. According to their survey, Bakr and Robinson ( 1978) determined the most important e l ements of bus sign infor mation to be the following: route number; hours of service; waiting time for the bus; route name and schedule; type of service; and, route map. In the analysis of the study results, a substantial relationship between commuter and trip characte ristics and the importance of the various components of transit information was revealed. The authors speculate as to the value of customizing travel information, designing it to appeal to various groups who travel along particular routes or segments of routes. Bakr and Robinson do admit, however, that there is a risl< of "abridging uniformity" if such customized signage were implemented, which may result in confusion on the part of the general transit riding public. Those effects considered on the value of bus stop sign informa tion included commuters' education, ethnicity, sex, age, trip purpose, and transfer. Level of education was shown to affect commuters' rated Importance of travel information. In general, there was a decline in the

PAGE 29

----'OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----need for bus stop sign information with increased levels of education. The authors conclud e that it is l ikely that the more educated commuter is less interested in sign information and turns to "more convenient sources" such as the telephone, direct i nquiry of bus operators, or fellow commuters. With regard to the effect of ethnicity on preferences for bus stop sign information African Americans rated sign information of greater importance, while American Indians rated it less important than any other group. In addition, African-Americans and Spanish-speaking Americans considered waiting time information more important than information related to service hours. The leve l of importance of different aspects of bus stop sign information was found to differ between the sexes. Route number, route name, type of service, hours of service, and route schedule informa t ion were all rated higher in importance among females than they were among males. According to the authors, "the value of sign info rmation also increases with age." The purpose of the commuter's trip has a significant effect on the importance of bus stop s ig n informat ion The importance of sign information is highest among those who use the bus for shopping or for multiple purposes. It is lowest in importance for those who u tilize the bus for school, followed by those who use it for social and rec rea t ional purposes. Information related to service hours typically was found to be more im portant to those who would need bus service in the evening or early mornin g hours Transfers also seem to have an effect on the importance of bus stop sign infonm ation. In this study, those who normally transf erred buses during their trips consistently ranked the elements of bus stop sign information higher than those commuters who did not transfer. The authors, therefore, suggest that transfer points ma y require "special treatment" in s ign design. Through surveys of rural public transportation managers, directors of area agencies on aging, and elderly residents in the state of Iowa, Foster et at. (1996) dete rmined that there are several barriers that may p revent or restrict the rural elderly from using transit. T rans i t managers and agency directors cited informat ion barriers as the most likely reason that the elderly in rural areas do not take advantage of the transit services that are available to them. A survey of the elderly residents in r ura l Iowa confirmed this assumption, with almost one half claiming to be unaware that there was a transit system available in their area. In addition to the lac k of information, other e lements of concern were discovered through the survey. A large proportion of the elders in dica ted dissatisfaction with transit scheduling, booking and ease of use. Forty-one percent stated that transit was limiting in that they may not necessarily be able to make desired trips at times when they would like to travel. The

PAGE 30

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----advance reservation requirement was cited by 27 percent as a prob lem i n using the system. Twenty-two percent also reported difficulty in board i ng the transit vehicles. According to Foster et al. (1996), the rural elderly i n Iowa may not use the available transit system because of the idea that the system is not intended for them or that others are more in need of the services To test thi s hypothesis the authors posited several trip-making scenarios to elderly transit users and non-users. Their answers revea led that most of those using transit disag r eed that others were more in need of the system or that they woul d prefer to pay someone to drive them r ather than use transit. The non-users were more l ike l y to have no opinion on these topics, revea l ing more of a neutral attitude toward transit rather than the negative stance that i s often presumed A study described by Winterset al. ( 1 991) exam i nes how the provision of transit information affects the decision of ridesharing program participants' choice to use transit. This study was conducted in the Richmond, Virgin i a, area to determine the effectiveness of prov i ding public transit information to those registered with Ridefinders, the local ridesharing organization. The purpose of the study was to provide data that would complement Information sources used by Ridefinders and the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC}. The following data were gathered to assist in analyzing the market potential of Ridefinders transit information for the area served by the GRTC: 33 percent of Ridefinders' customers lived within the area served by GRTC; 19 percent of those who lived and worked in the service area worked in the c entra l business district of Richmond; 57 percent of Ridefinders' customers worked in the downtown area; 25 percent of Ridefinders' customers who worked downtown used the bus for work trips; and, r egardless of where they lived or wor k ed, eight percent of Ridefinders' customers were already using the bus for work trips when they registered with R i definders. 1n addition, trave l and demographic characteristics were compiled so that Rldefinders' customers and GRTC peak-t ime customers cou l d be compared The authors' analysis revealed that the two groups differed in several ways. First the customers who were registered with Ridefinders were almost equally split between women and men. The GRTC had a larger percentage of female patrons (approximately 68 percent) than they did male patrons (approximately 33 percent). Ridefinders' customers also held more white-collar jobs than did GRTC peak-time customers, and they lived in households with higher incomes. Ridefinders' customers also had a higher degree of automobile ownership (87 percent versus 66 percent of GRTC patrons).

PAGE 31

----
PAGE 32

----10PERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----In order to begin the process of creating adequate information sources, the authors present three sequential steps of "how people navigate." Knowledge of this psychological process can assist planners in developing the most effective method of information transmission for the transit user. This process involves: orientation via landma rks; development of route knowledge to travel between those landmarks; and, a survey knowledge of the transit system Transit information must be user friendly and should convey the adequate elements of info rmation that will assist the rider in successfully planning and completing a trip. According to the authors, these elements include geography, connections with other routes and systems, operations, and rules. Furthermore, information should be available to the passenger at every stage of a trip. Pre-trip information allows the r ider to accurately plan his or her routes and connections. The authors state that pre -trip information should consist of the following: location of the nearest bus stop; routes that travel to the desired destination and transfer locations; fares; and, t ime of departure and approximate duration of the trip In-transit information represents the second stage of information availability. While in the process of using transit, these data will assist the rider at each decision point during the trip. The authors suggest that the following in-tra ns i t information should be provided at various points during the trip: at departure point-identification of the correct bus to board; on the bus-identification of the bus stops for transfers or disembarking; at transfer points-how to transfer to another route; the cost, time limits, and restrictions involved; and identification of the correct bus to board; and, at the destination-area geography (I.e., location of the final destination in relation to the bus stop) and return trip information (e.g., departure times and changes in route numbers). Finally, supportive/confirming information should be provided to the transit user at any point during the trip when the rider may want to be reassured that he or she is progressing successfully to the desired destination. According to the authors, repeated information at points throughout the trip provides the rider with this confirmation.

PAGE 33

-----IOPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Service Availability and Convenience The final areas addressed by this review are issues related to the availability and convenience of transit service These areas include such considerations as system coverage, frequency of service, days and hours of service, wait times, and the need for transfers. When considering issues of availability and convenience, it is important to consider the two primary categories of transit ridership: "captive" riders (traditional customers) and "choice" users (potential customers). As discussed by Pratt et al. (2000), a person is considered to be a "captive" transit rider if she or he has few transportation alternatives other than public transit. When discussing the category of "captive" transit riders it is often assumed that these persons do not have access to a personal automobile and, therefore, must use transit. These riders are contrasted with "choice" riders people who have a personal vehicle available and are able to make a clear choice between the automobile and transit. Changes to transit service may have the result of improving service for "captive" riders or serve to attract additional "choice" riders. The articles discussed below represent some of the most salient issues related to the availability and convenience of transit service. The role of wait times, comfort, and convenience as factors in mode choice are considered by Algers et al. (1975) for service in Stockholm, Sweden. According to the authors, most previous studies focused upon time-savings and estimates of time and cost elasticities. The roles of comfort and convenience in mode choice were considered importan t but they were rarely incorporated as policy-oriented variables in economic models. The authors also suggest that socio-psychological studies have revealed that comfort and convenience do serve as determinants in decision making when trave l ers evaluate alternative means of travel. Citing Gustafson, Curd, and Golob (1971), Algers et al. (1975) discuss those factors that are considered to be more important than fares in detennining mode choice In Stockholm: vehicle arriv i ng when planned ; having a seat; no transfer trip required; calling without delay; having shelters at pickup; less waiting time; and, choosing pickup time. In an attempt to determine the perceived service quality (PSQ) of public transportation in Gothenburg, Sweden, 200 compla ints and more than 200 reports of negative critical incidents (NCis) were analyzed by Friman et al. (1998). The authors found that most complaints related Literature Review

PAGE 34

----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---to employee behavior, punctuality, missing or inaccurate information, and inadequate planning. Passenger concerns from the complaints and from on-board interviews include: treatment and action (uncomfortable driving, unsafe driving, driver failed to stop, bad treatment by other employee); punctuality (early departure, late departure, cancelled trip without notice); information (arrival and departure times [including delays], destination, tickets and their validity); technical malfunctioning (vehicle, equipment); vehicle design and space (crowding, d iscomfort, embarking and disembarking); traffic planning (fare structure, scheduling); and, other (retailer, injury, bus stop). The findings of Friman et al. (1998) indicate that most complaints and NCis took issue with employee behavior, reliability of service, and insufficient information; however, the design and available space of the vehicles is also important. Through a survey conducted in 17 urban areas, Mierzejewski and Ball (1990) confirmed that the major reason commuters are not utilizing the public transportation systems that are available in these areas i s the "comparative attractiveness of the automobile." Those who reside in the suburbs are even more dependent upon their cars than those who live in the central city, although both groups rely on private cars as their primary means of transportation. Respondents who were non-transit users were asked about their perceptions of the advantages of driving their own car. Forty-two percent cited schedule flexibility as an advantage, and 32 percent perceived a travel time savings. Twenty-two percent claimed they cou ld not use public transportation for their daily commute because the transit system does not reach their place of employment. When asked about the advantages of public transit the most common answer was "no advantage." Despite this, other answers about the benefits of transit included l ower cost than driving, congestion red uction, and no parking issues. Those who reside in the central city and in the suburbs and travel to the city for work declared travel time to be the primary disadvantage to using public transportation. The second most commonly cited disadvantage was schedule in flexibility. However, those who travel to work in the suburbs reported schedule inflexibility to be the major disadvantage, and travel time was the second most cited obstacle to using public transportation. When presented with a list of nine possible improvements, approximately 50 percent of driv ers claimed they would not switch to public transportation even if these improvements were made. Suggested service improvements, such as elimination of transfers and express transit service,

PAGE 35

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E-----drew a more favorable response. Also, when presented with the possibility of minivan service at half-hour headways with pick-up/discharge points within a block of the destination, approximately 50 percent declared they would utilize such a service. An in-home survey was conducted in the Atlanta area to determine if there were significant diffe re nces with regard to characteristics, attitudes, and perceptions about transit between users and non-users of the Metropolitan At lanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) (Byrd 1976). The issues of greatest concern revealed through the survey are presented as follows : more than 25 percent of non-users claimed to be very likely o r somewhat lik ely to use the transit system if service were "sufficiently improved;" 9 out of 10 non-users and 99 percent of users believed that MARTA was necessary or valuable to the city; non-users generally held a favorab l e view of the quality of service; transit was oonsidered less convenient by non-users than by regular users; both transit users and non-users believed transit to be more convenient for shopping or personal business trips than for trips to work; d espite a widely-publicized campaign prior to the survey, only 55 percent of non users knew the correct, reduced fare when asked; 45 percent either stated an incorrect fare or declined to answer; and users and nonusers cited greater frequency of bus service as the most needed improve ment and bus shelters were second. Byrd (19 76 ) contends that non -users may be attracted to transit if there was a positive change in the perception of oonvenience; however, there are limitations to this approach since 30 percent of non-users indicated that transit was very convenient or somewhat convenient in the in-home survey. Those impr ovem ents considered most significant in gaining new transit rid ers and raising the level of service to current patrons include: greater frequency of service; bus shelters; schedule reliability; and, schedule infonnation. Field ing et al. (1976) conducted six studies to examine the nature of public attitudes r egarding transit. The studies focused on trip purpose, trip frequency, and demographic characterist ics of the area. F ie l din g et al. (1976) recount their conclusions from these stu d ies In summary form: cars are widely considered more satisfactory than public transit; Litenlture Review

PAGE 36

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---- mode choice is detennined by reliability, time, cost, method of payment, and physical and psychological comfort; those factors crucial to making transit more appealing to non-users include better transit accessibility, more frequent scheduling, demand-responsive routing, and lower cost; those factors crucial to making transit more appealing to users include maintaining schedules, decreasing distances between origins and routes and routes and destinations, and reducing trip-time expenditure; speed and punctuality are less Important for nonwork trips than they are for work trips; other conveniences are important for both; and, the importance of transit attributes varies according to the survey instrument used, geographic location of the sample, and existing public transportation use. Scheduling and frequency changes are some of the most common service changes made by transit systems in order to improve effectiveness of service and in crease ridership. Pratt (2000), in the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Interim Handbook Project 8-12, addresses the effects of transit scheduling and frequency on transit ridership. The author examines the responses of riders to scheduling changes that have been applied to conventional fixed-route bus and rail service. The scheduling changes addressed in the report inclu de frequency of service changes, changes to hours of service, ttle structure of schedules, and scheduling reliability. Transit systems commonly institute such changes to service in order to decrease passenger trip time and Increase overall convenience of the transit service, as well as passenger perception of service quality. In addition, schedule and frequency changes may also improve passenger comprehension of the system and make it easier for passengers to use transit. Also important are improving reliability of transit service and reducing wait t imes so that passengers experience less anxiety related to using transit. Pratt concludes that, ultimately, the result of schedule and frequency changes that accomplish the above mentioned objectives will be transit service that is attractive to potential users, ttlus increasing ridership and reducing ttle amount of automobile t ravel. According to Pratt's conclusions, the highest priority concerns that have been consistently expressed by transit riders relate to the dependability of service and the frequency of transit service in ttle midday and evening. As would be expected, ttle effect of dependability of transit service is particularly acute riders are much more sensitive to unpredictable delays of se.rvice ttlan to predictable delays. Ridership is often negatively impacted when riders are uncertain about when and if the next scheduled vehicle will arrive. Pratt also found that departure times that are easy to remember and schedules that are r ead ily available often result in improved user perceptions of wait times, especially in areas with low or medium frequency transit service. Chapb>rOne

PAGE 37

BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----Finally, Pratt also found that ridership is particularly sensitive to freq ue ncy changes In areas that previously offered infrequent service (i.e., hourly o r half-hou rly) and in areas serving middle to upper-income groups. Again, frequency changes are also related to wait times in that, by increasing the frequency of service, wait times are reduced and transit service is viewed as more attractive by potential "choice" users. Robert Cervera {1997) addresses the issue of tracking regional accessibility, the ability to reach places across a region, as central to the goal of urban and transportation planners. According to Cervera, accessibility improvements should not be focused on the transportation system but on people, places, and social activities because people engage in travel only to reach a destination, not for the sake of travel itself. Cervera (1997) conducted a study in the San Francisco Bay Area in which changes in regional accessibility to jobs between 1980 and 1990 were traced and used to determine whether these changes could assist in long-range transportation and land use planning. The author discovered that the area's more centralized neighborhoods were three to four times more accessible to jobs than those neighborhoods on the periphery. Also, despite increasing suburbanization, disparities increased during the 1980s The most job-accessible areas had the greatest gains in accessibility, and those neighborhoods that were already the least job accessible experienced the g r eatest losses. In addition, wealthier neighborhoods were generally more accessible to jobs for which their residents were qualified than were poorer areas. According to Cervera ( 1997), accounting for all variables, income and race were strongly associated with accessibility. Cervera (1997) contends that utilizing accessibility as a performance measure, and keeping track of such data, will assist transportation p lanners in their tasks of making dest i nations easier to reach LoukaitouSideris (1994) traces the development and decline of downtown and inner-city transit corridors, with particular attention to those within the City of Los Angeles. The author asserts that many central transit corridors within Los Angeles are "unfriendly to transit" due to the lack of pedestrians, landscaping, benches, and bus stops. However, despite these shortcomings, these areas are still the primary transit routes in the city. According to a survey conducted by the author, up to one-third of the respondents did not own a car and were, therefore, dependent upon transit, which served an "often hostile corridor environment." The majority of the respondents who did own cars stated that they would utilize transit if the system were more reliab le clean, and safe Further, the car owners cited a more amiable envir onment surrounding the bus stops as an incentive to use transit. Utl!rltlne Rwlew

PAGE 38

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS&. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Loukaitou-Sideris ( 1994) contends that, although transit agencies do attempt to increase their ridership through such traditional means as lower ing fares and im prov ing frequency and reliability of service, transit officials must also consider the envi r o nment of waiting for a bus They must attempt to make the stree ts "friendly" to pedestrians thereby making those areas friendly to transit and transit users. The author concludes that the physical and economic retrofit of city transit corridors should be a priority for transit agencies in their attempts to attract and reta in transit users. In a report prepared fo r the Transit Cooperative Research Program (Report 27), Charles River Associates discusses the mar ket share held by transit and examines the policies that have been found to affect transit use. Based on 1990 United States Census data, the authors assert that transit ridership lev e ls are heavily dependent upon development densities and are, therefore, highest in urban centers with dense development. Further, the authors contend that transit ridership is influenced by the following factors: levels of travel-inducing activities; price and other characteristics of the service; availability and comparison of other transportation options; characteristics of the population served; and, other factors, such as variation in the weather and changes in public taste. Using both revealed and stated transit preferences, the authors c ite several general izations related to traveler behavior: travel times are re,latively important; not all time savings are equal; travel prices do influence consumer choices; demand is usually inelastic with respect to price; and, aspects of "comfort" and "convenience" that are quantified usually prove to be very important. Although most mode choices are based primarily on lifestyle choices, the authors contend that public policies greatly affect individual travelers' decisions regarding transportation. The policies cited by the authors as being the most significant in mode choice included transportation investment policies, transportation p ricing policies, environmental policies, energy policies, tax policies, and land use policies. The authors conclude that, even with large improvements in service and public po li cies, transit most like ly still will have a lower market share than private automobiles due to the perception of greater convenience and the low cost of Further research should, therefore,

PAGE 39

-----
PAGE 40

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE---consumer appeal that must be assessed when offering mobility alternatives to the private automobile: directness and comparative travel time; comfort and service quality; scheduling for convenience (e.g., flexibility, minimized transferring, connectivity); pricing, including overall cost and simplification of payments; and, market coverage. The authors contend that, without major investment in transit and policy changes toward transit-oriented suburban development, public transit will never achieve the usage leve l found in most central cities. The authors suggest that planning be based upon market segments, as no single service will be able to meet the full range of needs of suburban residents. Based on their own case study research, the authors present the common features of successful strategies, which include: develop services around focal points; operate along moderately dense suburban corridors; connect land-use mixes that consist of all-day trip generators; serve transit's more traditional markets such as lower income, blue-collar neighborhoods within the suburb; link suburban transit services, especially local drculators and shuttles, to the broader regional line-haul network; target markets appropriately; economize on expenses; adapt vehicle fleets to customer demand; creatively adapt transit service practices to the landscape; obtain private sector support; plan with the community; establish realistic goals, objectives, and standards; and, develop supportive policies, plans, and regulations. The authors assert that suburban transit planners are faced with significant challenges, but that with appropriate planning, policy, and market focus, appealing transit options can be offered to the suburban, private automobile user Evans et al. (1997) are interested in enhancing the representation of transit accessibility and amenities in travel forecasting models. They present the transit friendliness factor (TFF), a method of rating transit access environments in travel forecasting models. The elements of transit friendliness that were selected for evaluation were sidewalks, street crossings, transit Lltenlture Review

PAGE 41

----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----amenities, and proximity of destinations. Sidewalks were chosen because they affect transit attractiveness due to their importance as walking paths to access transit stops. The authors assert that roadways without curbs, shoulders, or sidewalks are the most hostile to pedestrians, and that few people will choose to travel by transit in these areas because of this fact. Conversely, wide sidewalks provide a level of comfort to transit patrons. The difficulty of reaching transit stops due to street crossings also affects the attractiveness of transit. The authors identify the following factors of street crossings that may be negative elements, and offer suggestions fo r their mitiga t ion: Facility width wide facilities require larger gaps in traffic because they take longer to cross; throu gh-traffic speed high-speed traffic requires larger gaps ttoan slower traffic to accommodate a pedestrian's crossing; turning traffic speed pedestrians may become confused in areas where free-flowing or multiple lanes are in use; and, type of traffic control device controls on all approaches to an i nte rsection will assist pedestrians in making street crossings. According to Evans et al. (lg97), the least friendly element of street crossings for pedestrians is the location of transit stops along wide, free-flowing facilities that have no pedestrian crossing signals. The authors suggest transit stops that are located along low-speed facilities that are "easy-to-cross. With regard to transit amenities, the authors promote the construction of transit "superstops," where other activities besides waiting for a bus would occur In-vehicle time and out-of-vehicle time are differentiated in plann ing models, and patrons tend to place greater disu tility on out of-vehicle wait time. To combat this, the physical environment of the waiting area shou l d include construction amenities such as concrete pads, benches or seats, shelter, and ligh ting Service amenities define how the time is actually spent and could include the presence of telephones, newspaper bins, and vending machines. The proximity of one's destination certainly affects the choice to use transit. Because ttoe distance a business i s located from a transit stop tends to influence the rate of which its employees use t rans it, the authors conclude that it is logical to state ttoat transit use at any particular stop is affected by the proximity of potential origins and destinations. With regard to the TFF, walking through parking lots to remote sites is the least desirable, and a cluster of activities near the stop (50-150 feet) is most desirable.

PAGE 42

-----
PAGE 43

-----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----The first service concept Rosenbloom (1998) discusses is faster or more direct transit for the traveler. According to the author, transit systems must generally do one of the follow ing to achieve this successfully: give priority to transit vehicles; significantly reduce the nu mber of sto ps made by a transit vehicle; streamline the route; reduce boardi n g t ime; decrease overall travel time; or, reduce headways and increase frequency of service. Convenience is the next service concept the author pre sents as one of great importance for transit agendes. The author contends that those service concepts that make transit mo re convenient typically include changes to existing services, such as changes to foxed-route scheduled services. H owever, these changes do not generally make non-transportation barriers, such as childcare needs, any more convenient for travelers. Transit convenience is typically increased in one of the following ways: method of easier payment for service is implemented; traditional serv ice characteristics are changed to meet user needs; traditiona l services are adapted to changing situat ions; traditional services are brought closer to users; demandresponsiv e options are p rovi ded; or more alternatives for any given trip are provided to users. Making transit more affordable is another service concep t that transit agencies must consider. Rosenbloom (1998) states that this can b e achieved in two ways: directly reduc ing the cost of traditional services or indirectly reduc.ing the cost of less traditional services. The final service concept that is mentioned relates to making transit more feasible and practical. This concept addresses the basic proble ms that many people have with using transit. According to Rosenbloom (1998), the majority of these problems fall into the following categories: people cannot travel on transit because it does not support the other decisions they have made, such as riding a bicycle; people canno t use transit because i t does not serve their desti n ation; and/or, people cannot use transit because they do not know enough (or anything) about how to use it. LiteratuteRttritJw

PAGE 44

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E-----The author states that the service concepts related to feasibility and practicality are often mutually supportive. For example, a par k-and-ride facility can be made more attractive to a commuter by providing childcare or concierge services on-site Rosenbloom ( 1998) concludes that feasibility and practicality of transit may be achieved in the following ways: fadlitating bicycle and park-and-ride use; working with employers to provide new transit services; addressing non transportation barriers to trans i t use; providing information, education, and training on transi t use; and, changing land use patterns so transit can or does serve more destinations. Rosenbloom also discusses the implementation of effective service concepts and the markets that will most likely experience an increase i n the numbe r of trips or travelers affected. Those services most like l y to resul t in an increase in ridership if offered i nclude: reverse commute services; services to employers ; vanpoo l s; route restructuring; feeder services; and, special event service. Those groups most likely to take advantage of these services and increase their transit use include: low income workers; immigrants; Asians; Hispanics; African-Americans; those with less than high school education; people age 17 to 29; women; workers with some h igh school education; and, workers with high school education Those services that target non-workers or non-work trips may affect the next greatest change in ridership. Those services considered I n thi s group include: service routes/community buses;

PAGE 45

-----
PAGE 46

----,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----of resources. Public policy decisions must be weighed against many factors and these factors may sometimes conflict, potentially making something efficient and no t equitable or equitable without being efficient. Rosenbloom suggests that when the goal of transportation planning is achieving equity as a measure of fairness, or conditioning service on income or need, or the equality of input or output, those service conoepts that are expensive, serve fewer people, and are targeted at higher income people would not be an equitable way of spending public money. Providing all transit users with the same l evels of service or routing resources so that all gain the same benefit from the service may be considered equitable regardless of input. Ascribing to these definitions, service concepts such as parkandride lots and new rail systems may not be seen as being equitable. In contrast, other views on equity may lead to different conclusions. Some may consider spending public money on services such as rail systems and park-and-ride lots equitable if they believe that higher income users pay more taxes and fees that support pub lic transit than do low-income users. Rosenbloom (lg98) cautions that these views remain sensitive to reported ridersh ip and market effects, and various concepts may demonstrate different effects in different communities. Further, the author contends that, while equity cannot be the only issue in determining public spending, it does appear that, in cons idera t io n of ridership patterns and limited funding, there are particular service concepts that will likely have a greater overall societal effect than others. These beneficial services include: reverse commute; services targeted to employers; route restructuring; service routes; fare incentives; and, travel tra in ing. Voters and policymakers do not typically view transit ridership as the overall goal of a system, but as a measure of attaining some other goa l such as reduced traffic congestion, increased access to jobs for low -income workers, decreased environmental pollution, or increased mobility for the elderly or disabled. In general, those service concepts considered to provide the greatest overall societal benefit in terms of equity and efficiency include: reverse commute services; services to specific employers and universities; vanpool incentives; route restructur ing; and,

PAGE 47

----OPERAnO NAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIM E NTS TO TRANSIT USiE----- feeder services Those serv ices consi d ered least equitab l e and efficient because they target the l east amount of people, particu l arly those with higher incomes or who are highly educated, and are largely male include: express buses; light r ail; c ommuter rail; and, par k-and-ride Finally, Weber et a l (2000) detail a study designed to determine the characteristics of "switchers" -those urban commuters who change from single occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting t o so m e oth er mode of transportation to work. The authors conducted a survey of those in the commute trip r eduction (CTR) program i n Washi ngton State, foc using on those who had sw i tched from SOV during the six years prior to the survey. A significant portion (13 percent) of respondents provi ded reaso n s for swi t chin g from non-SOV travel and resuming SOV use. These reasons i ncluded: the l oss of an opportunity to rideshare convenient ly; changes i n their work s c hedules; and changes in their home or work location. Many committed SOV users cited that alternat i ves to driving alone were either non-ex i stent or quite inadequate to meet their part i cular needs. A number of respondents mentioned that work schedules made carpooling or pub lic transit "exceedingly difficu lt." A considerab l e number of respondents felt that t hey needed to have their own car for family responsibilities or persona l tasks during the day However, several respondents indi c ated that this diffi c u lty m ight be reduced i f emp l oyers made company cars availa b le for occasiona l uses, such as family emergenc ies o r pressing med i cal appointments. The authors a lso examined the commute r s' r e l iance o n individ u a l transportation modes, includ i n g SOV, ca r poo li ng, vanpooling, pub lic transportation, walking, bicycling The p r imary considerations were r e l a t e d t o issues of conven i ence and flexibility. Carpoolers and va n poolers attached a relatively low importance to flexib ility and convenience. Bus riders and other types of public t r ansi t use r s tende d to r ega r d public transportation as r e l ative l y convenient Regul ar users of b us and o t her forms of transit were inclined to attach l ess importance to having an independent schedule, and tended to believe that other people attach consi d e r able importance to having an independent sched ule. Commuters who wal k ed or bicycled regularly believed that other peo p l e attach consi d e r able importance to time sav i n gs. Acc o r ding t o the authors, thi s suggests that walkers and bicyclists attach relatively less importance to time savings Th ese L/trHSiture Review

PAGE 48

----
PAGE 49

----
PAGE 50

this page IS blank

PAGE 51

-----
PAGE 52

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:E----VOTRAN RTS TALTRAN Daytona Beach Gainesville Tallahassee Handling of the Ridership Frequency Response Bias 1999 1999 1999 1,972 2,107 1,446 In Techn i cal Memorandum Number Two of the 1996 Transit CSI project, a particular difficulty in sampling is described, where h igher frequency riders are more likely to be surveyed in an onboard surveying effort than low frequency riders. CUTR's analysis of the on-board representation problem yie l ds a simple method for creating a rough estimate of the proper weighting for each response. The problem can be illustrated with the following example. Suppose bus ridership for a particular route has frequency of use characteristics as described in Table 2-1 below If we assume equal trips per day for each category of use, the percentage of all system trips by each category of use can be calculated with the following fonmula: (Equation 1): % of trips by users in category I = (% of riders in ]) (freguencv of use by category ]) ( (% of riders in category 1) (frequency of use by category 1)) for all I For those who use the system once per week the formula would yield the result from Equation 1: ((35 percent)* (1 day/week)) I ( .35*5+.1*4+.1*3+.1*2+.35*1) = ( .35/3) = 11.7% Application of the formula to each category yie l ds the results i n the right hand column of Table 2 -1 below. Table 2-1 Relationship of Rider Use Frequency to Percentage of Trips Taken Frequency of Use Percentage of R iders Percentage of Trips 5 / week 35% 58% 4/week 3 / week 2/week 1/week 10% 10% 10% 35% 13% 10% 7% 12% Any sampling plan that d i stributes surveys random l y to riders on a bus (or people waiting for a bus) will necessarily result in survey retums that are proportional to the trips taken by each

PAGE 53

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----category of rider, rather than to the percentage of the overall system ridership. In this admittedly extreme examp le, it is clear that the ridership would not be properly represented To minimize thi s problem, CUTR utilized a weighting scheme based on the respondents' selfassessment of frequency of bus ridership. Respondents were asked to note on which of the last seven days (Monday th rough Sunday) they had ridden the bus. Using the answers to these questions, CUTR determined the probability that each frequency category would have been surveyed and, from that probability and the total number of responses for each category, estimated the distribution of riders in each frequency category. Weights were assigned by dividing the estimated number of riders by the actual percentage of responses for each frequency category. The exact formula for estimating the total distribution of weekday ri ders i s then determined with the following formula: % of riders in category I= % of surveys returned by category I I Frequency of use by category I L((% of surveys returned by category I) I (Frequency of use by category /)) for all I These results were analyzed for the system as a whole only, since route-level results were not required fo r this project. Ridership Frequencies There are several different ways that ridership frequencies were recorded on these surveys. Since one of the initial steps in developing the Transit CSI was to account for different probabilities of samp ling people who have different levels of frequency of use (see 1996 Transit CSI, Technical Memorandum No. 2), these differences had to be resolved in order to proceed. The different recording methods arise from the response categories permitted for the question, "On average, how many days a week do you ride the bus?" The different response formats in the various surveys are: Once per month to 7 days per week TAL TRAN, Key West Transit, VOTRAN, ITA Transit Rider Satisfaction

PAGE 54

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT U SE-----Once per month to 6 days per week SCAT Sarasota, SCAT Brevard Less than 1 day pe r wee k to 6 days per wee k RTS l 2 -3, 4+ days per week or once every weeks MCAT PalmT ran, LYNX, O k aloosa The grea t est difficulty rests with t he systems where on l y "4+ days was r ecorded. Anal ysis of t he data fro m systems where peop l e were asked i f they rode the bus 0 to 7 days per week prov i des tile follow i ng data: Percent Ride System 0 days 1 day 2 d ays 3 d ays 4 d ay s 5 d a y s 6 days 7 d ays JTA 2 5 3.4 6.1 7. 8 9.2 40.4 16 9 13.8 Key West Tran sit 4. 1 C omb 1 1.8 13.3 10.7 24.0 10.7 19 .4 T ALTRAN 5 .3 Comb. 1 0 1 7 .7 9.6 40 6 12 6 1 4 .1 V O TRAN 6 0 Comb 8.6 7 9 10 8 27.3 21.2 18. 2 From these data, tile best approx i mation for all r i ders i n systems where anything over 4 days was no t specified i s approximately 5 5 days for all Although this i s not as prec i se as one might l ike, this w i ll s erve to provid e appropr i ate probab ility sam pling we i ghts for ridership in those systems. The actual value of the weights on l y differs slightly i n those ran ges so the effects should b e m i n i ma l. Certainly i t i s not tile objective of this project to dismiss d ata whe r e the frequency of ri dersh i p does not match the idea l characteristics, where so much other valuable data are availab l e w ith these minor ad j ustments. Sy stem w e ights To compare resu lts across systems, a weighti ng scheme had to be developed to account for d i fferences in number of responses across systems. Three weighting schemes were ava il ab l e: 1 No weight i ng 2. We i g h t by system ridersh i p 3. Weight by are a popu latio n Tnmslt R/Mr s.tbhtction

PAGE 55

------
PAGE 56

Question SCAT be!llnnln!l 1 @tisfaction X end days of X service hours of X service time of day the earliest bus&s run on weekdavs time of day the latest buses run on weekdays time of day the earliest buses run on weekends time of day the latest buses run on weekends frequency of X service convenience X of routes your ability to get where you want to 'ao Table 2-3 On-Board Survey Questions 1999 Transit Customer Satisfaction Index On-Board Questionnaire Item Matrix TALTRAN JTA Palm Key VOTRAN RTS Tran West X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MCAT MCAT SCATBrev 94 98 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

PAGE 57

Question SCAT of buses o n t i me) X How regularly buses aM"ive on time travel time on buses X cost of riding the X bus availability of b u s route X Information/maps usefu lness of bus route X info/maps Vehic l e cleanliness & X comfort temperature i nside the bus h o w clean bus stops & buses are availability o f seats on the buses operato r X courtesy safe t y on bus & X at bus stops safety after I getti ng off bus transferring b/t X buses bus opera t or's ability to drive the bus Table 2-3 ( c ontinued) On-Board Survey Questions 1999 Transit C u s tomer Satisfaction Index On-Board Q uestionnair e Item Matrix TALTRAN JTA Palm Key VOTRAN RTS Tran Wes t X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MCA T MCAT SCATB r ev 9 4 98 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

PAGE 58

-------;OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Many of the differences between the surveys amount to the level of detail for the topic in question. For instance, where some surveys conta in questions where the customer responds by indicating satisfaction with "days of service" and "hours of service," others require customers to rate their satisfaction with the time of day buses leave earliest and latest on weekdays and weekends, creating four separate ratings instead of two. Another example of this is the quest ion rating 'vehicle c.leanliness and comfort' compared to separate questions on temperature inside the bus, how clean buses and bus stops are, and availabil i ty of seats on buses. Other sources of differences are minor wording changes So where one set of surveys has questions about "convenience of routes," others have questions rating the customers' satisfaction with "your ability to get where you want to go." Another example is "dependability of buses (on time)" versus "how regularly buses arrive on t ime." Finally, some surveys have additional questions on similar top ics One set of surveys has a question about "sa fety on bus and at bus stops." Another set has both that question and one about "safety after getting off bus." A factor analysis, conducting parallel analyses between the systems using one type of survey format and the set of systems using the second type, indicates that the safety issues are treated much the same way in the two surveys, as they load on to factors with comfort and driver. The span of service issues, however, are not so simp le. The span of service when presented as earliesl:/latest weekday/weekend, is its own factor. When span of service is hours of service and days of service, it loads together with frequency of service as a kind of "system scheduling" factor. In the first instance, when we have earliest/latest weekday/weekend, the frequency loads on with items on convenience of routes and time to make trip. The differences in how these factors are constructed indicate that the two are not directly comparable, and that any comparison between the different forms of measuring span of service using the index could be very misleading. Hence comparison on those items should be limited to comparisons with other systems that used the same question format. Transit Rider Siltlsfaction

PAGE 59

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Results Data were analyzed related to 29 categories of customer satisfaction. Because of some of the differences in the ways that questions were asked for different systems, as noted in the preceding tables, some of the categories may appear repetitive. For instance, in some surveys three separate safety questions were asked (waiting for bus, on bus, after getting off bus) and In other systems only one safety question was asked (safety on bus and at stops). In order to handle these differences, five items (SQ31-35) are presented at the bottom of the table that combine the results from different questions. The resu lts from each satisfaction category were further segmented into frequency of ridership of respondent. The three categories of ridership frequency examined were low ridership (less than once per week}, medium (one to three days per week}, and high (four or more days per week). Table 2-4 contains each of the satisfaction categories that were examined for the nine transit systems included and the satisfaction scale calculated for each item. Transit Rider Sati_,

PAGE 60

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US .E----Table 2-4 Transit Customer Satisfaction Categories All Systems (JTA MCAT, PalmTran, VOTRAN, TALTRAN, Key SCAT SCAT Brevard RTS) Weighted by System Ridership (NTD) and Ride rship F requency Ridership 1dices Satisfaction Ca t egories All Low Medium High (<1 week) (1 deyslw k) (4+ days per week) ;Q1 Sat isfac tion (at begi nning) 3.84 4.1 5 3 84 3.68 ;02 Sat is factio n ( a l er>d) 4 .02 4.05 4 0 7 3.96 ;o3 Days of Serv ice 4.11 4.08 4.21 4.07 ;Q4 H ours of Service 3.53 3.54 3 .65 3.42 )Q5 Freq ue ncy of Servioe 3 .30 3 5 1 3 32 3 .14 >06 Abi lity t o get v.ite r e you want t o go 3.85 4.03 3 83 3 76 ;Q7 N umber of tran s fers 3.50 3.63 3A8 3 .44 ;as Ease of transfer 3.68 3.89 3 .69 3.54 >09 How regularty buses a r rive on4i me 3.37 3.75 3.37 3.16 >010 Time to make u i p 3.55 3.73 3 53 3.43 l011 Value of far eloost 3.94 4.0 7 3 .97 3.82 >012 Ease to obtain schedule 3 .95 3.92 3 99 3 .96 lQ13 Ease to use sche du l e 3.98 4.00 4.00 3.95 lQ14 Time earl i est bus l eaves o n w eekdays 3 65 3.72 3 .69 3.58 )Qt5 Time lat est bus l eav e s on week days 3.02 3 26 3.05 2.86 lQ16 Time earliest buS \eaves on weekends 3 .29 3 .60 3 .33 3 .08 l01 7 Time latest bus leaves on weekends 2 .99 3 .35 3 00 2.7 8 l018 Convenience of r outes 3 .89 3 .94 3. 95 3 .80 lQ19 Dep e ndabi lity o f buses 3.67 3.74 3 73 3 .5 7 l Q20 Cle a n buses & stop 3.77 4.02 3.80 3.61 3021 Cleanlinessloomfort 4.1 6 4. 15 4 .26 4.09 3022 Safety a t bus stop 3 .80 4.0 0 3.82 3 .68 3023 Safety on bus 4.09 4 .23 4.07 4 .03 5024 Saf ety a h e r getting off bus 3 .96 4 1 3 3 94 3 88 5025 Safety on bus & a t stops 4.17 4.10 4 27 4 .17 5026 Te m perat ure i n b us 3 85 4.19 3 84 3.65 5027 Availability of seats 3 .9 2 4 .22 3.87 3 7 8 5028 Drivers a b ili ty t o d rive 4 .29 4 .42 4 .2 8 4.2 1 5029 Drive r courtesy 4.23 4 32 4.25 4.14 SQ31 Satisfaction (combi ned SQ 1 & 2) 3 .92 4. 1 0 3.94 3 .7 7 S032 Convenience of routes (comb ined SO 6 & 1 8 ) 3.86 4.00 3.86 3.77 5033 Dependab ility o f buses (comb i ned SO 9 & 1 9) 3 .46 3.75 3.46 3.26 S034 C lea n l iness/c omfort (comb i ned SO 20 & 2 1 ) 3.89 4 .07 3.92 3 .73 S035 Combined Safety (S Q 22, 23, 24 & 25) 4 .02 4.12 4 04 3 .95 TnHISit Rider Satisfaction

PAGE 61

------
PAGE 62

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Transit users who completed the on board survey form were asked to rate each satisfaction item on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing the lowest level of satisfaction and 5 representing the highest level of satisfaction. As Illustrated In the above table, the level of satisfaction of Florida transit users appears to decrease the more often one uses transit. For the purposes of analysis, I t is assumed that satisfaction ratings above 3 50 represent fairly h i gh satisfaction, whereas those ratings that fall below this benchmark reflect areas in need of improvement. A review of overall results indicates that the lowest customer satisfaction ratings were reported for the latest weekend hours of service (2. 99), latest weekday hours of service (3.02), earliest weekend hours of service (3.29), and the frequency of transit service (3.30). The overall dependability of transit service also rece i ved a low satisfaction r ating of 3 46 (includes dependability of buses and how regularly buses anive on time). Overall, the highest satisfaction ratings were reported for driver ability (4.29), driver courtesy (4.23), and days of service (4.11). As described in a previous section, the satisfaction results also were segmented by respondents' frequency of transit use Three frequencies of transit use categories were developed : low frequency use (ride less than one day per week), medium frequency transit use (ride one to three days per week), and high frequency transit use (ride four or more days per week). Overall high frequency users reported lower satisfaction with transit service than did Infrequent riders and medium frequency users. However, the results were strikingly similar in terms of those customer satisfaction items that received the highest and lowest satisfaction ratings by each rider group. The results from each rider group are summarized briefly below Low Frequency Transit Users {Ride less than once per week) The low frequency transit user group includes those passengers who reported using transit less than one day per week. It is assumed that this group includes many persons who would not be considered "captive" riders. Low frequency transit users reported lowest levels of satisfaction w i th the times that transit service ceases operation i n the evening on both weekdays (3.26) and weekends (3.35). Low satisfaction rat i ngs also were reported for the frequency of transit service (3.51) and overall hours of transit service (3.54) Low frequency transit users reported the highest level of customer sat i sfaction related to driver ability (4.42} These transit riders also appear to be highly satisfied with driver courtesy (4. 32) and availability of seats on the bus (4. 22). Overall, low frequency transit users appear to be relatively satisfied with the transit service provided r eporting no satisfaction rat i ngs lower than 3.26 (latest weekday hours). Medium Frequency Transit Users (Ride one to three days per week) Passenger s who reported using transit one to three days per week are included in the medium frequency transit user group These transit users reported lower rates of satisfaction overall

PAGE 63

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----than did the low frequency riders; however, the categories receiving the three lowest ratings were identical to those reported by the low frequency riders: latest weekend hours (3.00), latest weekday hours (3.05), and frequency of transit service {3.32). Also rated low in terms of customer satisfaction were earliest weekend hours {3.33), the dependability of buses {3.46), and the number of transfers required to complete a trip {3.48). As with the low frequency riders, driver ability received the highest satisfaction rating {4.28) from medium frequency users. This group of transit users also rated driver courtesy (4.25) and days of service (4.21) quite highly. Finally, safety also rece ive d a high sat i sfaction rating (4.04) among these riders. This finding is particularly notable given that non-users of transit often cite safety at bus stops and on buses a barrier to transit use. High Frequency Transit Users (Ride four or more days per week) The final rider group examined is the group composed of high frequency transit users. The respondents in this group reported using transit four or more days per week. These riders are likely relying on transit for much of their personal travel, such as work trips, trips to the doctor or grocery, and/or recreational trips. This group of respondents reported the lowest levels of customer satisfaction, with ratings that ranged from 2.78 (latest weekend hours) to 4.21 (driver ability). This would be expected among transi t users who rely on the service to meet their mobility needs and, thus, have the most experience using transit service. However, it must also be noted that these transit users reported the highest and lowest satisfaction ratings for the same categories as these reported by low and medium frequency transit users. High frequency transit riders reported low satisfaction with latest hours of operation on weekend evenings (2.78) and weekday evenings (2.86). Similarly, these transit users also reported dissatisfaction with the earliest hours of service on weekends (3.08). Dissatisfaction also was expressed in relation to service availability and reliability. High frequency transit users rated the frequency of transit service low (3.14) and also expressed dissatisfaction with the overall dependability of transit service (3.26). High frequency transit users also reported low satisfaction with the hours of transit service (3.42), the time required to complete a transit trip (3.43), the number of transfers requir ed (3.44), and the ease of transferring (3.54). The highest satisfaction rating reported by high frequency transit users as for driver abilities (4.21). Riders with experience using the transit system also rated driver courtesy very high (4.14). Finally, high frequency transit users also reported high satisfaction with days of transit service (4.07) and overall transit system safety (4.02).

PAGE 64

------
PAGE 65

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---PART TWO: Introduction to the Barriers to Transit Use Field Tests The many individual barriers to transit use in the United States identified in Part One can be grouped into the following catego ries: Public Transit Safety and Security: perception of bus stop safety gender-related concerns, impact of experience on perceptions of safety, etc. Transit Information and Marketing : importance of passenger feedback, customer preferences related to printed materials, ability to understand printed transit information audience-oriented design (seniors, y outh, people with disabilities), type of info rma t ion provided to customers, accuracy of information, uncertainty and unpredictability in transit trip planning, etc. Service Availability and Convenience: lon g wait t imes, lack of depen dab ility and reliability lac k of schedule flexibility, travel t ime, infrequent sentice, inconvenience when compared to the automobile, perceived low cost of auto travel, bus stop accessibility, lac k of coverage, etc. Given the unique geog raphy and operating environments in the state, the project team identified two potential barriers to be fie ld tested to assess the effect( s) of these potential barr iers on transit ride rship in Florida. The two categories of potential barriers within which CUTR has completed preliminary fie ld test research are transit information and marketing and service availability and convenience. Each of these two categories contain several potent i al obstacles and barriers that could negatively impact transit usage and, therefore, merit in depth fie ld testing. However, the p resent project represen ts a starting point in stimulating future research. The refore, the tests included in this project focused on accomplishing baseline assessments of the two g eneral, but extremely critical, pieces of the tran s i t experience: Understanding and using prin ted transit in formation materials, and Scheduling transit sentices to match customer travel demands. The two field test methodologie s include d in this research were chosen to represent two potential barriers to transit use in F lo rida that may be alleviated or rectified without major financial commitments from transit systems. It is importan t to note that they do not, however, PART TWO Introduction to Barrien to Transit U$e Field Tests

PAGE 66

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----represent the only potential barriers that would benefit from field test research. In fact, many additional methodologies were deve lo ped for consideration in this project that will like ly yield very useful results for transit systems in Florida and throughout the Unite d States. In addition, the results of the field tests that are the subject of Part Two suggest several additional avenues of research with great potential to provide further assistance to transit systems. Overwhelmingly, the project team found that the two selected barriers are majo r obstacles to transit use in Florida. Field tests of transit i nfonmation materia l s with non-users of transit revea led a high failure rate and considerable confusion and frustration associated with transit trip planning. Similarly, comparison of transit schedules to operating hours of major activity centers revealed considerable gaps in transit access based on transit operating hours. Therefore, each section includes a series of key findings and recommendations to address the barriers. Finally, the most useful aspect of this research is that it is the first time that transit information materials and transit agency schedu lin g practices have been compared among transit agencies throughout the State of Florida. PART TWO Introdudion ttJ BINTifNs to Transit UU Te:st:s

PAGE 67

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----Chapter Three: Transit Information & Marketing: Efficacy Field Test The availability and clarity of printed transit system information, such as bus schedules and route maps, p lay a paramount role in the decision to use public transit Existing and potential transit passengers must often rely solely on such printed transit information materials to plan and complete trips in and through unfamiliar areas. While the importance of this information is wide l y recognized in the transit industry as a critical component of transit operations, transit literature indicates that existing and potential transit passengers often may experience anxiety related to planning and completing a transit trip when using printed trans i t materials such as bus schedules and route maps Studies have ind icated that the highest information hurdles for transit riders are encountered during the "planning" phase of a trans i t trip. Transit agencies are challenged to deve lo p information that can be easily understood by passengers of all socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds. This information must be written in a manner that conveys enough information for a potential passenger to accurately p lan their trip without inundating the reader with too much information that may confuse the planning process. As report ed in Chapte r One, uncertainty and/or unpredictability in planning a transit trip may pose a significant barrier to transit use. In order to evaluate the extent to which printed transit information poses a barrier to transit use among current non-users in Florida, CUTR conducted a field test of the user-friendliness and clarity of printed information (bus schedules and route maps) developed by transit agencies throughout Florida This field test focused specifica lly on materials currently be i ng used by Florida transit p r operties in order to identify strengths of existing transit materials, as well as opportunities to strengthen the effectiveness of transit information in the state. The materials included in the field test were presented to a sample of test subjects who were asked to plan specific transit trips using only the transit information materials provided to them. The intent of the trip planning task was to evaluate the effectiveness of printed transit materia l s when presented to potential passengers with little to no transit experience, as we ll as to collect and analyze data r elated to the efficacy of particular design elements chosen for further evaluation in the study. This field test represented a preliminary, exploratory approach to the subject of transit literacy. Therefore, the primary focus was on the ability (or inability) of potential transit users to p lan transit trips us in g availab l e transit information materials. A secondary goal of the field tests was to eva lu ate a sample of design e l ements for their impact on the effectiveness of printed transit information. The methodology employed in this field test centered on the collect ion and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. However, particular attention is focused on passenger insight into the transit trip planning experience by requiring field test participants to complete trip planning activ i ties as though they were p l anning an actual trip on fixed-route bus service and then gauging their responses to and impressions of the trip planning

PAGE 68

-----
PAGE 69

-----,OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----printed transit information materials, the effectiveness of specific design elements analyzed, and the overall effectiveness of the materials included in the analysis. Each observational test consisted of two trip p lanning tasks administered to a samp le of participants coupled with observations made by the administrators of the tasks, post-planning interviews with participants following each trip planning task, the completion of a post-test questionnaire that collected d emographic and socioeconomic information from each participant, and analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected from each participant. Each e lement of the observational tests is described in the following sections. P ilot Studies Prior to developing the sample for the observational tests conducted in the transit in format ion and marketing field test, CUTR conducted two p ilot studies to test the usefulness of the trip planning tasks and materials. One pilot study was conducted with university students as part of their Psychology coursework and another pilot study was conducted with transportation professionals at the CUTR. A total of 1 7 individuals participated in the two pilot studies The transit trip planning tasks and post planning interv ie w guide (discussed below) were revised based on the results of the pilot studies. The results of the two pilot studies were analyzed separately from the final study sample and are discussed in a later section of this chapter. Field Test Sample Development The intent of the transit information and marketing field test was to assess the user-frien dliness and effectiveness of transit in formatio n materials among individuals with l ittle to no transit expe rience. Therefore, the primary aim of sample development in the field test was to identify partic ipa nts who represent variations exhibited in the general pub lic Mall intercept recruitment methodo logy was used to identify field test participants. CUTR contracted with market research companies in four shopping malls in the Tampa Bay region to carry out participant recru itment The fou r malls were chosen to represent a wide range of demographic characteristics. Three anthropologists from the University of South Florida traveled to each ma ll site where they were provided interview space. Staff from each market research firm recruited participants from the mall based on demographic requirements provided by CUTR. Each participant was provided a $5.00 incentive as compensation for 30 to 40 minutes of his or her time. A total of 80 individuals were recruited for participation in the transit informat ion and marketing field test. Trip Planning Activities & Observations Two trip planning tasks were developed for each of the transit information materials i ncluded in the observational tests. The trip planning tasks developed included trip planning instructions for a simple transit trip and a complex transit trip, the p r esentation of transit information

PAGE 70

BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----materials, and verbal explanation of the tasks, as well as an introduction t o the transit information materials. In addition to the presentation of the trip planning tasks verbal instructions introduced each participant to general elements of transit information materials including the concepts of systemwide route maps, bus routes, and timetables In addition, the origins and destinations were marked on the materials for participants who received extensive and complex transit systems such as Miami-Dade Transit or LYNX in Orlando. Each participant was presented two transit trip planning tasks: one simple trip and one complex trip. The p r esentations of trip planning tasks were randomized by complexity and transit information mater ia ls For the purpose of the present study, a simple transit trip is defined as a trip that could be completed on a single bus route and a complex transit trip is one that requires the tran sfer from one bus route to a second bus route. The transit trip planning activities that were developed for the observational tests included information on the day of the week and the time of day of the intended transit trip. In addition, the instructions detailed the origin and the destination of the trip and the intended arriva l time. An example of the instructions provided to participants for a simple transit trip fo llows: You are on the comer of Grant Stand Paper Dairy Rd on Sunday morning. You must get to the Downtown Bus Station by 8:30 AM. What is the most direct route(s) to take in order to get there on time? Please note any required transfers Assume that you are on time if you arrive on or before the destination time. Please choose the arrival time that is closest to vour required destination time and the listed bus stoo that is nearest to vo w destination. The instructions provided for a complex transit trip are illustrated i n the following example: You must get from University of Central Aorida {UCF) to APopka City Hall by 12:30 PM on Friday What is the most direct route(s) to take in order to get there on time? Please note any required transfers. Assume that you are on time if you arrive on or before the destination time. Please choose the arrival time that is dosest to your reouired destination time and the listed bus stop that is nearest to your destination. Depending on the transit information materials presented, participants were required to use a systemwide bus route map to locate their origin and destination and route(s) n ecessary to complete the intended trip and then either tum to the individual route information contained in the system ride guides or choose the individual route information from a sample of si ngle route information materials presented with the systemwide bus route map. In the cases of trips that were planned using systemwide route maps in con junction with ind ividua l bus route schedules, the participants were presented from four to seven bus route schedules to choose from one

PAGE 71

-----
PAGE 72

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----completion of the second post-planning interview, each participant a lso was asked to rate several aspects of bus service, based on their general feelings and opinions about public bus service Participants were asked to rate the following aspects of bus service: Convenience Comfort Dependability Persona l Safety Transit Information Rexibility Availability Vehicle Safety Next, participants were asked about how the trip planning task may have impacted their confidence in terms of planning a trip on the pub l ic bus and whether or not participation in the observational test would result in a greater like lihood of using public bus service. A copy of the interv i ew guide is included in Append i x C. Following the post-planning interview, each participant completed a post-test questionnaire that collected information pertaining to the participant's gender, age, ethnicity, personal income, education level, automobile ownership and experience with public transit. These data were coded with the participant number for later analysis in connection to trip planning results. A copy of the demographics questionnaire is included in Appendix D. Data Analysis Each simple and complex trip planning task was scored according to the choices made by participants in relation to the following 10 data elements: Able to trave l from origin to intended destination On-time arrival to destination Origin bus route Origin bus stop Origin time Transfer bus route (complex trip only) Transfer bus stop (complex trip only) Transfer time (complex trip only) Destination bus stop Destination time

PAGE 73

----
PAGE 74

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----Results: Quantitative Analysis of Transit Trip Planning Ability As described previously, the transit trip p l anning portion of the field test was based upon a mixed mode l design, incorporating a "withi n subject" design element (each participant completed a simple session and a complex session with the randomized presentation order of simp l e and complex trip planning tasks) with "between subject" elements The between subject elements I ncluded the mater ials used. There were 22 examples of transit information materials used fo r simple trip planning tasks and 20 examples of trans i t infonmation materials u sed for complex trip planning tasks. Each information item also was categorized as vary ing on three d i mensions o f design elements: Alignment of timetables 1. Horizontal (see Figure 3-1) 2. Vertica l (see Figure 3-2) Route information presentation 1. S i ngle r outes with systemwide map (see Figure 3 3) 2. All in-One Ride Guide (see Figure 3-4), and Transfer information presentation 1. Listed on map and on timetable (see Figure 3 5) 2. Listed on map only, not on timetable (see Figure 3-6) 3. Not on map, listed on t i metable on l y (see Figure 3-7) 4. Not listed (see Figure 3) s. Listed elsewhere (e.g front of route schedule pamphlet) (see Figure 3 -9) The materials used in the field test also were randomized with a randomization matrix developed for each administration of the study so that no material was over sampled. There were three primary continuous dependent measures (total time to complete and two variations of a composite score), although w h ether participants completed the tasks or not also was used for preliminary analyses. Task d i fficulty also was treated as a dependent measure Total time to complete (hereafter called Totlime) was available for all peop l e who completed the task within the allotted time (8-m i nute maximum for simple trip planning tasks, 10 minutes for complex trip p l anning tasks) Scoring of the trip planning tasks was completed using two variations of a composite score scheme. Each si mple transit tri p planning task contained 7 scorable events and each complex session had 10 scorable events (described previously). (Please refer to the participant score sheet contained in Appendix E for a complete list of scorable events for both s i mple and complex transit trip planning sessions. ) In scoring va ri ation one (hereafter referred to as

PAGE 75

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----Composla), each of the seven scorable events were valued as 3 points for a "yes" response or 0 points for a "no" response, with a maximum value of 21 possible (after adjustment for complex sessions, explained below). In the second scoring variation (hereafter referred to as Compos2a), weighting was added to the scoring scheme to provide more points for the scorable events determined to be most important to transit customers ability to travel from the origin to the d estination and arriving at the destinat ion on-time. Therefore, in the Compos2a scoring scheme, 5 of the 7 scorable events for simple trip p lann ing sessions and 8 of the 10 scorable events in complex trip planning sessions were valued as 3 points for a yes respons e and 0 points for a "no" response, and the remaining 2 scorable events were valued at 5 points for a yes response or 0 points for a "no" response, with a maximum value of 25 possible points. Scores for comp lex trip planning sessions were adjusted (summated composite score multiplied by 0.7 for Composla, 0 735 for Compos2a) in order to maintain a consistent scaling. Additionally, participants were asked to rate the difficulty of each session (using a 7-point scale, with rat ings of 1 = extremely easy, to 7 = extremely difficult). Additional information gathered for the study included participant ratings of specific characteristics of public bus service (convenience, comfort, dependability, personal safety transit information, flexibility, availability, and vehicle safety), using a 5-point Likert-style scale (with ratings of 1 = low to 5 = high) Participants also were asked to report whether they were familiar with the cities used in the materials presented, as well as whether participation in the exercise increased their confidence in planning a trip using public transp ortat ion and whether participation in the exercise inc reased their likelihood of us i ng public transportation. Observers also evaluated visual symptoms of frustration, annoyance, and nervousness as the part ic ipants completed the experimental sessions. Finally, observers also asked a ser ies of open ended questions follow ing the com p letion of both sessi ons Andings The findings section has been compartmental i zed into sections, in cludin g pilot study data, final study comparisons, simple condition comparisons, and complex condit ion comparisons. There also is a brief section regarding the materials used in sessions that people either could not complete or decided to quit the task prior to completion (includes participants who quit only one trip planning task of the two tasks, as well a section dealing w ith individuals who quit both trip plann ing sessi ons). Descriptive statistics (number, mean, and standard deviations) and frequency data are presented in each section (with additional tables conta i ning relevant data loc ated in appendices). Additionally, where appropriate, mean comparison analyses (t-test or analysis of variance [ANOVA]) have also been conducted, and reported.

PAGE 76

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E-----Figure 3 Horizontal Timetable Alignment Example ROUTE 17 WA.SH1NOTON ST, A HWY. 4-41 WASHINGTON S'f. IS. 3 7 AV L JOHNSON ST. & H. 3S A'VE. SHERIDAN S T PARK A RIDE SHEFUOAN ST. & N.14 AVE. F fOERAL HWY. &TAFT ST. I!,FECTIVE OECEM8EA 27, 1998 WEE KDAY

PAGE 77

-----
PAGE 78

-------lt .... "'(- z.n,._ o.y CMo <- .----Figure 3-3 Single Route Presentation Example ,dt.l-'""'' ............. ,., ...... ....y A ... ... w o ... ! 'H ,. .. : : .. t > ' . '" .,. !I; l h ) " !)'1 ' : : ) 11-" :111!)0 Ull !l, o i - > M V> '" w. ... "' ... .. "' .... '" t \ 1 n .. w ... ..,, > ''-"' t -L g jif .. Hl w .. , 0 0 ,;, > ,. '" ;: ; l U > .. .. .... :C$ , , 1101':" a: .,. -'"' !HI -'" '"' ,. "' ,. w M O "' M> ... n "' '" "' .. 10,) lllllu.
PAGE 79

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Figure 3 4 All-in -One Ride Guide Example COUNTY AREA TRANSIT Chapter Three a rr u [ ] _____ ;

PAGE 80

----OPERAllONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Figure 3 5 Transfer Information Listed on Map and on Timetable Example "' I .... I t i .... ; ; .. ....... ;;">.,.. --!_J.. ; ; ... SS Atlantic Blvd. WEEKOAV .!! ....... r-T. . i . i .,(! I i1 .. t:'j.; .. f 'i' ai: J i n '! .r .b il i.l kJl __ d ... ---. ... !. "' '" ' ::: '* r. N E-., .. ... ( " t\'I o : '')"' :ft: 01{ .; :( :;.o : ..; N :'1 'H' I ;:: II{.; U l!') t:, ;.> U ... ll,_. 1t:lt I): U 11btll:"' U:lf ,,,. 1 :1" '" " ,., ,,., J : U ,,. 1:$1 )lfW! 1 > M U> l :ot .. "' .. 1:1. m );U ,,,. f :Of .... ,. -..n 4:M ... z '" '"' 11<1111; I:M , 6>;1 z "" .. ., '"' ... ....... l : u .,. 1:" J';lt 1 :'11 ,,. t ;"J .. ,_ ... ' t : H OM ' ' u .,1 0.0l .,. , .. ... t : u t:)$ $ATVAOAY :!,. .-, ( t r .. r,.., r ...,.r tY. e.!-1 1,: 1 t -t' tfA '='le <:o(> -.o o .. l 'J : xot : c : e:? :' S:, 11-W lt.IO ":It U:)O >;_,I.Ol!! I:O)ol U:tt ot.o(> 1:$0 lt--(loO )'; 1 0 l:lt I :Sl "00 "-* to i O 1:11 : ,,..: ) : U 1 "" t : H i U O .oo 6:1 0 C. '""I S:U 6 .01 I : H ,,_ ? M tb) 1 :10 " ,,., .....,. .,l.le!fT ...... ,. T>aooJ.

PAGE 81

-----OPERATIONAL BARRI E RS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us:E-----Figure 3-6 Transfer Information Listed on Map Only Example ROUTE 2 -VA Mcdtcnl Center 'tO Town Center R.:ston via Congu::os. SOUTHBOUND WEEKDAY Mf'lPalmTran LEGEND -----.,_ ., __ --Effective : Aprit 8, 2001 R twised: s. 2001 For cuneor.t rotrte i nformatiO n call 841-4BUS or 930-4BUS. j p < l l t < .d ; <: "' (!) .... ""' ""' --'"" ""' ..... -""' ""' """ '""' ..... ""' --'""' """ """ -'"" """ '""' -""' ""' ... ... ,,.. ,. ... -810 ... .,,. ,,,. " -.... ,,. ""' '"" -..... tiOo\ UiA """ .,.,. '' '"" !ICC ... IOOl A ""' ,.,. -'""" 1010. IOSCA. --I !I I IlA ,,.. 1 040A. IICO. ... -... ,. ,_ ,,. ... \ l OW. 11\0A HlilA. nco ... 12-XIi> HJ04 U 3Ch IUCA. 12.:(11' 171111' 1 2SOf' H!.CA '""" ,.,. ,_ ,.,.. moP "'" """ .... ..... ,,.. "'" HCIP .... ... ""' ""' '"" "" '""' .... -..... -21CIP ""' -, .. ""' ,.,.. "" ''"' """ ""' ""' """ """ -... "" ""' ..... -4101' .,.. '"" '"" .... -.... ..,. "" -""" '"" '"'' .... -""" .... ''" --..,.. ..... -""' " "" 6301' .... """' ""' -...,. ..,. " '"" ""' ,,.. .. ,,.. ""' -NORTHBOUND i J ... .:; J j &c 0 "v @ 0 .... ... .... ,.,. .. ,. .,... -""' .... -""' -""' ""' "'' ,. '"" '""' ""' -, .. .... -""' """ ... "" ..,. -,,.. .... -*" 8?0o\ .... "'"' .... .... .... ""' .... .... .. ,. -1000A 1020A ..... '"" .... \OlGA lcnc.\ IOSOA ..... ..... ,0\&A. ...... UOCIA l UCIA ,.,.. "'"' ..... 1110 ... n.\ nr.o.o. "" "' 1t ISoto ..... U2CP "'" \12M '""" 1210f' 12:wJP 12SOP ,,... Ul!>P ... "" """ ,,.. "'" "" "" """ """ 1151' --,.. ""' .... .. "'' ""' ""' "" .... 21!4" >P ""' ""' ... .. .. 24'!1> .... ""' -"'" '"' '"' -'"" ""' """ .... ,. .. .... """ .... --.... .. ,. '""' --.... .... ""' """ .... -111101' ..... -.... .... .... -.... -.... "'' -616P .... '"' """ -""' ''" ""' ,,.. """ "'' ll!:: 1HP ... -""' '' ,.,. ... """"""' ,,,. '"" ""' ---""" ''" .... .... -! 0 ""' '"'' .,,.. '"" ., .. .... ""' '" """ '"" ... .... .... M"' ""' ""' ..... ,,,. ""' ..... ,.,... I U SA """ ...... ''" '""' n!llll' I lSI' ' 14:.1' 2 11>1' " ,,.. ... ... .. .... ..... .... "'" ... $15P ""' ..... '"" el5P '"' .... ... "' ,., ,.,, ""' ""' f 1 l Ci "'"' '"" .,... -,. .. '""' ""' -..... -..... -..... ,.,. '"" >mM """ """ "'" """ .. ... ""' ... """ "'" ,,.. .... ... 13';1' ..... .,. '"" '"' "' .,. .. """ .... """ -..... .... -""' .... ""' ""' .... ""' ""' .... -""' """ .... ..,. ol F l l @ ""' "" ,,,.. "' '"" '""' ,,. .. -""' ""' .... ""' '"' ""' "" """' '""" -...... """' ,, .... 11$SA US$4 -, ,.. ... ,.,. 1t! P .... U9" "" "" ""' n" "" '"" "'"' ""' '"' "" .... .,,. ., .. ...... """ "" .,.. "'' ..... ""' ''" -'"" ,,.. ,, ""' 4 t '! E > (!) ..... .... ""' '"' ,,,. '""' -"" -"" ---l'liOA. -,..,. H illA """ IHOo\ .. ... UIOP '"" ..... '"" ""' ,.,. ).:OP ""' ,,. -"" '"" "'" -..,. .. .. --"'' .... """ .... -.... -"" ,,. .... '"' ,...

PAGE 82

----OPERATIONAL BARRIER S 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----w i 1 Figure 3 Transfer Information Usted o n Timetable Only Example Eastwood Meadows to Downtown .... ....... ... ._. Tnmsit--..Jnt/-T.t

PAGE 83

----OPERATIONAL BARRIER S & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USiE----Figure 3 Transfer Infonnation Not Listed on Map o r Timetable Example I Route 1!:1 ............. TAA.PON $PRtHGS 10 ST. PETERSBURG ST. PETERSBU RG TO TARPON SPRINGS I!Q'::'i ; 1 S. IW'$ : $:<'li'IQS Clliii'WIICt I - CCM'-" l'llkta. St-(l;t.b$ Higl'l SUIOCII, f'liolu OS 1 9134 $1 S MQNOI' ,., ---,., ,. ---.. .. '" .. ,., '"' ., ._. .. ... ... -,, ,., "' "' .. ,.., '" - ,., ., - . ... ... ... > M ,., ,., .. ... f: l O ,., ... s.9o.- ' ,., "' "' 1 ; 4 "' ,., ""' ... ... "' ... 0 ., "" >UC ... 1 1:3> ,. .. ... OS -.. .. ... ... . ""' -- ... ,., ... '" '" -'", oo. w .. w 11:11:1 - - . --= ... oJ .. .. "" ..... tt 00,00 00;0 0 .. .... l t U lt;U , ,,., '"' = "" ... -O > ; O l ..... .... n ; H "" IUJ ... ... ... l : lO ,,. --... ... 4 ... 11:10 ""' lV$,.. O '"' " "' 0 .. . ""' ... ""' :on L 4 '"' "' ';e.,.,---.... ... ll!lO .. .. " "" ... on .. '"' - ... .. -"" .... '"' ,., ... .... .... '"' ... lJ-. 40 ... -... '"' a l:IO '" "' '"' '" ,.,. ... ... '"' >a -... .. "' .. .,. ,,. ... 0 --'"' ... ... ... = ... '" -.,. -..... ___ '" ... ... ... -'" = .. '"' '"' ... ... .. "" ---I ,. & ; 1 0 "' ... '" ,.,. -' .. J: ,., '"' = - '"' llo'IO '"' ... -- '" '" '" ... .:oo . ... ,. "' -... .. ... "' '"' .. ,.. '" .. -,., .. ,., '" &:' ... ... 1: 1 0 ... "' ... '* ,,1 ... OH -,., ... .. ,., ... ... '" ... ,, ... 7:!0 .... "' '"' "' '"' '"' '"' .. ,., .... .. -'" ... '" ... ,,, '" ,., ... -'" '"' '" ... - O .. o ... '" .... .. "'"' .... "' 6 -=---...._0o ... ,_ --:!k; Tronslt lrrft>rmation a Harlteting Field T -

PAGE 84

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-Figure 3-9 Transfer Information Usted Elsewhere Example Dunbar Mall Your Ride Is Here. Call 275-8 726 NOW OFfERING UMilED SUNDAY SERVCE SERVICING: o Michigan o Carrell Corners o Health Dept./ o S.W. Regional Hightec h central Hospita l o Monroe S t ation o Edison Mall Downtown Wheelcroir accessible tAJses ovollcble on moo roules. CoD us ror detolls TRANSF5RS at MONR05: Routes 20. 70, 1 00. 140 TRANSF5RS at VO-TECH Routes 20 & l 00 TRANSFERS at EDISON MALL: Routes 80, ll 0, 1 20,1 30 & 140 Revised 7/21/00

PAGE 85

---O PERATIO N A L BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO T RANSIT USE----Pilot Study Findings After pre p arat ion of all materia l s and design of the study, the transit information and marketing field test methodology was implemented using a small group of participants, i n clud i ng research ass i stants, i nterns, and transportat ion professionals. Seven teen individua l s participated in this pilot study. The pr i mary intent of the pilot study was to test the research design and trip planning instruments so that necessary revisions cou l d be implemented prior to the final study. The mean age of pilot study participants was 32.8 years, with 8 ma les and 9 fema les. Sixty-five percent of the participants were White, 18 percent were of Hispan i c origin, while 6 percent reported being black/ African-American. Fifty-three percent of the respondents reported i ncome l eve l s of $51,000 to $74,000, w ith 24 percent reporting income levels of $31,000 to $50,000 The remaining participants reported income below $31,000. All participants of the pilot study reported having at least some college, with 35 percent reporting having a colle g e degree, and 41 percent of participants reported post-graduate experience. Sixty one percent of pilot study partic i pants r eported having one or two household vehicles, with 17 percent reporting no household vehicles, and 12 percent reporting 3 or more household vehicles. There were three trip planning sessions that were not structured properly and cou l d not be completed as designed. Therefore, for the pilot study, data we r e gathe r ed from 17 sim p le t rip planning tasks, and from 16 complex trip plan ning tasks As illustrated in Table 3-1, the ave rage score for the simp l e transit trip p l anning tasks was 14.29 out of 21 total possib l e points, which equates to a "grade" of 68 percent using Compos1a. The scores using Compos2a also were quite low 17.24 points out of 25 total poss ib le points (69 percent out of a possible 100 percent). The average scores for the comp l ex trip planning tasks were somewhat l ower at 11.94 points out of 21 poss i ble points (57 percent) using Composla and 14.10 points out of 25 total possible points (56 pe r cent) using Compos2a. Although the average sco r es for the simple tri p p lanning tasks were highe r than scores fo r t he complex trip plann i ng tasks (14 .29 points compared to 11.94 points using Compos 1a, 1 7 .24 points comp ared to 14.10 points using Compos2a), this d i fference was not statistically s i gnificant. A t-test was c o nducted for order of presentation, but it was not significant. Pilot study participants were abl e to complete all of the simp l e sessions, but com p leted only 56 percent of the comp l ex sessions. There was a significant difference in the tota l time to comp l ete, (t(24) = 2.66, p < 05), as participants completed the simple sessions in an average of 5.32 minutes, and comp l eted the complex sessions in an average of 7.44 minutes. Participants in the pi lot study rated the trip planning tasks as fairly difficult with simple tasks receiving the average difficulty rating of 4.12 out of 7 and comp l ex tasks r eceiving an avera g e difficulty rating of 5.56 out of 7. A t-test also was conducted for ratings of task difficulty and, as expected, participants rated the comp l ex trip planning tasks (mean 5.56) as more difficu l t than the simple trip Transit Information & Marketing F"feld Tut

PAGE 86

----'OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----planning task (mean = 4.12), (t(31) = 2.34, p < .05). Consistent with the difficulty ratings, observers reported more visible signs of emotion, 16 for complex, 11 for simple, with frustration being the most frequently viewed emotion. {Table 3-11, presented in a later section, contains a summary of reported emotions i n all phases of the study ) Table 3-1 Dependent Measures in Pilot Study: Comparison of Simple and Complex Tasks Measure Pilot Simple Only Pilot Complex Only N Mean St. Dov. N Mean St. Dev. Compos1a Score 17 14.29 8.18 16 1 1 94 7.34 Compos2a Score 17 17 24 9.85 16 14.10 8.87 TotTime (in mins.) 17 5.32 1.74 9 7.44 2.30 Task Difficulty Rating 17 4.12 1.79 16 5.56 1.75 . Note. Max1mum possible score for Composla Wil& 21, for Compos2a miiXlmum was 25 Maximum TotTime for simple sessions was 8 minutes, Maximum Tomme for Complex sessions was 10 minutes. Please note that scores for participants in the pilot study are higher than those for participants in the final study, suggest ing that college students and transportation professionals can generally complete these types of tasks more readily (especially the simple trip p lanni ng tasks). However, even college students and transportation professionals had considerable difficu l ty in completing the complex trip planning tasks. Additionally, college students and transportation professiona l s rated the trip planning tasks as difficult, especially the complex trip planning tasks. This finding will be discussed in greater detail in a later section. Statistical tests (t-tests and ANOVAs) were conducted on pilot study data to ident ify possible relationships between the scores received by participants, total time to complete the trip planning tasks, and perception of task difficulty and the design elements included in the study, as well as participant demographic characteristics. A t-test was conducted for timetable alignment, but was not statistically significant. A t-test also was conducted for bus route presentation, but there were no significant differences when comparing partidpants in both simple and complex sessions combined. However when anal yzing the data for pilot study participants in the simple sessions only, participants scored higher when using route materials that consisted of schedule information for single routes rather than those defined as Ali-in-One Ride Guides (all routes and system map contained within a single booklet) (t (15) = 2.05, p < .06 when using Compos1a; t (15) = 2.07, p < .06 when using Compos2a). Participants also reported h i gher task difficulty for Ali-in-One Ride Guide materials (t (15) = 2.19, p < .OS). rnfwmilfion A Harl
PAGE 87

BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Table 3-2 contains the breakdown of dependent measures by routes for the simple trip planning tasks and reveals that the average difficulty rating for the individual bus route presentation was 4 .37 versus 5.43 for Ride Guide materials. Table 3-2 Dependent Measures in Pilot Study Simple Sessions: Comparison of Route Materials Measure Single Routes Ride Guides N Mean St. Dev N Mean St.Dev. Compos1a Score 19 14.68 7.80 14 11.06 7 47 Compos2a Score 19 17.71 9 .30 14 13.02 9.11 TotTime (in mins.) 16 5 78 2.12 1 0 6.50 2.27 Task Difficulty Rating 19 4 .37 2.11 14 5.43 1.40 A t-test comparing gender differences was significant (t(31) = 2.08, p < .05), with males scoring an average of 16.08 points and females scoring an average of 10.72 points (using Compos1a). Similar patterns and results were found using Compos2a. Additionally, a t-test was conducted for total time to complete by gender, (t(24) = 3.94, p < .01), with males (mean = 7.28 minutes) taking longer to complete the trip p l anning tasks than females (mean = 5.32 m i nutes). Females also rated the task as more difficult than did mates (both sessions, simple sessions, and complex sessions), although the various t-tests were not significantly different. Table 3-3 contains the means for the var i ous dependent measures presented by gender. This finding of a general gender difference also was found in the final study, although the finding was not as strongly supported via statistical inference testing. This finding also is consisten t with research findings indicating that males process spatial information differently than females. Information also was collected related to the prevalence and content of requests for assistance Twenty-four percent of participants requested assistance while working with simple trip planning tasks, while 50 percent of participants requested assistance while working with complex tasks. Due to the small sample size of the pilot study, no ANOVAs were conducted for transfer information presentation. Ttan$/t 1tlfomr8tlon & HNUting Field Test

PAGE 88

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Table 3-3 Dependent Measures in Pilot Study: Comparison by Gender Measur& Pilot, Both Sessions Pilot, Simple Only Pilot, Complex Only Male Mean Female Male Mean Female Male Mean Female Mean Mean Mean Compos 1 a Score 16.08 (15) 10.72 (18) 16.50 (8) 12.33 (9) 15.60 (7) 9.10 (9) Compos2a Score 19.19 (15) 12 82 (18) 20.00 (9) 14 78 (9) 18.27 (7) 10.86 (9) TotTime (in mlns.) 4.62 (12) 7 .29(14) 4 18 (8) 6 33 (9) 5.50 (4) 9.00 (5) Task Difficulty 4 .27 (15) 5 .28 ( 18) 3 .38 (8) 4.78 (9) 5 29 (7) 5 78 (9) Ratln11 . Note: Number of valid cases tn parentheses Finally, pilot study participants completed ratings of specific characteristics of public bus service (convenience, comfort, personal safety, transit information, flex ibility, availability, and vehicle safety). These ratings are reported in Table 3. The highest ratings (on a 5-point scale) received were for vehicle safety (mean = 3.88) and personal safety (mean = 3.50). Consistent with the findings of the literature review presented In Chapter One, the lowest ratings received were for flexibility (mean = 2.12) and for convenience (mean = 2 35) Additionally, 41 percent of the participants reported some familiarity with the geographic areas covered in the transit information materials that they worked with in the transit trip plann ing tasks. Thirty percent of respondents also reported greater confidence in planning a future trip using public transportation, but only 12 percent reported an increased likelihood of actually using public transportation as a resu l t of their partidpation in the field test Table3-4 Specific Characteristics of Public Bus Service (Pilot Study) Charac1erlstic Mean St. Dev. Convenience 2 35 0.99 Comfort 3.23 1.15 Persona l Safety 3 .50 1.27 Transit Information 2.76 0.97 F lexibility 2 .12 0.99 Availability 2.47 1 .07 Vehicle Safety 3.88 1.22 . . .. Note: N = 17; Rating of 1 = low, 5 = htgh; No ratings avatlable for dependability.

PAGE 89

-----
PAGE 90

----
PAGE 91

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us,E----b l ack/Afr i can-American, 13 percent were of Hispanic origin, and 4 percent were of Asiatic orig i n. I n terms of persona l i ncome, 18 percent of participants reported personal incomes below $15,000 33 percent reported i ncomes between $15,00 1 and $30,000, 25 percent reported i ncomes between $30,001 and $50 000, and 25 percent reported incomes greater than $50,001 (due to rounding, cumulative percentage exceeds 100 percent). The income information received from participants i n the final study is included in T able 3-7. Participants also were asked to provide information about their educationa l background; the response rates to th i s question are included in Tab l e 3 8. One part i cipant reported having less than a High School education, 32 percent r eported having a High School diploma or GED, 43 percent reported hav i ng some co ll ege, 14 percent reported graduating from college and 11 percent reported having post-graduate experience Category White Table 3-6 Ethnicity Number 35 African American/Black 10 H i span i c 7 Asian 2 Other 1 No Response 18 Table 3-7 Household Income Category Number Below $15,000 1 3 $15,001 to $30,000 24 $30 ,001 to $50,000 18 $50,001 to $75,000 9 More than $75 000 9 Percentage 63.3 1 8.3 12.8 3.7 1.8 24. 7 Percentage 17 8 32. 9 24.7 12.3 12 3 Information also was collected from participants regarding the number of personal vehicles available for household use. As shown in Table 3-9, four percent of respondents r eported having no vehicles in the household, 30 percent reported having only one personal vehicle, 40 percent reported having two vehicles in the household, and 26 percent reported hav i ng three or lnfomuttlon a Milrlceting Field Test

PAGE 92

---___,OPERA DONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----more veh icles in the household. Forty percent of the respondents also reported that they had used public transportation within the last six months. Statistical Analysis Table 3 Education Level Category Number Less than high S<:hool 1 HS Diploma or GED 23 Some College 31 College Graduate 10 Post-Graduate 8 Percentage 1 .4 31. 5 42.5 13.7 11.0 Table 3-9 Household Personal Vehicles Number of Autos Number Percentage 0 3 4.1 1 22 30. 1 2 29 39.7 3 or more 19 26.0 As stated previously, data were gathered from 73 simple transit trip planning sessions and from 72 complex transit trip planning sessions. The same two scoring variation schemes used to calculate composite scores for the pilot study were used for the final study, with Composla having 21 total possible points and Compos2a with 25 total possible points. A series of statistical tests (t-tests and ANOVA) were performed on the composite data collected from field test participants in order to determine significant differences in the resulting scores for each transit trip planning task. The statistical tests examine possible relationships between the composite scores received by participants and the complexity and perception of difficulty of the tasks presented, the design elements included in the materials, and the demographic characteristics of participants. Overall, the scores received by participants for the transit trip planning tasks completed were quite low As shown in Table 3, the average score fOf" the simple transit trip planning

PAGE 93

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----sessions (no transf e r necessary) was 9.25 out of 21 possible points using the Compos1a scoring scheme and 1 0.70 out of 25 possible points using the weighted scoring scheme, Compos2a. These scores represent average "grades" of 44 percent (Compos1a) and 4 3 percent (Compos2a). The average scores for complex transit trip planning sessions also were very low 7.03 out of 21 possible points for Compos1a (33 percent) and 7.95 out of 25 possible points for Compos2a (32 percent). These scores i llustrate me overall difficulty encountered by participants in me final study. Almough me ave rage scores for simple and complex trip planning tasks were somewhat low, there were 25 tasks out of the 145 tota l trip planning tasks that received perfect scores ( 100 percent). Since 18 of me 25 perfect scores are associated with simple t ransit trips (no transfer required), these results suggest that participants had less difficulty w ith simple trip planning tasks than with complex trip planning tasks. The data for those trip plans that received perfect scores were reviewed in order to ide ntify any existing patterns wim regard to the transit materials involved. The 25 perfect scores were associated with 15 examples of transit info rmation materials Sixteen of the perfect scores were from transit information materials mat consistently yielded high scores from participants. The transit agencies that produced these materials are Broward County Transit, Bay Town Trolley (simple o nly), Space Coast Area Transit (simple only), Sarasota County Area Transit (express route only), SunTran, and LeeTran (complex only). These materials contain minimal information, either because the transit system is relatively small or because the trip was designed to be extremely direct without many distractions. In the successful cases of the complex trip designed for the LeeTran system, for example, the materials clearly denoted me majo r points of interest that were used as the trip origin and destination, as well as contained clearly marked transfer points. As was expected, me average scores for simple trip plann ing sessions were higher than scores for complex trip planning sessions (mean = 9.25 compared to 7.03 using COmpos1a, mean = 10.70 compared to 7.95 using COmpos2a), but this diffe rence was not found to be statistically significant (although approaching significance, wim p < .08). Sixty-six percent of the participants were able to complete the simp le transit trip plann ing sessions, and they completed 53 percent of the complex trip planning sessions. A t-test was conducted to determine whemer me order in which participants rece ived simple and complex trip planning tasks affected the resulting scores. However, this statistical test did not return significant results for the effect of presentation order on scores, suggesting that whether a participant rece ived a simple planning task or a complex planning task first did not seem to affect their final trip planning task scores. There was a significant difference in the time necessary to complete me trip planning tasks, (t(84) = 2.17), as participants completed me simple sessions in an average of 5.20 minutes and completed the complex sessions in an average of 6.74 minutes. At-test also was conducted for ratings of task difficulty, with participants reporting the complex task (average = 5.20 out of 7.00) as more difficult than me s imple task (average = 4.80 out of 7.00), but this was not Transit Infr>rrnMkm & Hllrlttltfng FIMd THI

PAGE 94

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----statistically significant. Table 3 presents the average scores and standard deviations for the dependent measures included in the final study (two scoring variations, total time to complete task, and perception of task d iffi culty). There was a significant inverse corre lation between ratings of task difficulty and composite score (r = .430, p < .01 for both Compos1a and Compos2a), indicating that partidpants who found the task difficult tended to perform more poorly. The correlations between TotTime and Compos1a and TotTime and Compos2a were not statistically significant. [Authors' Note: Correlations are located in Table F-20, in Appendix F.] Table 3 10 Dependent Measures in Final Study: Comparison of Simple and Complex Tasks Simple Planning Tasks Complex Planning Tasks Measure N Mean St.Oev. N Mean St.Oev. Compos1a Scoring 73 9.25 8.42 72 7.03 6.67 Compos2a Scoring 73 10 .70 10 20 72 7.95 7.97 TotTime (in mins.) 48 5.20 1.86 38 6.74 2.55 Task Difficulty Rating 73 4.79 1.77 72 5.19 1 .69 Note: Maxomum possible soon! for Composla = 21 points, maximum for Compos2a 25 points, maximum TotTime for simple sessions = 8 minutes, maximum Totnme for complex sessions= 10 minutes, maximum Task Difficulty score= 7. Consistent with the scoring trends for simple and complex transit trip planning tasks, there also was a noticeable trend in terms of increasing observed emotions with increased task complexity, with observers/interviewers reporting SO instances of emotion in complex sessions (with frustration most frequent, N = 16), and 37 instances of emotion in simple sessions (with laughter most frequent, N = 14). The most frequent observations of emotion reported by observers/interviewers in both the simp le and complex transit trip planning sessions were frustration (N=2S) and laughter (N=26). Observers reported a greater number of observed emotions in complex sessions, and also reported a greater proportion of frustration and irritation in the complex sessions. This finding is consistent with the quantitative and qualitative data (discussed in a later section) that indicate that participants had greater difficulty when presented with a transit trip planning task that required a transfer from one bus to another in order to reach their intended destination. Table 3 includes data on observed emotions from all phases of the study. Finally, participants required more assistance from observer/interviewers when completing complex trip planning tasks than during simple trip p lanni ng tasks, with 24 percent of participants re questing assistance during simple trip planning sessions and SO percent of partidpants requesting assistance during complex sessions.

PAGE 95

----,OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Table 3-11 Observed Emotions in All Phases of Study Prel i minary Preliminary Final Final Study Quit (One Quit (Both Observed Study Study Study (Comp lex) Session Sessions) Emotion (Simple) (Com p l ex) (Simple) F r equency Only) Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency i17l (16) (73) (72) (11) (12) F rustration 4 6 9 1 6 8 5 Irritation 2 3 4 9 4 0 Anger 0 0 0 1 0 0 Distress 0 2 3 3 0 0 Laugh t er 4 3 14 1 2 1 3 Nervousness 1 2 7 9 0 3 . Notes. 1. Number of sesstonS on parentheses 2 Observers could report multiple obs
PAGE 96

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US,E---Table 3 Dependent Measures in Final Study: Comparison by Timetable Alignment Overall Study Simple planning Complex planning tasks tasks Measur e Horizontal Vertical Horiz o nta l Vertical Horizon t a l Vertical Compos1a 8.13 (108) 8.21 (37) 8.28 (54) 12.00 ( 19) 7.97 (54) 4.20 (18) Scorinq Compo s2a 9.31 (108) 9.41 (37) 9.54 (54) 14 .00 (19) 9.07 (54) 4 .57 (18) Scoring TotTime (in 6 02 (68) 5 .35 ( 1 8) 5.29 (35) 4 98 (13) 6.80 (33) 6 .31 (5) mln s.) Task Difficulty 4 80 ( 10 8) 5 .57 (37) 4.81 (54) 4.95 (19 ) 4.85 (54) 6 .2 2 (18) Rating Note: Number of valid cases In parentheses. A t test was conducted on data from only simple trip p lannin g sessions l ooking at t ime table alignment and, although not statistically significant, did approach significance p < .1 ) Of particular note, average scores (using Compos1a and C o m pos2a) were greater for m ateria l s with hor i zonta l alignment than those with vertical alignment (12.00 compared to 8.28, and 14.00 compared to 9.54, respectively). The t-test conducted for t imetable alignment using only data collected from comp l ex trip p l anning tasks showed statistically sign i ficant differences This test indicated that scores for comp lex trip plan ning tasks were h i gher for tasks associated with transit information materia l s with horizontally-aligned t imetab les than for those with vertically aligned t ime t a bles [Using scoring var i ation Composla (21 possible points) as the dependent measure, 1 (70) = 2.13, with Q < .05, with mean scores of 7.97 (for horizontal alignment) and 4.20 (for vertical alignment).] An almost i dentical pattern was found when using scoring variation Compos2a (25 possible points) as the dependent meas ure. However, there were no mean differences when using TotTome or task diffi c ulty as the d ependent va r ia b le The next des ig n e l ement that was evaluated statistically was route information presentation This design element had two va ri ations: in dividual bus rout e schedu les with a system wide map and the All-in-Qne R ide Guide where all bus route schedules and systemw ide map a r e in cluded in a single booklet. A t-test was con d ucted to eva lu ate the impact of bus route infonmation p rese ntatio n on the dependent measures included in the field test. The results of the t test showed a significant difference when total time to comp lete the trip p l anning task {Tot'Time) was used as the depen dent measure (t (84) = 2.20, p < .OS). This resu l t in dicates that trip p l ann ing tasks that required the use of an Ali-in One Ride Guide took lo nger to complete than did tasks using individual bus route schedules When all of the trip pl anning task data were r eviewed together there were no significant d i fferences when using Compos1a, Compos2a, or Task Difficu lty as dependent measu r es suggesting that the type of route information presentation did no t hav e statistic all y significant impacts on the scores received by participants or on part icipant rat i ngs of task difficulty. However these data showed interesting trends when T,..,..lt 4 Hilrlceting Field Test

PAGE 97

BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----examining simple trip planning tasks only and comp l ex trip plann ing tasks only. Means for these variables are provided in Table 3-13. Table 3 Dependent Measures in Final Study: Comparison by Route Information Presentation Overall Study Simple planning Complex planning tasks tasks Measure Single Ride Single Ride Single Ride Routes Guides Routes Guides Routes Guides Compos1a 8 .16(82) 8.12(63) 9 .07 (30) 9 .50 (30) 7.19 (40) 6.83 (32) Compos2a 9.38 (82) 9.27 (63) 10.56 (30) 10.90 (30) 8.10 (40) 7.76 (32) TotTime 5.46 (53) 6.66 (33) 4.59 (30) 6.23 (18) 6.59 (23) 6.95 (15) Task Difficulty 4.83 (82) 5.21 (63) 4.65 (43) 5.00 (30) 5 .05 (40) 5.38 (32) . Note: Number of vahd cases In parentheses. A t-test also was conducted analyzing route presentation in simple trip planning sessions only and complex trip planning sessions only. There was a significant difference in the simple trip plann ing sessions when TotTime was used as the dependent measure and route presentation was the independent variable, (t (46) = 3.26, p < .01). As with the statistical analysis of route presentation using all of the data collected from participants, the analysis of simple trip planning data indicated that completing the simple trip planning tasks took longer using Ride Guides than simple trip p lanning tasks using indivi dual bus route schedules. The t-test for route presentation in terms of complex trip planning sessions only was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences when using Composla, Compos2a, or Task Difficulty as dependent measures, again indicating that the form of route presentation used in the materials did not have statistically significant impacts on the scores received by participants or on ratings of task difficulty. However, although there were no statistically significant differences evident when using Composla and Compos2a as dependent measures, interesting trends were observed in terms of the scores received for simple and complex trip planning tasks In relation to type of route presentat ion Specifically, there was a trend with higher scores received for trip planning tasks completed using Ride Guides for the simple trip planning tasks, while complex trip planning tasks completed using individual bus route schedules received higher scores. The means for these variables are included in Table 3-13. The final design element that was evaluated in the final study was the method of transfer information presentation. This e.lement had five possible variations: transfer information listed on map and on timetable, listed on map only, listed on timetab le only, not listed anywhere, and listed elsewhere. An ANOVA procedure was used to test for mean differences for the transfer info rmat ion independent variable. The only significant differences found occurred when

PAGE 98

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----examining scores received in complex trip planning sessions {Composla and Compos2a) as dependent measures, and transfers as the independent measure, {F {4,67)= 3.38, p < .OS) for Composla. There were nearly identical results when using Compos2a as the dependent measure, {F {4,67)= 3.40, p < .05). These results indicate that the highest scores were obtained by participants using materials in transfer category S {transfer information listed elsewhere, mean = 18.20 and 21.56, respectively), while the lowest scores were obtained by participants using materials in category 1 {transfer inf ormation listed on map and on t ime table, mean = LOS and 1.10, respectively). Both of these categories were represented by transit information materials from only one transit system. The high scores associated with category S were obtained using transit information from LeeTran. As described previously, the complex trip designed for LeeTran materials involved an origin and a destination that are clearly marked points of interest on the system map and transfer points are distinctively noted on the system map, as well. The low scores associated with category 1 were obtained using transit informa t ion from JTA. ITA's systemwide map was particularly difficult for participants to use as all bus routes were marked on a county road map in the same color, making it very difficult to determine the route names o r where one route ends and another begins. Participants using materials from other transfer categories averaged scores of 7 .66, 6.69, and S.2S {categories 2, 3, and 4, respectively). The ANOVA conducted using Task Difficulty as the dependent measure also was statistically significant, (F {4,67)= 2.50, p < .OS). These results indicate that participants who used transit information materials from transfer category 1 rated the task "extremely difficult" {7 .00 out of 7 .00), while those using transit information materials from category 5 rated the task "somewhat easy" (3.00 out of 7.00). Means for the dependent measures, by transfer information presentation, are found below in Table 3-14. Table 3-14 Dependent Measures In Final Study: Comparison by Transfer Information Presentation -Complex Sessions Transfer Information Category Measure On Map& On Map OnTT Not listed Listed onTT onlv onlv Elsewhere Compos1a 1.05 (2) 7.66 (34) 6.6B(11) 5.25 (22) 1B.20 (3) a Compos2a 1.10(2) B.60 (34) 7.6B (11) 5.85 (22) 21.56 (3) (In mlns. DNC 7.02 (19) 5.20 (4) 6.82 (12) 6.67 (3) Task Difficulty 7 (2) 5.35 (34) 5.64 (11) 4.86 (22) 3.00 (3) Rating . No-: 1. Number of valid cases in parentheses. 2. DNC stands for did not complete

PAGE 99

----,OPERATIO NAL B ARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS T O TRANSIT USE-----Statistical tests a lso were conducted to test for mean differences for the follow i ng independent demographic variab les: gender, age, ethnicity, education level, persona l i ncome, and persona l veh icles available for use Tt ests compa r ing gende r differences were not significant ; howeve r patterns of ave rage r esults sim il a r t o those found in the pilot study were present. S i milar to pilot study findings, men ten d ed to sco r e h i gher and take longer to comp l ete the tri p planni n g tasks (espec i ally in the comp lex planning tasks) than d i d women. The means for scores total time to complete tasks, and t ask d i fficulty, by gender, are located in Table 3 15 T a bl e 35 Dependent M eas u res i n Fin a l S t u d y: Co m pa r ison by G e nder Simpl e planning t asks Comple x planning task s Measure Male Fema le Male Female Mean Mean Mean Mea n Compos1a Sco ring 9 .57 (42) 9.1 0 (30) 8.25(41) 5 .60 (30) Compos2a Scoring 11 .10 (42) 10.5 (30 ) 9.38 (41) 6.27 (30) TotTime (in mins.) 5.02 (25) 5.40 (23) 7 .33 (25) 5 .59 ( 13) Task Difficulty Rat i n g 4.98 (42) 4 .60 (30) 5 12 (41) 5.30 (30) . Note. Nu mbe r o f v ahd ca ses an parenttl e ses. Analysis of Variance procedures used to test mean differences for age, ethnic ity, education l e v el, and persona l income did not r evea l stat i stically significant d i fferences However, Tab l es 3 -16 and 3 1 7 provide mean comparisons for the dependent measures, by inc ome level and edu c ati o n level. No o b vious tren d s are evident in terms of scores, total tim e to comp l ete the tasks, or perception of t ask difficulty.

PAGE 100

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS S. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Table 3-16 Dependent Measures in Study: Comparison by Income Level Personal I ncome Simple Pla nnin Tasks Complex Plannln Tasks $15k$30k-$50k$75k $15 k $ 30k -$50kMe asure >$15k 29,999 49 ,999 74,999 or >$15k 29,999 49,999 74,999 more Compos1a 7 .85 9.63 8.17 10.3 3 11.33 4. 8 8.31 5.93 6 .53 Scoring (13) (24) (18) (9) (9) (13) (24) (17) (9) Compos2a 8.92 11.21 9.39 12.11 13.11 5.54 9.34 6 .66 7.51 Scoring (13) (24) (18) (9) (9) ( 13) (24) (17) (9) TotTime 4.72 5.67 5.33 4 .69 5.47 5.68 8.13 5 .7 9 6.86 (In mlns. ) (11) (11) (14) (6) (6) (8) (11) (10) (3) Task 4 .69 4.83 4.72 4.89 5.33 5.31 4.92 4.82 6.33 D ifficulty (13) (24) (18) (9) (9) (13) (24) (17) (9) Rating . Note: Numbe of vahd cases on pa"'ntheSeS Table 3-17 Dependent Measures in Final Study: Comparison by Education Level Measure Difficulty 3 ( 1 ) Note: of Simple Planning Tasks 4.87 (23) Education Level 2 ( 1 ) Complex Planning T asks 5.13 (31) 5.44 (9) $75k or more 9.33 (9) 10,62 (9) 7.10 (6) 5.33 (9) The Analys i s of Variance procedure that was conducted for personal veh i cles available fo r use was statistically significant. Using total time to complete the trip planning tasks (Totlime) as the dependent varia b le, there were mean diffe r ences between the levels of personal vehicles, (F (3, 82) = 2 78, p < .OS). Post hoc analyses revealed that partici pants with zero veh icles available for use scored the lowest but tool< the l east time to complete the t rip planning tasks. Using Composla and Compos2a as dependent measures, the ANOVAs were not statistically significant, but approached significance (p < .08 and p <. 09, respectively). There also was a s i gnificant difference in ratings of task difficulty, (F (3, 141) = 3.26 p < .OS). This result Tl1mllt lnfomultlon a MMirding Test

PAGE 101

-----
PAGE 102

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Participants also were asked to indicate their degree of familiarity with the geographic areas presented to them with their trip planning tasks in order to identify whether prior knowledge of the geographic area would have a positive impact on ability to plan the transit trip. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported some familiarity with the cities for which the materials pertained, but scores did not appear to be positively impacted by that knowledge. Fifty-three percent of participants repo rted greater confidence in planning a future trip on public transit as a result of their participation in the transit information and marketing field test. However, only 37 percent of participants reported an increased likelihood of actua lly using public transportation in the future. Participants Who Quit One o r Both Tasks or Were Unable to Complete in Allotted Time Data collected from participants who quit either one or both of their trip planning tasks, as well as those who were unable to complete the trip planning tasks within the allotted time (8 m in utes for simple trip planning tasks and 10 minutes for complex trip planning tasks) also were examined for any observable trends. Visual perusal of the demographic data, as well as use of nonparametric data analyses (Chi Square Test of lndependence) did not reveal significant differences between these different classifications of participants. However, the demographic data for these participants are included in Appendix F, Tables F-1 and F-31. There are no data regarding tfle dependent measures from participants who quit one or both sessions. However, there are data for task d ifficulty, and for ratings of specific characteristics of public bus service. Means for these variables are reported in Table 3-20. It does appear tflat participants who quit both sessions had lower ratings of tfle characteristics of bus service, and viewed the task as being slightly more difficult than those who completed the trip planning tasks.

PAGE 103

-----
PAGE 104

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Table 3-21 Materials that Participants Were Unable to Successfully Complete Preliminary S impl e Complex Quit One Quit Botfl Materials Study Session Session Sess ion Sessions Frequency Frequency Frequency O nly Frequency (Al l Comp lex}_ (All simple} (All Complex} Frequency BCT-2 1 0 2 0 0 BTT-29 1 0 2 0 1-$, 1 C ECT-7 0 1 2 1S 0 HRT 2 0 2 1 1-C 1-C JTA-1 1 2 2 1S 1C LMT 0 1 0 0 0 L NX-4 0 0 1 1-C 0 LNX14 1 3 2 1 C 0 LT5 0 0 0 0 1-C MCT-13 1 1 1 0 0 MDT-4 1 1 1 0 0 PST-2 0 2 1 0 1-$ RTS 13 0 2 2 0 1-C SCAT-28 1 1 4 2 C 1-S SCT-17 0 2 3 0 1S SUN-12 0 1 1 0 0 TLT12 0 1 3 2 C 0 VOT-17 0 4 2 1-S 0 VOT-19 0 1 3 1 C 1-$ . Notes: 1. Partldpants were able to CJOmplete allses5oons for 4 materoals. 2. In column 5 and 6, 5 Simple and C Complex. 7171nsit InfrH'mation II Hill'kefing Field Test

PAGE 105

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E----Results: Qualitative Analysis of Participant Interviews Following the completion of each transit trip planning task, participants also were interviewed regarding their perception of the tasks and the transit information materials presented as part of the transit information and marketing field test. The analysis of transit trip planning scores presented in the previous section represented the results from 145 of the 160 attempted trip planning tasks, due to the removal of data for those participants who quit one or both trip planning tasks and/or clearly did not attempt to complete the tasks presented. However, the qualitative data presented in this section represents the comments received from all field test trip planning tasks, regardless of whether the participants completed the tasks or quit prior to completion. The comments received from participants provide insight into the potential difficulties encountered by non-users of transit when attempting to use printed transit information materials to plan trips on the public bus. In addition, participants provided feedback on the aspects and qualities of the materials that they found helpful and/or user friendly. Further, consideration of participant interview responses in concert with the quantitative findings presented in the previous section raises a number of interesting questions related to apparent disconnects between participants' perceptions of ability and actual trip planning results. The trip planning score results presented in the previous section reveal that most of the field test participants found the transit trip planning tasks to be rather complex undertakings. The comments received from participants support this finding and suggest possible conclusions as to the aspects of transit trip planning that are most confusing for non users, as well as aspects of transit informat i on material design that assist non-users in the complex task of planning a transit trip. The discussion of the participant interview comments is provided in the following sections: Participant Reactions to Transit Trip Planning, Difficulties Encountered Using Transit Information Materials, and Perceptions of Useful Design Elements. Participant Reactions to Transit Trip Planning Immediately following each transit trip planning task, participants were asked about how they would feel if they were planning to take an actual bus trip using the materia l s presented to them in the trip planning task. The responses shared by participants revealed a wide range of emotional and cognitive reactions to the trip planning task. It is important to note that the focus of the transit informat ion and marketing field test was on the non-user in order to evaluate the effectiveness of existing printed transit information materials when used by individuals with little to no previous experience with public transportation to plan trips on public bus service. The responses received indicate that the transit trip planning experience is often a complex one that may result in anxiety and frustration. Transit Informlttion A Hmtetlng '*111 Tut

PAGE 106

-----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----T ransit Trip Planning The Frustration Factor More than half (57 percent) of the responses received from field test participants related to how they would feel i f the had to use the transit information materials presented to plan an actual trip on the bus were negative. These comments indicate that the trip planning tasks left most participants feeling quite anxious. Many participants expressed that the transit trip planning tasks were difficult, even with extensive instruction provided by the observer/interviewers. Participants described feeling frustrated, irritated and confused as a result of the trip planning tasks that they were asked to complete. Taken together, there were over 100 separate comments made related to the printed transit materials being confusing, difficult to understand, or just plain frustrating. One participant was so upset following the trip planning task that they felt compelled to exclaim that they "would want to kill somebody." Although it is unlikely that this participant would actually resort to violence in response to using transit information materials, the comment does express the high level of anxiety that many participants felt and expressed to observers/interviewers. Another common sentiment ex pressed by respondents was a lack of confidence related to both using the transit information materials to plan a trip on the public bus and actually using public bus service. This lack of confidence often was expressed as fear and apprehension about the possibility of becoming "lost" while trying to use the bus service. Perhaps the most distressing, yet commonly expressed, sentiments from participants were related to feelings of Inadequacy and/or stupidity because they were unable to complete the trip planning tasks presented. These comments highlight the important, as well as challenging, role that well-designed, user-friendly transit Information materials may play in attracting and retain ing new transit users. Many participant comments were related to the amount of time that would be required to figure out how to use the transit information materials with a degree of confidence. Many participants indicated that a large amount of time would be required to figure out how to correctly use the materials. In addition, these participants expressed that a great deal of planning would be required prior to actually trying to use public bus service. These comments suggest that, for many participants, the printed materials used in the transit information and marketing field test do not exhibit a high degree of user-friendliness and simplicity of use. The comments received from several participants suggest that some non-users would need to supplement the information in printed transit materials with more personal and direct forms of assistance. Ten respondents indicated that, if faced with the prospect of using the transit informatio n materials to plan an actual trip on the public bus, they would need to seek additional help to plan their trip. These respondents described that they would feel more comfortable making the trip by bus if they were able to call the transit system for route and schedule informat ion, ask another bus rider, or request assistance from the bus operator.

PAGE 107

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----At least 20 of the field test participants were so flustered by the transit trip planning experience that they indicated they wou l d not even try to make the bus trip if they had to use only the transit information materia ls presented to them. The responses received from these participants suggest that the task of p lanning a transit trip using only the printed materials presented pose so great a challenge, that it discourages ind ividua ls from trying out public bus service This finding may suggest a formidable obstacle to attracting potential customers to transit service. Positive Responses to Transit Trip Planning Although the majority of comments regarding how participants would feel if they were using the transit information material.s presented to them to plan an actual trip on the public bus indicated unease and discomfort, many affirmative responses also were offered to observers/interviewers. Thirty-six percent of the comments received exhibit a moderate degree of confidence re lated to both using transit information materia ls to plan bus trips, as well as using public bus service. These participants expressed that they felt somewhat confident that they would be able to plan and complete the transit trip. From the perspective of these participants, the transit trip planning tasks did not pose too great of a challenge for them and did not appear to cause unease in terms of the prospect of actually using public bus service. Although several of the participants who expressed confidence regar ding transit trip planning also received high scores on one or both of their trip planning tasks (between 75 and 100 percent}, the majority of these respondents received scores lower than 50 percent, and several actually received either zero points fo r their trip planning tasks or quit the trip planning task prior to completion. The prevalence of low scores suggests that many of these participants did not fully understand the task that was presented to them and, therefo re, did not realize that they had performed poorly on the trip plann ing tasks. Alternatively, the participants may have desired to "please" the observers/interviewers by providing affirmative responses to the questions presente d to them. In either scenario, if an individual attempts to use transit service without a clear understanding of when and whe re buses travel, there is the risk that they will arrive at their destination late ge t lost, or worse. The likelihood would then be slight that such an in dividua l would be enthusiastic about continuing to use transit. Difficulties Encountered Using Transit Information Materials One of the primary objectives of the transit information and marketing field t est was to identify elements of the transit trip planning experience that pose a challenge to non-users. As such, the research team was very interested in participant perceptions re lated to the type and degree of difficulties encountered during comp le tion of the trip planning tasks. Therefore, field test participants also were queried about what they perceived to be the most difficult or least understandable part of using the transit information materials. A review of these data reveals

PAGE 108

---__,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---that participants felt that a lac k of overall knowledge of transit and/or the geographic area presented to them posed an almost insurmountable challenge. In addition, participants expressed difficulties pertaining to the overall layout of some transit information materials, using systemwide and in dividua l bus route maps, u nderstanding timetables, and making transfers in order to compl ete their bus trip. These comments are addressed in the sections that follow Overall Understanding of Transit The transit information and marketing field test was designed to simulate the experience of eit her non-users of transit or individuals unfami liar with a geographic area who would like to access available public transit services. For these reasons, individua l s were recruited who did not have extensive experience with public bus service prior to the field test. Additionally, transit i nfo rmation materials were used from a wide variety of transit systems such that most of the participants rece ived trip p l anning tasks from unfamiliar transit service areas. Extensive instruction was provided to each participant related to how to use the transit information materials to identify origins and desti nat ions, bus routes, time points, and schedule times, as well as how to complete the trip planning tasks presented to them. Despite the Instruction provided to participants, many respondents indicated tha t they felt they did not have enough knowledge of how to navigate transit services and/or knowledge of the geographic area covered in the printed transit information materials presented to be able to successfully complete the transit trip planning tasks When asked to indicate the most difficult and/or least understandable part of using the materials provided in the trip planning tasks, several participants responded that a lack of know led ge regarding how bus service functions made understand ing the materials and task more difficult. Several participants also reported that lack of knowledge about the area represented on the printed transit information materials also limited their ability to understand the materials and/or complete the exercises to their satisfaction. Additional comments received related to l imited understanding of transit service and/or the geographic area presented to participants include difficulty locating a bus stop near the intended destination and confusion whether times listed in the timetables referred to arrival or departure times. It is quite Interesting to note that three of the participants who cited a lack of knowledge as the most d ifficult aspect of using the transit informat ion materials received perfect scores on their completed trip planning tasks. The remainder of the respondents who offered this type of comment related to difficulties encountered received scores between 0 and 57 percent. Such responses might be expected from respondents in a sample consisting largely of transit non users. However, participants were told at the outset that the research team was most interested in administering the trip planning tasks to non-users. For the most part, such responses appear to provide an explanation for the apparent inability to complete the exercises,

PAGE 109

----OPERATlONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----as exhibited by these respondents' scores. The fact that three respondents who gave these types of comments were ab l e to successfully complete the trip planning tasks suggests that there may have been some apprehension on the part of respondents regarding the inability to make sense of the materials to their own satisfaction. A majority of the participant responses rece i ved in relation to the least understandable and/or most difficult aspects of the trip planning tasks pertained to the layout and use of the transit information mate rials Many of these comments also appear re l ated to a lac k of overall understanding regarding the funct ioning of public transit. These comments are discussed in the following sections. Layout of Materials In 24 speci fic instances, respondents reported that the general layout of the transit information mater i a l s presented was the most difficult and/or least understandable part of using them to complete the assigned tasks. Further, more than 15 additional general comments were received by participants related to difficu l ties encountered with the overall layout of materials These comment ranged from emphasizing the respon dents' difficulty in making overall sense of the mater ials to the very specific critique of the e l ements included in the printed transit materials. In particular, severa l respondents who were asked to complete trip planning tasks using the Ride Guide developed for the LYNX transit system in Orlando reported difficulties reading the system map provided in the LYNX R ide Guide. A common sentiment expressed by participants who received these materials was that the print used on both the system map and on individual bus route maps and timetables was much too small. Another common complaint related to these materials was that the system map is spread across nin e separate pages, requiring users to flip through several pages in order to link origins with destinat ions. These combined factors made it particularly difficult for respondents to follow route lines and to identify potential bus stops and/or landmarks. Another sentiment commonly exp ressed by participants related to the general layout of transit materials pertained to placement of route maps and timetables. Several respondents expressed dissatisfaction with materia l s that place maps and timetables on opposite s i des of the materials These participants did not like having to flip a map back and forth In order to see the timetable associated with a particular bus route. These materials appeared to increase the l eve l of frustration associated with the transit trip plann i ng tasks Additional comments related to specific design elements of transit information materials are discussed in the sections that follow. Trans;, 1nfr>nn;Jtk>n & Field Tm

PAGE 110

---__,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US,E----Using System Maps and Individual Route Maps The systemwide bus route maps and ind ivid ual bus route maps also were cited as problematic for many fie l d test participants. In 43 specific instances, respondents indicated that they had some difficulty us in g system maps and/or individual bus route maps. There were an additional 15 negative comments related to system maps and/or individual route maps offered in response to questioning regarding the participants general impressions of the trans i t information materials. Many of these responses emphasized respon dent difficulty in identifying bus routes on the systemwide route map. Participants reported particular difficulties using systemwide route maps that did not differentiate individual bus routes effectively. For example, the systemwide map included in the TaiTran Ride Guide employs the same co lo r for many adjacent routes. This made it very difficult for participants to determine the correct bus route needed to oomplete their trip, as well as where one route tenninates and another begins. This problem also was cited in relation to the extensive MDT bus route network wherein participants had a difficult time determining were one route terminated and another began. A simil ar problem was cited consistently in relation to the map of ITA's bus network. This map, essentially a county road map with overlain bus routes, was particularly difficult to use to identify bus route numbers, time points, and other points of interest because the same color was used to outline all of the bus routes In fact, none of the participants who received trip p lan ning tasks associated with the JTA bus system were able to complete the trip planning tasks in the allotted time and these trip planning tasks received the lowest average scores in the transit trip planning field test, both clear indications of the difficulties inherent in using these materials to plan transit trips. Another 15 comments emphasize respondent difficu l ty in identifying the origin and destination points outlined within the transit trip planning tasks. Respondents often reported being unable to find the exact point of origin or destination on the system map. This was especially the case with respondents who were asked to oomplete exercises involving l arger and more complex transit systems, such as the JTA or MDT system. Such responses particularly were notable because the research team provided markers identifying the origin and destination points for trips on all such system maps to avo i d undue respondent confusion or difficulty. Despite the presence of markers identifying the exact location of both origin and destination points, respondents still had difficulty discerning the appropriate bus stops necessary for the completion of transit trip p lann ing tasks. This suggests that the difficulties experienced by these participants actually were related to identifying the bus stops (time points) nearest to the origins and destinations associated with the trip planning tasks. Five responses indicate that respondents had specific difficulty with in divi dual bus route maps. While most of these responses were quite general, one comment specifically iden tified i nconsistencies between the system map and re l ated route maps. This participant reported

PAGE 111

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:E----being unable to find points of interest on the individual bus route maps that had been identified on the systemwide route map. These types of inconsistencies may make transit trip planning more difficult for non-users by eliminating important visual and spatial cues necessary to coordinate informa tion from systemwide route maps to the informat ion provided on route specific maps and schedules. Using limetables Many participants identified timetables as the most problematic aspect of the trip planning tasks. There were 27 specific references to problems with timetables and many more indirect comments pointing to timetable challenges. Overall, these responses suggest a lack of comprehension on the part of respondents with regard to in terpretation of departure/arrival times and their relationship to particular bus stops. Many participants comp lained that they were unclear as to whether the t imes listed in timetables referred to arrival or departure time, another indication of a lack of overall understanding of how transit services operate. As one of these respondents put i t, the most difficult part of the exercise was fi guring "whether the numbers on [ the] timetable mean anything or not." Perhaps the most interesting, and problematic, response with regard to timetables came from a respondent who identified her own lack of comprehension as the problem, rather than the timetables themselves: "[This Is] not difficult. It's difficult for me to work the times out." Such a response, although a singular one, is interesting because it highlights the potential for "test taking anxiety," or that the respondent's state of mind during an exercise may affect the overall completion resu lts Such expressions of self-directed frustration were not uncommon during this research respondents in a number of areas related feeling inadequate, uneducated, or even dumb when attempting to expla in difficulties experienced during the exercise. This finding is cause for particular concern, as i t is unlikely that, given a choice, individuals new to transit service would re ma in interested in using any service that makes them feel inadequate or unintelligent. Another 14 responses specifically emphasized participant difficulty i n identifying bus stops (time points) and/or important points of inte rest while completing the assigned trip planning tasks. Half of these comments focus on the respondents' inability to identify what constituted a bus stop specifically, therefore making it difficult for them to know whether the stop(s) they had identified in the e xercise were close enough to the assigned destination point. Six additional comments received stress the respondents' difficulty in identifying points of interest that might have helped them find the appropriate bus route or bus stop for successful completion of the trip planning tasks. Such responses provide some indication that responden ts did not fu lly understand how to coordinate the use of timetables and the various maps in order to identify the time points that served as bus stops along a bus route. It should be emphasized that the verbal and written instruction s provided to the participants provided explanation that time

PAGE 112

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----points on the timetables represented bus stops along the bus routes and directed participants to choose the time point closest to the intended origin and destination It is surprising that comments related to timeta b le difficu lties were not more prevalent. Review of the transit trip planning wor1
PAGE 113

-----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----the trip planning task(s). These comments are i ntriguing considering the prevalence of low scores on the trip plann ing tasks indi c ating that most participants likely had some difficulty using the materials and/or completing the transit trip planning tasks assigned. The scores received were identified for each instance that this type of comment was received in order to determine whether any patterns related to the transit information materials associated with the comments and scores received. Although participants reported no difficulties in 17 specific instances, there were only four instances of scores of 100 percent for completed bip planning tasks. Another four participants received scores between 60 and 80 percent for the tasks that they reported no difficulties in completing. However, the other scores associated with the trip planning tasks for which participants reported no difficulties suggest a contrad i ctory conclusion. In two of the instances wherein participants reported no difficulties associated with using the materials or completing the bip planning tasks, the participants actually quit the exercise prior to completion. In another i nstance, the participant received zero points for the completed trip planning task. The remaining s i x respondents received combined scores of less than 45 percent for their completed trip planning tasks. Perceptions of Useful Design Elements: What Wor*ed In addition to collecting information about the emotional reactions of participants related to using the transit information mater ials and the difficulties they encountered while completing the trip planning tasks, data were obtained related to positive participant responses to the exercises and/or transit i nformation materials. Participants were asked to identify the least difficult and/or most understandab l e part of using the transit information materials to complete transit tri p p l anning tasks The comments received from participants in response to thi s question ar e not as varied as the responses to the questions discussed previously The discussion that follows will illustrate that the design elements and/or aspects of the transit i nformation materials tha t field test participants found to be the most useful include using the systemwide bus route map and/or individual bus route maps, information related to points of interest and/or the map legend using timetables, and the sentiment that nothing about the materials was easy to understand. Bus Route Identification: Using System Maos and Route Maps The overwhelming majority of comments received from participants regarding the least difficult or most understandable aspect of using the transit information materials pertained to the identification of bus routes. There were 61 instances wherein participants reported having the least difficu lty when working with systemw i de route maps and individual route maps These participants reported having little difficulty identify ing the bus route(s) needed in order to plan the transit trip assigned in the exercise. However, as described previously participants had greater difficu l ty when attempting to use timetables to identify bus stops, schedule times, and Tr11Mit In-& Marketing FH1/d Test

PAGE 114

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----transfer points. Review of the transit trip plans completed by participants provides supporting evidence that participants were generally successful at identifying bus routes. In most cases, participants were able to determine the bus route(s) required to complete transit trip planning tasks, especially the simple tasks. However, participants were much more likely to encounter difficulties when trying to determine when and where to catch the identified bus. Although many of the affirmative comments related to using route maps state a general sense of satisfaction with the ease of bus route identification, several respondents emphasized the use of contrasting colors to designate and differentiate bus routes within system maps as a significant asset toward exercise completion. These comments point to a p reference for the color coding of bus routes such that individua l routes are able to be differentiated from one another, as well as where individual routes begin and end. It is clear from the comments received from participants that ind iv iduals prefer the use of well-defined color contrasts in the design of route maps. As described previously, a greater degree of difficulty was associated with systemwide route maps wherein bus routes were drawn with a single color {JTA) or not clearly differentiated (TaiTran). Points of Interest and the Map beQend Several participants also cited information provided about points of Interest and Information provided in map legends on how to interpret route maps as the most understandable aspects of using the transit information materials. In particular, these participants appreciated information about the bus routes that serve points of int erest This information helped the participants to complete the assigned trip planning tasks. In addition, some participants cited the legends associated with systemwide route maps and individual bus route maps as the most understandable part of using the materials. Legends with clear and concise information and symbols denoting time points, transfer points, and points of interest were particularly helpful to participants. Using Timetables Interestingly, there were 21 instances of participants citing timetables as the least difficult or most understandable aspect of using the transit information materials. Most of the comments regarding timetables are very general in content. However, several participants reported that the listing of arrival and departure times on timetables was helpful in completing the trip planning tasks. These comments again suggest that some participants lacked general knowledge of public transit in the United States, despite the instruction provided to partic ipants related to public bus service and use of timetables and route maps. The affirmative comments regarding the timetables presented to participants are also surprising in relation to observations made by observers/interviewers, as well as review of the trip planning wor1
PAGE 115

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE------participants. The observers/interviewers noted many instances wherein participants had apparent trouble interpreting timetables in order to identify time points and schedule times for particular bus routes, but then cited timetables as the least difficult or most understandable aspect of the trip planning exercise nonetheless. Similarly a review of the trip planning worksheets completed by participants indicates that, while most participants were able to successfully ident ify the bus route(s) necessary, participants were much less successful when attempting to choose the closest timepoint and schedule time to complete the assigned trip. Nothing Was Understandable or Easy Finally, there were 14 instances of participants commenting that there was nothing about using the transit information materials that was understandable or easy. Eight of these comments were received in rela tio n to the transit information materials used by three Florida transit systems: JTA, VOTRAN, and lYNX (Ride Guide). Field test participa nts consistently experienced frustration when using these materials and had difficulty comp le ting the assigned trip planning tasks. Prior to the field test, the CUTR nesearch team also id entified these transit information materials as among those that were expected to be the most difficult to use. Transit Info.nnation & Harlceti"SS Field Test

PAGE 116

----
PAGE 117

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8r. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---- The average score for complex transit trip planning tasks was 11.g4 points out of 21 possible points (57 percent), or 14.10 points out of 25 possible points (56 percent). Participants completed all simple trip plans, but completed only 56 percent of complex trip planning tasks. Total t ime to comp lete simple tasks showed statistically significant differences from total time to complete complex tasks 5.32 minutes versus 7.44 minutes. Simple trip planning tasks received an average difficulty rating of 4.12 out of 7. Complex trip planning tasks received an average difficulty r ating of 5.56 out of 7 Frustration was the most frequently reported visible sign of emotion, along with irritation and laughter. Participants received higher scores on simple trip planning tasks when using route information from individual route maps than when using All-in-One Ride Guides. Participants reported higher task difficulty for AllIn-One Ride Guide materials than for mate ria l s consisting of ind ividua l route schedules and a systemwide route map. Score comparisons by gender revealed statistically significant differences with males receiving higher scores than females. Males took longer to complete the trip p lann ing tasks than did females, but received higher scores than did females. The transit information and marketing field test fina l study initially included 80 participants who were r ecruited from four shopping malls. Each participant was asked to complete a simple and a complex transit trip p la n. However, the final data set analyzed included 73 completed simple trip planning sessions and 72 completed complex trip planning sessions due to the removal of data from individuals who quit one or more trip planning task p rio r to completion. Two scoring variations (with and without the weighting of some variables) were used to calculate composite scores for the transit trip plans completed by participants. A series of statistical tests were perfonned on the composite data collected from the participants of the final study in order to id entify any statistically significant differences in the result ing scores. The statist ica l tests examined possible relationships between the scores received by participants and the complexity and perception of difficulty of the trip planning tasks, the design elements contained in the materi als and the demographic characteristics of participants. The major findings from the final study statistical analyses are summarized below. A total of 145 completed trip planning tasks were considered in the final study quantitative analysis (73 simp le trip plans and 72 comp lex t rip plans) Twenty-one percent of participants reported some familiarity with the geographic areas presented in the trip planning tasks, but their scores did not appear to be positively impacted by that knowledge. Overall, participant scores for both simple and complex trip planning tasks were very low, with average "grades" of 44 percent and 33 percent, respectively Transit lnformlltion & MM*eting THt

PAGE 118

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---- The average score for s i mple transit trip planning tasks was 9.25 points out of 21 possi ble points, or 10.70 points out of 25 possib l e points. The average score for complex transit trip planning tasks was 7.03 points out of 21 possibl e points, or 7. 95 points out of 25 possible points. Sixty-six pe r cent o f participants were able to complete the s i mp l e transit trip planning tasks. Fifty-three percent of participants were able to complete the complex transit trip planning tasks. Partidpants found the complex trip planning tasks to be more d i fficult (5.2 out of 7} than simple trip planning tasks (4.8 out of 7). Participants who found the trip planning tasks to be difficult tended to perform more poor l y than those who did not. There was a greater amount of observed emotion in complex trip planning sessions than i n simple tri p p l anning sessions, as well as a greater proportio n o f frustration and i rritation. Participants required more assi stance when completing complex trip p l anning tasks than when completing simple trip planning tasks. Average scores for both s i mple and comp l ex trip planning tasks were higher for materia l s with horizontally-aligned timetables tha n for materials with vertically-aligned timetables. Trip planning tasks us i ng Ride Guides took longer to complete than those using individual bus route schedu les. Higher scores were associated with simple trip planning tasks that were completed using Ride Guides than those completed using individual bus route schedules Higher score were associated with complex trip planning tasks completed using individual bus route schedules than those completed using Ride Guides Participants using transit materials from Category 5 of the transfer information presentation category (transfer information listed e l sewhere LeeTran only) to complete complex trip planning tasks received the highest scores. Participants using transit materials from category 1 of the transfer Information presentation category (transfer information listed on map and on timetable JTA only) to complete complex trip planning tasks received the lowest scores. Males tended to score higher and take longer to complete the trip planning tasks than did females. Participants with zero personal vehides took the least amount of time to complete trip planning tasks but rated the task as difficult" and received the lowest scores.

PAGE 119

-----
PAGE 120

---O PERATIO NA L B ARRIERS 8r. I MPEDI M E N TS TO TRANSIT USE---- Despite the extensive instructions provided to participants, severa l responded that a l ack of knowledge reg a rding how bus service operates and /or about the geog raphic area represented on the printed materials made understanding the materials and trip planning tasks more d ifficult. The r e were 39 i nstances of participants reporting difficulties related to the general layout of the printed trans i t i nformation materials. The LYNX schedule book was commonly criticized for its small print and placement of the s ystemwide route map across nine separat e pages. Many participants expressed dissatisfa ction with materials that p lace the system map on the opposite side from timetables thus increasing user frustration by requiring u sers to flip back and forth. Afty-elght negative comments were made In re l ation to difficu l t ies encountered u sing system maps and individual bus route map s In part i cu lar, part i cipants reported difficulties using systemw i de bus route maps that did not differen tiate in d ividual bus routes effectively (e.g., TafTran, JTA, and MDT). Despite the presence of markers identifying the location of trip origins and destinations respondents still reported d i fficulties related to discerning the appropriate bus stops, suggesting that these parti cipants actually had problems identifying the time points nearest to the trip orig in s and destinations. Inconsistencies between systemwid e route maps and indivi dua l bus route maps a l so w ere cited as problematic for partic ipants There were 41 specific, as well as many indirect, refererices to difficult ies associated with u s ing and interpreting tim etab les. Many of the difficulties asso ciated with using and interpreting timetables were related to Identifying bus stops (time points) and/or Important po i nts of interest. Comments received regarding d i fficulties identi fying bus stops and points of interest suggest that many part ici pants did not understand how to coordinate the use o f t im etables and the various m aps in order t o iden t ify the time points that served as bus stops, despite verba l and written instructions provided to participants. Review of the transit trip plan ning worksheets and observations made during the field test confi rm that p arti cipants had a g r eat deal of difficulty us ing timetables to identify the nearest bus stop and optima l times to catch the bus on the selected route. The scores received by parti c ipants, along with observations mad e by observer/ interviewers, ind icate that participants e xperienced difficu l ties when attempting to plan transit trips that required a transfer from one bus route to another. Approximately 20 participants a lso cited the logistics involved in transferring, suc h as identi fying transfer points and times a s the most difficult or least understandabl e aspect of using the printed transit in formation materia l s to com plete the trip planning tasks. Seventeen partic ipants cited no difficult ies associated with using the printed materials or completing the trip plannin g tasks. However, mo r e than half of these participants either

PAGE 121

----
PAGE 122

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Recommendations: Making Transit Information Materials More User-Friendly The transit information and marketing field test was designed to collect preliminary data on the level of transit literacy that non-users may have when attempting to using printed transit information materials, such as route maps and schedules, to plan trips on pub lic transit. As such, transit literacy is being defined as the ability to use existing transit information to make concrete travel plans on public transit, even with little to no prior experience with public transit. Therefore, the focus of the field test was on determining whether existing printed transit information materials would lend themselves to use by individuals unacquainted with public transit. The intent of the field test was to gather and analyze information about the user friendliness of existing transit informat ion materials in Florida. The field test also was designed to begin exploratory research on effective and user-friendly design elements contained in printed transit information materials. Three specific des ign elements were included for in-depth analysis: timetable alignment, bus route information presentation, and the presentation of transfer information. Toward these ends, the field test collected information on how well participants could actually plan transit trips by determining bus route(s), bus stop(s), and schedule time(s). These data were then scored numerically using two scoring variations (described p reviously). Information was collected from 1 7 pilot study and 80 final study partidpants. Statistical tests were conducted on the numerical data to determine any relationships that might exist between participant scores, the time required by participants to complete the trip planning tasks, participant ratings of task difficulty, design elements included in the study, and partidpant soclodemographic characteristics. Additionally, qualitative data were collected from participants pertaining to their perceptions of the trip planning tasks and the transit information mater ials used. Finally, the CUTR research team reviewed printed transit information materials from all transit systems In the state of Florida and identified characteristics that could be problematic for transit users and non-users attempting to plan transit trips using only the printed materials. The data obtained through each of these efforts have been synthesized in order t o provide specific recommendations to transit agencies related to making printed transit information more user-friendly. Specific recommendations resulting from the transit information and mar1
PAGE 123

----,OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----trips that required a transfer from one bus route to another, a very common situation on public transit in Florida. Each of these findings indicate that it is unlikely that individual s In Florida without transit e xperience would be able to easily plan t rips on transit if prov i ded only existing printed transit materials. In addition, the fie ld test results provide several indications that the experience of using printed transit info rmation materials to plan transit trips m ight be negative enough for many individuals to "give up" and find another method of trans port. Many field test participants also reported that the experience of using the transit info rmation materials make them feel "stupid" and "inadequate," fee.lings that typically do not lead to positive perceptions of any experience, let alone the transit one. These conclusions are significant for transit agencies that are striving to increase ridership and are committed to making the public transit experience seam less and easy for passengers. Any recommendations offered as a result of the transit information and marketing field test must be preceded by a discussion of general existing societal and organizational conditions affecting overall transit literacy, as defined by this study First and for emost, the United States today is, with few exceptions, an automobile-oriented society At least two generations have passed since public transit was an everyday reality for the majority of Amer icans This has significant imp lications for the marketing of transit. Not only is it crucial for transit agencies to translate the benefits of transit to the genera l public, but this means that entire generations of Americans must also be educated about how transit operates. The transit industry cannot afford the assumption that "everyone knows how to use bus service." The resu lts of the field test indicate that this i s simply not the case. It is also significant that most participants received low scores for completed transit trip plans even after receiving extensive ins truct ion s about how transit and transit information materials work. In many cases, more time was spent providing instruct ion to participants than was allotted for the completion of two trip planning tasks and post-test interviews! The prevalence of comments received regarding arrival and departure times of buses, what constitutes a bus stop, and even regarding what a bus route is indicates that transit knowledge is not common knowledge. Customers who are unclear about how bus service operates l ikely will have difficulty using transit information materials, or at the very least feel very uneasy about making trips on transit with only printed transit information as thei r guide. Related to the issue of a lack of general public transit knowledge among the population in Florida is the lack of intuitiveness of existing printed transit information materials. As the recommendations that follow will show, most of the transit inform ation materials in circulation today are not designed with an eye towards being understood by people who have not had much, if any, experience using public transportation. Such materials should be designed so that i ndividuals can pick them up and easily i nterpret the information necessary to plan a trip on public transit, such as locating their intended destination, identifying the bus route(s) that travel to or nearby the origin o f travel and intended destination, the closest bus stop, and the Transit Infotm8tion & Marlreting Fi8:J TM

PAGE 124

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----estimated time that the bus will travel to the indivi dual's origin bus stop and arrive at the destination bus stop. In addition, indiv idual s should be able to use printed transit information materials to identify the need for transferring and how to accomplish the transfer from one bus to another (i.e., how to locate a transfer point, how to determine transfer times, etc.). Review of the existing printed transit information materials in Florida reveals numerous examples wherein the information required to complete a trip plan is either not provided or lacks the clarity necessary for individuals without experience with public transit to figure out the specifics of bus travel. It is important to note that, while many field test participants indicated that they would need to seek additional information from transit system customer service and/or bus operators, this is not an optimal solution to the barrier presented by existing printed transit informatio n materials. One benefit of effective transit information materials is that passengers and potential passengers are able to plan trips and use transit without having to have access to a telephone in order to speak with transit system customer services. In addition, on-time performance may be negatively impacted if vehicle operators are required to provide information in the form of trip planning assistance to passengers on a regular basis Many of the problems identified with the printed transit information materials included in the field test can be rectified by transit agencies with litt le to no additional expense. The following recommendations highlight those possible changes, as well as the need for additional research related to user-friendly and effective design elements that assist transit newcomers with the process of transit trip planning. Recommendation 1: Conduct Additional Research on Most Effective Design Elements The quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted in the transit information and marketing field test suggest that the use of certain design elements in printed transit information materials resulted in higher transit trip planning scores and reduced levels of frustration and anxiety among participants. These results include the following findings: Materials using horizontally-aligned timeUJbles resulted higher scores. Tasks involvi ng Ride Guide materials took longer to complete. Simple transit trip plans associated with Ride Guide materials received higher scores. Complex transit trip plans associated with individual bus route schedules received higher scores. Males tended to receive higher scores than did females. Participants with zero personal vehicles available for use received the lowest scores and rated the tasks as "very difficult." The use of points of interest information was helpful to participants. The use of distinctive symbols denoting time points, transfer points, and other points of interest were helpful in completing transit trip plans. Transit In-n .t MMiteling Field Test

PAGE 125

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS&. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E---While these results provide insight into the design elements that appear to have helped fie.ld test participants complete the trip planning tasks, caution must be used when draw i ng definitive conclusions from these results. Caution should be heeded due to the fact that the field test was not designed in such a way as to be able to isolate individual design elements in order to definitively draw concl usions related to their effect on trip planning scores. The transit information and marketing field test provided ex.isting transit informa tion materials to participants to complete assigned transit trip plans. These materials differed from one another in a multitude of ways, includin g the use of color, print s ize, types of paper used, page orientation, and amount of orienting information. For this r eason, it is not possib le to draw definitive conclusions regarding the cause and effect of specific design e l ements on trip planning ability, as all of the additional variables were not controlled for in the field t est For, examp le, it is not possible to conclusively determine whether higher scores were associated with materials with horizontally-aligned timetables or, rather, that these scores were due to larger print type being used by materials that also have horizontally-aligned t ime tables. In order to draw definitive conc lusions regarding the rela t ionship between specific design elements and the ability to successfully plan transit trips using printed trans i t information materials, i t is recommended that research be conducted that allows for the iso lati on of specific design e lements. Such research should be designed in such a way that the information materials tested differ on only a single variable. It Is recommended that additional research be conducted wherein prototype printed transit information materials are developed for fie ld testing. The fi eld testing of these materials would be designed to p resent materials that differ from one another by only a single variable to field test participants who would be asked to use the materials to plan transit trips. This method would allow for definitive conclusions to be drawn as to the effect of specific design elements on non-user ability to use printed transit information materials to plan transit trips Specific conclusions and recommendations could then be made reg arding the most effective design elements that should be used by transit agencies Recommendation 2: Educate Potential Passengers about Transferring Transferring from one bus ro ute to another is a common necessity for public transit passengers in Florida. The spatial layout of most transit service areas in the state make it necessary for passengers to make at l east one transfer in order to complete their transit trips. The results of both the quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted as part of the transit information and marketing field test Indicate that participants had a great deal of difficulty with transit trips that required a transfer from one bus route to another Review of the transit information materials used in the field test also reveals that an understanding of bus transfers is taken as common knowledge. Little descriptive information is provided to potential passengers related to how to accomplish a bus transfer Transfer points are rarely shown on maps or marked on timetables. Transit lnft117n6tion a HMI
PAGE 126

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----While many transit agencies do pro vide transfer information in the form of "how to ride" guides, these descriptions often do not address the details of actually accomplishing transfers. Additionally, potential passengers should not be expected to obtain multiple pieces of transit i nformation materials in order to gain an understanding of the basics of t ransit travel. Transit agencies must make a more concerted effort to educate potential passengers about the specifics of transferring. Th is effort includes providing clear information about transfer points within and throughout Ride Guides and/or individual bus route schedules. Even when transfer information is provided to users, the information is sometimes provided in a confusing manner. For examp le transfer points may be listed as "Xl" or "M2" where these notations have no apparent relation to the bus routes or route maps provided in the printed transit information materials. The use of transfer point information that is not intuitive to users should be avoided. Recommendation 3: Help Potential Passengers Use Transit Information Materials Effective transit information materials help passengers by presen t ing clear, concise, and consistent information that leads users stepby-step through the transit process. In order to be effective, the design and construction of printed transit info r mat io n materials must be attentive to detail. Missing or inconsistent information results in a great deal of confusion among users. The following recommendations are offered, based on comments received by fie ld test participants and review of the printed materials by t ransit professionals, to help transit agencies improve the clarity and usability of printed transit informati o n materia l s Consistency is Key Information provided in printed transit information materials, such as symbols for transfer points, time points, and points of interests, are only useful to passengers if presented in a consistent manner. For example, many field test participants described frustration and confusion related to bus stops (time points} listed on timetables but not included on route maps or vioe versa. This inc lud es the terminology used to describe time points. For example, a time point listed on a route map as "Maple Avenue" should not be listed on the corresponding timetable as "U.S. 7 ." While many streets in Florida are known by several names, printed transit information mater ia ls should be consistent in terms of the names used. Similar frustration was expressed rega rd ing points of interest listed in relation to specific bus routes, but not marked on route maps In addition, symbols used to denote transfer points (such as circles or diamond shapes) should also be applied consistently throughout all printed transit information produced by a transit agency. The use of consistently applied information and/or symbols will result in printed transit information materials that are intuitive and inviting for passengers because multiple cues are provided to guide users through the transit trip planning process. Care should be taken to ensure that consistency is carried through to all route maps and timetables produced for a transit system. The F lorida Department of Transportation, Transit lrrfomuttltm 4 Harlu!ting Reid Test

PAGE 127

-----
PAGE 128

----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----layouts are spatially accurate. Maps are rarely drawn to geographic scale and hardly, if ever provide legend information ind icating mileage scale. Review of the materials revealed that landmarks, points of interest, and time points are often clearly misplaced on route and system maps. It is therefore, imposs ibl e for users who are not knowledgeable about all portions of the transit service area to determine the distance from their origin point to a bus stop or from a bus stop to their destination point. This results in unease among passengers who are not able to determine whether their intended bus route or destination is within reasonable walking distance. Similarly, intersecting street information also often is omitted from system and route maps, making i t very difficult for users to orient themselves using printed t ransit information materials. In addition, some transit systems have omitted the use of a north arrow altogether on their maps, while others have north ar rows pointing in directions other than the "up" position (I.e., the traditional positioning of the north arrow in cartography i s pointing "upward" towards the top of the map page), further confusing individuals attempting to orient themselves both during the planning phase of transit trips, as well as while in-route on transit vehicles. The proliferation of geographic informatio n systems (GIS) has made it possible for transit systems to develop information materials that are geographically accurate. SUch accuracy assists passengers and potential passengers and makes the transit trip planning and travel phases less intimidating for those with little transit experience. Use Contrasting Colors Whenever Possible Field tests participants expressed an overwhelming preference for the use of contrasting colors to denote distinct bus routes on systemwide ro ute maps. The use of contrasting colors on route maps allows users to determine where specific bus routes travel and to distinguish individual bus routes from one another. Despite the obvious advantages associated with using color contrasts i n systemwide route maps, several transit systems in F lorida have developed maps without contrasting colors. These materials were particularly frust rati ng for field test participants, as they had tremendous difficulty determining the bus route(s) available to complete their transit trips, as well as points where bus routes intersect. Providing color contrasts results in printed transit information materials that are more intuitive for users by helping them to identify bus routes and transfer points. Include Mao LeQeods and Points of Interest Information Map legends play a critical role in the task of map interpretation Map users rely on the information provided in map legends to decipher the spatial, locational and situational data presented in maps. Indeed, a map without a legend is akin to a compass without a needle. Without It, travelers would likely find themselves hopelessly lost and utterly confused. It may seem redundant, or even ridiculous, to offer a recommendation that a map legend be included with each systemwide and Individual route map developed by transit agencies. However, a

PAGE 129

-----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----review of all printed transit information materials available in the state of Aorida indicates that map legends are often excluded from the printed materials made available to customers. An additional problem identified in the both the rev iew of materials and the field test of the printed transit information materials is incomplete or inaccurate map legends. In several cases where map legends are provided, important information regarding the interpretation of symbols used in maps and timetables is not provided. Similarly, some agencies have used symbols on the systemwide and/or individual route maps that are not included in the map legend, thereby failing to provide any interpretive guidance to the map user Transit agencies should strive to include clear and comprehensive data in map legends and to ensure that these data are included with each and every route map produced for the system. Reid test participants consistently expressed a preference for printed transit information materials that include information on points of interest and area landmarks, as well as the bus routes that serve those points. However, problems were noted with materials that listed points of interest and land marks on the cover of individual bus route schedules and maps, but failed to note those points on either route maps or timetables. This also was a problem identified in relation to systemwide route maps wherein points of interest were noted but no mention of the points was included in individual bus route schedules and maps. The inclusion of points of interest and major landmark information on systemwide and individual bus route schedules and maps helps orient passengers so that they are able to interpolate the information provided in both forms of printed transit information materials. These data should be consistently included in all printed transit information materials provided to passengers and potential passengers. Avoid the Use of Small Print Type Transit agencies are faced with the challenge of presenting a great deal of Important information in a limited amount of space to passengers in the form of printed transit information materials. In order to satisfy this need, many transit agencies have resorted to the use of very small print size (8 point type or less). Small print type is not user-friendly for any transit customers and is particularly problematic for customers with vision impairments. The results of the transit information and marketing field test indicate that customers would rather contend with materials of expanded size and/or awkward shape than to be faced with the challenge of interpreting transit info rmation that is barely readable. Conclusion The preliminary recommenda tions offered in the preceding sections have been developed as a result of the transit information and marketing field test. These recommendations are in tended to assist transit agencies in their efforts to increase the effectiveness and usability of printed transit information materials. While the recommendations offered herein present a good Transit ltrfortn8tion a Marketing Field Test

PAGE 130

-----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----starting point for the improvement of printed transit information materials, the conduct of additional resear ch is desirable in order to provide more in-depth guidance to transit agencies in relation to effective design materials. The intention of such research would be to offer con crete direction to transit agencies regarding prototype printed transit in formati on materials that have been shown to i ncrease customer success in the trip planning phase of the tran sit experience and, therefore, increase the likelihood that transit is viewed by potential customers as an accessible and attractive transportation alternative to the personal automobile.

PAGE 131

-----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS &.IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----Chapter Four: Transit SCheduling for Major Activity Centers Field Test Transit barriers within the category of service availability and convenience represent the most commonly-cited barriers to transit use, as well as the most challenging to address. Issues frequently raised by non-users in relation to service availability and convenience include system coverage, frequency of service, days and hours of service, wait times, and the need for transfers. While many of these issues potentially could be addressed by transit agencies, the costs associated with the potential solutions, such as increasing the frequency of service, are not always feasible to imp lement due to limited capital and operating resources. Therefore, it is crucial that transit agencies maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of existing transit services as a method of increasing the attractiveness of these services. This chapter addresses the field test conducted by CUTR in order to examine the effectiveness of existing transit services in Florida in terms of transit scheduling for travel demands. A very common sentiment expressed by transit users and non-users regarding p ublic transit services is that the bus does not serve desired activity centers at times when passengers wish to travel to those destinations. In some cases, it has been shown that bus schedules have been developed without a complete understanding of the peak trav el times to and from major travel attractors such as employment sites, medical centers, and universities. This has led to transit scheduling being completed, for the most part, without consideration for start and end times, common appointment times, norma l work schedu les, etc. In these cases individuals may not use transit because buses do not serve their intend ed destinations during peak travel times. As part of the present project, CUTR examined the effectiveness of existing transit schedules by analyzing the availability of transit service to major activity centers with clear start and end times associated with the activities and/or services offered at those destinations. The analyses that follow seek to provide a preliminary assessment of the existing level of transit service to major activity centers by illustrating patterns of gaps in services and providing a level of transit service comparison between transit properties. Methodology The primary focus of this field test has been to determine whether and to what degree major activity centers throughout Florida are being served by transit. The following sections detail the process that was undertaken to identify major activity centers, define hours of operation, determine the level of transit service access to each activity center, and analyze transit service scheduling in relation to travel demand. Scheduling lor Hljor ActiWty CtmU!n Field Test

PAGE 132

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E-----Major Activity Centers The Florida Department of Transportation provided CUTR with the major activity centers that were included in the transit scheduling field test. These data were provided to FOOT by individual transit agencies throughout Florida as required by the Aorida MPO Transit Quality of Service Evaluation. The purpose of the quality of service evaluation was for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in areas with fixed-route transit service to evaluate the quality of that service. Due to timing conflicts between t:he present project and the due date associated with the above-mentioned project, CUTR only received major activity centers from 14 of the 22 transit service areas in the state of Florida. The Florida MPO Transit Quality of Service Evaluation project provided direction to MPOs for the determination of major activity centers. Depending upon the expanse of t:he transit service area, each MPO was requ ired to determine six to ten major activ ity centers that attract the most vehicle traffic. Although some degree of freedom was provided to MPOs in the se lection process, large MPOs (those in areas wit:h populations of 200,000 or more) were directed to i nclude activity centers with the following characteristics: At least one locat ion in the central business district (CBD} of the larges t city; Major intermoda l terminals, such as passenger airports and AMTRAK stations, if present; At least one regional shopping center, if p resent; At least one university or community college, if present ; At least one major park & ride facility, if present; A large office development outside the CBD; and A geographically diverse set of suburbs, neighborhoods, and/or tourist attractions. Smaller MPOs (those in areas with populations under 200,000) were instructed by FOOT to select their activity centers by considering the following guidelines: A representative location in the CBD of the largest city; A shopping center; A university or community co llege, if present; A hospital; A residential neighborhood; and A large employment center outside the CBD. CUTR was provided a total of 136 major activity centers from 14 transit service areas. One entire service area was omitted from the field test due to the degree of difficulty encountered while attempting to utilize the transit agency's available information materials to identify t:he

PAGE 133

----
PAGE 134

-----
PAGE 135

-----'OPERATIONA L BAR RIERS & IMP EDIM ENTS T O TRANSIT U SE----based on genera ll y common ma ll hours, and are typically considered t o be 8:30 AM to 9:30 PM. These operating hours i nclude the 30 minutes that was added to each end of the actua l operating hours Business/Government The operating hours for the businessjgovemmentland use category (7:30AM to 6:00PM) were est ab l ished based upon the typica l traditional workday, with 30 minutes added at each end of the day to allow for arrival and departure opportuni t ies. Governmental centers and office complexes a lso were inclu ded i n this classificat i on. Satu r day and Sunday were om i tted from thi s land use category, as they are considered weekend days rather than part of t h e conventiona l work wee k o f Monday through Friday Education The education land use category includes community colleges and universities. On-line course schedules were consu l te d for each institut i on, and ope r ating hou r s were established based upon 30 minutes prior to a school's earliest class and 30 minutes after the latest class dismissal time. This affords students time to navigate the campus in order to reach the.ir i n t ended d estination or the bus stop when leaving campus Many community co ll eges hold frequent Saturday classes and some are a l so in session on SUnday; these times were cons i dered, as well When considering whether t r ansit serves a community co llege or un i vers ity, only the fi rst and last class were considered. Courses that are scheduled between the earliest and latest classes were not a factor i n determin i ng whether the institution is served by transit. Rec rea t ion Beaches, pedestrian malls, and tourist attraction/entertainment venues were considered within the recreation l and use categ o ry. Because of the p rolife r ation of hotels and open access to the beach in this environment, beaches were considered 24-hour operations and were assigned the same shift hou r s as hotels lf available, the exact ope r ating hours of a particular facility, such as a museum, were used, again adding 30 m i nutes to each end of the activ ity center's d ay. Transit Routes and Frequency of Service A second component necessary to analyze the leve l of transit serv ice access to major act i vity centers is information about the bus routes that serve each act i v ity center. In a ddition to identifying the bus route(s) serving each activity center the analys i s also required information about the days and hours of transit serv ice and the frequency of transit service For m any of the transit propert ies included in the ana l ysis, t his information was ob t ained through the use of Sch
PAGE 136

-------
PAGE 137

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;e-----Transit Scheduling for Major Activity Centers Analysis The transit service access to major activity centers was evaluated by weekday, Saturday, and Sunday, as activity cente r operating hours may vary depending on the day of the week and most trans i t agencies that operate on Saturday and/or Sunday alter their weekend schedule, as well. The hours of operation of each activity center was compared to the useful hours of operation of the bus route( s) that serve it. This provided a mechanism by which to determine whether a particular activity center is served by transit or not. The analysis of transit level of service to major activity centers is presented in two parts. First, the existing conditions of transit service availability are discussed. This approach examines the data for each activity center, by land use category, and a n alyzes the availability of transit service in terms of the earliest and latest trip available to transit patrons. For the purposes of this analysis, an activity center is consid e red "served" by transit if at least one bus accesses the activity center within one hour before adjusted operating hours (30 minutes before and 30 minutes after). In addition, an activity center is considered "served" by transit as long as at least one bus route accesses the site. This portion of the analysis focuses on whether activity centers are served during the AM and PM, AM only, or PM only. The intent of this approach is to identify patterns of transit service access to activity centers, such as gaps i n service and other characteristics of transit service availability. The second portion of the analysis consists of a comparative analysis of the level of transit service to major activity centers, by land use category. The primary unit of measurement for this portion of the analysis is the number of times per hour that transit service accesses each activity center during the activity center's normal operating hours. This is measured by eva luati ng the number of routes that serve a particular activity center, the average frequency of transit service to the activity center, and the percentage of the activity center's operating hours that are covered by transit service. Therefore, the following equation was used to calculate the level of transit service access that is provided to each activity center: Level of transit service access = N x F x R The equation comprises three variables that were calculated to determine the level of transit service access to major activity centers. The variables a re expressed as follows: N = Number of bus routes accessing the activity center F = Average frequency of service for all routes serving the activity center

PAGE 138

----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----R = Transit span of service Activity center operating hours For example, Shopping Mall X has the weekday operating hours of 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, or 12 hours. The local transit serv ice provides weekday transit access to the shopping mall from opening until only 7:00 PM, or 10 hours. Five separate routes provide transit service to the shopping mall with an average frequency of 2 buses per hour on weekdays. Using the equation presented above, Shopping Mall X receives the following level of transit service: N (5) x F (2) x R (10/12) = 8.3 Buses per Activity Center Operating Hour (acoh) If only 2 bus routes served Shopping Mall X with the frequency of 1 bus per hour, the activity center's leve l of transit service would be i mpacted in the following way: N (2) x F (1) x R (10/12) = 1.7 Buses per Activity Center Operating H our (acoh) The results of the analyses of existing conditions of transit service availability to major activity centers and the level of trans i t service to major activity centers are provided in the following sections.

PAGE 139

-----,OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Results: Existing Conditions of Transit Service to Major Activity Centers Transit information materials for each system in the study were consulted in order to assess the existing conditions of transit service to and from major activity centers. After establishing the weekday, Saturday, and Sunday operating hours for each major activity center included in the analysis of transit level of service, data were compiled for the number of routes that access each activity center, and the first arrival time and last departure time for each of those routes. Based on this information, a determination was made as to whether each of the routes that travel to the major activity centers provides transit access in the AM-only, the PM-only, or both the AM and PM. Detailed data regarding the provision of transit service access to the major activity centers included in each land use category, by route, are p rovided in Appendix H Summary tables are in cluded throughout the remainder of the analysis that report aggregate data for each major activity center, by land use category. For the purpose of present analysis, the following criteria a re used to assess the existing conditions of transit service access to major activity centers: (1) If a bus route serves a major activity center in the "AM-only," this means that at least one bus on the route arrives at the activity center prior to the beginning of the operating hours associated with that major activity center, but no bus on the route is available for departures at the close of operating hours. (2) A bus route with a "PM-only" designa tion signifies that transit service i s available for departure from the major activity center at the close of its normal operating hours, but no bus on that rout e provides access to the activity center prior to the beginning of normal operating hours. (3) A bus route with "AM/PM" designation signifies that transit service is provided to the major activity center such that a transit patron may arrive by bus for the start of operating hours and may depart the activity center by bus at the close of normal operating hours. As described previously, the normal operating hours of a major activity center are defined from 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes following the offidal operating hours of each major activity center. Additionally, at l east one transit bus must arrive within one hour of the adjusted operating hours in order to be considered served by tran sit. Therefore, an activity center with the actual operating hours of 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM would have, for the purpose of the p resent analysis, adjusted operating hours of 9:30 AM to 7:30 PM, and would be considered served by transit in the AM and PM if a bus arrived between 8:30 and 9:30AM, and if a bus was available for departure between 7:30 and 8:30 PM. SCheduling for Hit} Activity Centvs Field Test

PAGE 140

----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----The following sections present overall aggregate bus route service data for each major activity center by land use category, as well a discussion of service trends and potential gaps in transit service. The number of bus routes serving major activity centers in the AM-only, the PM-only, and both the AM and PM are indicated in Tab l es 4-1 through 4-10. Airports Nine airports were reported as major activity centers by 10 of the 13 transit agendes included in this analysis. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present information on the total number of bus routes that access each airport, when bus service is provided to each airport, and the total number of bus routes that serve the airport land use category. Because airports must be staffed 24 hours a day, the airports' operating hours were divided into three general shifts (Shift 1 -5:00AM to 2:00PM; Shift 2-2:00PM to 11:00 PM; and Shift 3-11:00 PM to 5:00AM) based upon informat i on obtained by CUTR related to airport operations. As previously stated, prio r to determining whether an activity center is served by transit or not, 30 minutes was added to the beginning and end of shift to account for the logistics of arrival and departure of airport employees. Please note that the AM and PM designation of Shifts 1 2, and 3 in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 refer to the beginning {AM) and end {PM) of the shift, rather than actual AM and PM times. Therefore, the AM of Shift 3 actually refers to 10:30 PM the shift's starting time {including the extra 30 minutes ) and Shift 3's PM end time is 5:30AM. Weekday Service Table 4-1 provides i nformation on bus service to the nine airports during weekdays, by shifts. A total of 15 routes access these major activity centers Monday through Friday. Shift 1 is considered to be served by bus service exclusively in the PM on weekdays (15 of 15 routes), meaning that one may depart the airport at the end of Shift 1 {2:30 PM or later), but no bus anrives at any of the airports by 4:30 AM, when employees would be requ i red to arr i ve for the start of a 5:00 AM shift For Shift 2 (1:30 PM to 11:30 PM) during weekdays, three of the 15 routes access the activity centers during both the AM and the PM, meaning that one could arrive for the start of a 2:00 PM shift by 1:30 PM and depart the airport at the end of the shift at 11:30 PM. However, the majority of the routes (12) that access the a i rports only provide service during the AM portion of Shift 2, provid i ng bus service at the beginning of the sh ift but not at the shift's end No routes provide service exclusively during the PM of Shift 2. Scheduling h>r Mlt}or Activity c-mrs Te&t

PAGE 141

-----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----As illustrated in Tab l e 4-1, Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 5:30AM} receives bus service sim il ar to Shift 2. This shift is served by three of the 15 routes for bo th the AM and P M and seven rou tes serve this s hift only in its PM. There are no routes that serve Shift 3 only dur i n g the AM of the s hift. Table 4-1: Weekday Transit Service to Airport Major Activ i ty Centers Shift 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 Number AM PM ..,. PM AM PM Activity Center of AM/PM Only Only AM/PM Only On l y AM/P M Only Only Routes ToWI 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Tampa r ntomDtlo na1 Total 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Daytona Beach Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ft. Tot 3 \ 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Sar asota (Sarasota Co u nty) 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 T Qtal Sarasota (Manatee County) 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total Lal<.e landtender R.ogional Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 West Pal m Beach l ntemational 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 T o tal Miami I n ternation a l Tot<)! 4 0 0 4 2 2 0 2 0 2 Metbovme lntem36on.al Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Tot31 1 5 0 0 1 5 3 1 2 0 3 0 7 Sgturgay Service A total of 14 routes serve the airports on Saturday, as ind icated in Table 4-2. Shift 1 (4:30AM to 2:30 PM}, as with the weekday schedule, i s served exclusively dur i n g the PM-only All 1 4 of the routes provide bus service for the AM of Shift 2 (1:30 PM to 11:30 PM}, 12 of wh ich are duri ng the AM-only, and two routes serve both the AM and PM. There are no routes prov i ding PM-only service for Shift 2 on Saturdays. Finally, fou r o f the 14 routes provide service during Shift 3 (10:30 P M to 5:30AM}, three routes in the AMonly and one route in the PM-o nly N one of the routes serve Shift 3 i n both the AM and PM. Sunday Service Table 4-2 also shows that a total of nine bus routes p rovid e service to and from the airports on Sundays, and again, Shift 1 is served in the PM-only by all of these routes. All of the r o utes serve Shift 2 during the AM-on ly, providing no service for the PM end of this shift. Shift 3 receives bus service by two of the nine routes in the AMonly and one i n the P M-only CNpter Four SCh
    r Activity Centers Field Test

    PAGE 142

    Tab l e 4 2 : Saturday a n d SUnday Transi t Service to Airport Major Activity Centers S..Wrclly S.Mu Sunday Service 1 Shfft2 Shift 1 Shift 2 Number JW, PM JW, PM AM PM Number JW, PM AM PM JW, P M Ac:avuy of AM/PIA Only Only AM/P M Only Only IW/PM Only Only of AM/PIA On I)" Only IWIPM Onty Only AM/PM Only Onty j Routes Routes Pent1100l a 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 I Totol Tempo lntemational 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Totol Daytona BNoh Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F t. LaudOfdoiO/Hollywood 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total Sarasoca (Satasota 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conty) Total -(.. 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 County) TOial Loktlandl...1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regional Total WHt Pllm Beach 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 tnttmatlonal T otaf Mlamltnttmatlonl 4 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 2 1 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 2 1 Total M e lbourne 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 International Tot a l Tolll l 1 4 0 0 1 4 2 1 2 0 0 3 1 9 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 2 t

    PAGE 143

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Patterns and Assessment The tot als presented in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 reveal that airports receive less bus service (9 routes) on Sunday than that provided on weekdays (15 routes) and Saturdays (14 routes). This is likely the result of the scaled-back bus service provided by many transit agencies on Sundays, and the fact that many of the systems do not operate on that day. Five of the 13 transit systems included in this analysis do not provide any bus service on Sundays and the remaining 8 provide a reduced level of service on Sundays. In addition, of the nine routes accessing the airports on Sundays, four of these are Miami-Dade Transit routes, the largest system in the study. The remaining five routes that access airports on Sundays are spread among five transit systems, each operating one route to the airport. The early start time of Shift 1 (4:30AM) is the most likely reason that none of the routes serve the AM portion of this shift Although many of the systems have begun service by 6:00 AM, particularly during the weekdays, this timing does not allow for arrival at the airport for workers with a 5:00AM shift. However by the mid-afternoon end time of Shift 1 (2:30PM), all of the systems are providing service that wou l d allow workers to depart the airport at the end of their shi ft. It is somewhat the opposite situation for Shift 2 at airports. Because of the time of day this shift begins (1:30 PM), all of the routes serve Shift 2 in the AM. However, the late end time of the shift (11:30 PM) generally is not served due to the fact that most of the systems have ended their se.rvice prior to that time, frequently by a matter of hours. It should be noted that for both weekdays and Saturdays, the five routes that do serve Shift 2 during both the AM and PM are the routes of l arger systems, such as Broward County Transit and Miami-Dade Transit. There are no routes that serve the AM and PM of Shift 2 on Sundays. Due to its late start time (10:30 PM), Shift 3 often is not served for the AM portion of the shift, again because most of the transit systems have ended their service for the day by that time, with the exception of the larger systems. The PM of this shift is more often served because many of the agencies have begun transit service within an hour following 5:30 AM, the end t i me of this shift for airports. Of further note, it may be the case that transit schedu l ing to and from the activity centers i n this and other categories in this analysis is structured to serve the patrons of the activity centers rather than the workers. CMplerFour SCheduling AdMty Centvs Field Test

    PAGE 144

    ----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Medical Similar to airports, medical centers and hospitals are 24-hour operations, but their scheduling is somewhat d i fferent than that of the airports. The shifts for the eight activity centers included In the medical category were delineated as such: Shift 1 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM; Shift 2 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM; and Shift 3 11:00 PM to 7:00AM. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 present data illustrating the totals of the current transit cond i tions for the major activity centers included in this l and use category, according to shifts, for weekdays and Saturdays/Sundays respectively. Tables H-3 and H-4 in Appendix H detail the individual routes and their portion of service to each activity center. As with the other categories the declaration as to whether a shift is served is based upon adding 30 minutes to each end of the actual shift, therefore considering Shift 1 as 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM for the purpose of determ i ni n g whether or not it is served by transit. F u rthermore, reference to the AM and PM of the shifts is to the beginning (AM) and end (PM) of a particular shift rather than actual AM or PM hours. Weekday Service The eight major activity centers comprising the medica l land use category are accessed by a total o f 17 bus routes during weekdays, as illustrated in Table 4 3 For Shift 1 (6: 30AM to 3:30 PM) approximately half of these (9 routes) provide service for both the AM and PM. None of the routes serve only the AM portion of Shift 1 because all of the routes are in service at the shift s end time of 3:30 PM. However, seven o f the 17 routes provide service during Shift 1 i n the PM-only, a result of a l ater than 6:30AM arr ival time for many of the bus rou t es One route serves neither the AM nor PM of any shift on weekdays because i t is an evening route with operat i ng hours that fall within the working hours of Shift 2. Table 4 3 Weekday Transit Service to Medical Major Activity Centers Shtft 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 vityCenter Number of AM/PM AM PM AM/PM AM PM AMIPM AM Routes Only Only Only Only Only 10rlal Hos.pital Total 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 Cross Hos pital TOO!l 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 tor's Hoopital Total 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 tSOta Memorial Hosp i tal T otal 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 :e H osp(tal T otaJ 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 iland Regional Total 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ter Haven Hospital T otal 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 'IC T otal 5 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 I I 1 7 9 0 7 0 16 0 2 0 SCheduling for MajOr Activity centJers Field Te# PM Only 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 4 I 12

    PAGE 145

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;e-----Shift 2 (2:30PM to 11:30 PM) is served by bus transit exclusively in the AM (16 of 16 routes) on weekdays, as all routes access the activity centers only at the start time of this shift. Altho ugh some of the lar ger systems are still in operation at the end time of Shift 2 (11:30 PM), the routes that provide service during the late r hours are not serving the particular activity centers in this land use category. A total of 14 routes serve Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 7:30 AM) during weekdays and this shift is primarily served during the PM-only (12 of 1 7 routes). Tw o routes provide service during the AM and PM of the shift, meaning that there is bus service to the activity center between 9:30 and 10:30 PM (the AM of th e shift) and that bus service operates early enough so a worker could depart between 7:30 and 8:30 AM, after comp leting Shift 3. The remain ing three routes that access the medical activity centers do not provide service within the defined parameters of useful service. Satyrday Service Table 4-4 illust rates the exist ing transit conditions for the medical land use category on Saturdays. These activity centers are accessed by a total of 16 routes on Saturdays. Eight routes serve Shift 1 in both the AM and PM, therefore arriving prior to 6:30AM and departing after 3:30 PM, providing service at both ends of Shift 1. Seven routes provide bus service for the PMonly, and no bus routes serve the AMonly portion of Shift 1, indicating that almost half of the routes that access the medical land use category during Saturdays do not arrive early enough for workers to reach these activity centers for the beginning of Shift 1. Of the 16 routes that access the medical activity centers on Saturdays, 15 serve Shift 2 in the AM-only. No routes serve both the AM and PM of this shift, and no routes serve the PM-only. Therefore, the only Saturday bus service available to those medical activity centers provides access in the AM of Shift 2 (2:30 PM), necessitating other travel arrangements for departu re from the hospital or medical cente r for those completing a shift at 11:30 PM. Only two of the 16 routes serve these activity centers in the AM and PM of Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 7:30 AM), but they are served by 12 routes in the PMonly {7:30 AM). No routes provide AM only {10:30 PM) service for this shift on Saturdays. This is not surprising given that most agencies have begun service prior to 7:30AM, but many do not operate until 10:30 PM. Sunday Table 4-4 also indicates that five routes provide access to the activity centers within the medical land use category on Sundays. Shift 1 i s served by all five bus routes i n the PMonly, meaning that none arrive at the medical activity centers by 6:30 AM for the start of Shift 1. As with ScMduling for Hlljor Actmty c:enMn Fldd Test

    PAGE 146

    Table 4 4 Saturday and Sunday Transit Service to Medical Major Activity Centers Saturday Servieo Sunday Servlee Shift 1 Shift 2 Shlfl3 S hift 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 NumiHir IW PM IW PM AM PM Number IW PM AM PM IW PM Actfvity Center ol AMIPM Only O..ly IWIPM Only O..ly IWIPM Only Cltal Blake Hospital 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 Total 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lakeland 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Regional Tota l 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Winter Haven 1 0 Hospital Total 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TMHC To
    PAGE 147

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----weekdays and Saturdays, Shift 2 is served exclusively by the five routes in the AM-only. Therefore workers may arrive via transit for the start of the shift by 2:30 PM, but there is no service at shift's end {11:30 PM) on Sundays. Regarding Shift 3, there are no routes that provide service to the activity centers in this category at any point during this shift (10:30 PM to 7:30AM) on Sundays. Patterns and Assessment Similar to airports, the medical land use category is served least on Sundays, despite the fact that, based upon the nature of their service, the shifts for such activity centers d o not vary according to the day of the week. As was the case with the airport land use category, the PM of Shift 1 (3:30 PM) at medical activity centers is easily served due to its mid-afternoon time when transit systems are typically in full operation. However, in contrast to the airports, the AM is better served In this category because many transit agencies provide bus service to medical centers by approximately 6:30AM, but none serve the airports for the 4:30AM start of Shift 1. The AM of Shift 2 (2:30 PM) is served easily by transit for the same reasons as the PM of Shift 1, but the PM of this shift (11 :30 PM) typically is not well served because most systems are not still operating by 11:30 PM. Shift 3 has the opposite pattern in that its AM portion generally is not served by transit due to its late start time, but its PM is served easily as most bus routes are in service by 7:30AM. Shopping The shopping land use category comprises 25 major activity centers. Most hours of operation were obtained from individual shopping complexes and the hours were generalized for cases such as shopping centers that may have variable hours by individual store. The general hours were determined to be 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, thereby making the assessed operating hours 8:30 AM to 9:30 PM for the purpose of determining whether they are served by transit. Table 4-5 presents the transit data totals for the shopping category, according to weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service. For information regar ding the individua l routes that serve the shopping activity centers, please refer to Table H-5 in Appendix H. Weekday Service A total of 80 bus routes access the shopping activity centers during weekdays. The overwhelming majority of these routes (62) serve the shopping areas in the AM-only. Despite typically longe r hours of transit service during weekdays, only 12 routes serve these activity centers in the AM and PM. One route provides service in the PM-only. Chilpt
    PAGE 148

    BAR.RIERS & IMPE DIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Tab l e 4-S: T ransit Service t o Maj o r Sho pping Act iv ity Centers WeOckday S#htrJ 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 But ler Plaza Tota l 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Paddock M a ll Total 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 C itrus Park MaJI 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 To t a l B rando n Towne 4 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 Center T o taJ 2 1 1 0 Volusi a M all Total 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 Oonlawton S(luare 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Total C r ow ne Centet 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tota l Sawgrass Mills Man 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 ToUtl PE!Im b r oke Lakes 3 I 2 0 3 1 2 0 2 MaUTotal I 1 0 Cora l S quare Mall 3 2 1 0 3 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 Total Sarasota Square 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Mall Total S t. Armands C i rcle 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total P&aza 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Total Cortez Ptala T otll 6 0 6 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Wal ..t.tart Plaza 2 I 0 0 0 0 Tota l Prime Outlets at 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 E ll enton Total Lakeland Square 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Mall Total SpOng Lake Sq uare 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total Governor's Square 4 0 3 1 4 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 Mafl Tot-a l Palm B each 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 Gardens Mall T Ot;)l 4 Aventuro M a ll Total 6 3 3 0 4 3 0 0 4 3 1 0 M elboume Square 5 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 Mall Total Merritt Squ are M all 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tota l Total 80 1 2 62 1 66 12 49 1 22 1 10 I

    PAGE 149

    ------!rs Field Test

    PAGE 150

    ----'OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----category was assigned the same operating hours (7:30 AM to 6:00 PM) because these are considered to cover the range of a typical business day. Service within this category Is considered only Monday through Friday as these days are considered the traditional workweek. Although many of the bus routes may serve business and government centers on Saturday and/or Sunday, for the purpose of this analysis, weekend days have been omitted from consideration and are indicated by N/A in Table 4-6. Information detailing the individual routes and the transit service access provided by them is presented in Table H-6 in Appendix H. The business/government category generally is well served by the transit routes that access these areas. Of the 159 routes, these activity centers are considered served in both the AM and PM by 114 routes, providing worl
    PAGE 151

    -----owntown Squar e 2 2 0 0 NIA NIA Total :ounty Courthouse 2 2 0 0 NIA N I A [Ocala) Total Marion Coun ty HMi t h 3 1 0 0 N I A NIA Dep t T ot a l Downtown T ampa Total 29 1 7 11 1 NIA NIA Wesl$hor e Business 4 4 0 0 NIA NIA Total Port Tampa T ota l 1 1 0 0 NIA N/A MacDill AFB T otal 3 2 1 0 N/A NIA OowntO'M'I Daytona 16 13 2 1 NJA NIA Beach Total New Smyrna 3 0 0 0 NIA NIA Downtown Total Downtown Fl. 15 15 0 0 NIA NIA La u dGfdate T ot.l l OO\vntO'h1'\ S afaS.
    PAGE 152

    ----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Education There are 16 community colleges and universities within the education land use category. The operating hours-defined as the beginning of the first class to the end of the last class of the day, with the additional 30 minutes added to either end of those times-were established based upon information obtained from each institution. Therefore, a school that holds its first class at 8 :00 AM and dismisses its l ast class of the day at 9:45 PM would have operating hours of 7:30 AM to 10:1 5 PM for the purpose of determining whether it is served by transit. Tab le 4-7 presents the total routes and hours of transit service access for each activity center The table also revea ls that, although the traditional school week is Monday through Fri day Saturday course meeting times were estab lished for 11 of the 16 institutions included in this study, and one is in session on Sundays. Table H 7 In Appendix H illustrates the indiv id ual routes that access each of these activity centers, as well as whether they serve the AM-only, the PMonly, or both the AM and PM. Weekday Service Sixty routes provide access to the education activity centers during weekdays The majority of these routes (44) serve during the AM-only, and six provide service in both the AM and PM. No routes serve in the PM-only. There are an additional ten routes that access the schools but do not arrive in time for the first class or depart after the last dismissal. The instituti ons are considered not served by these routes under the previously established definition of served. However, it is likely that a majority of the classes offered at these institutions are held during the hours associated with the traditional workday; and therefore, transit service access is available for many courses on weekdays. Although most courses are held during the day, all of these institutions are in session at some point in the evening, and i t is also clear that they are not well served by transit during later hours when night classes are dismissed. Saturday Service Saturday transit service to educational centers is only about half of that which is provided during weekdays, despite the fact that more than half of the institutions hold Saturday classes. Thirty-one routes access 11 activity centers in this category on Saturdays. However, in contrast to the trend of AM-only service during weekdays, 17 routes in the AM and PM and 9 routes In the PM-only serve the education centers, while only 2 routes serve the AM-only on Saturdays. This pattern may be attributed to the fact that none of the Saturday courses extend beyond 7:30 PM, and most are over by approximately 5:00 PM, when the majority of transit systems are still in operation.

    PAGE 153

    -----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Table 4: Transit Service t o E ducation Major Activity Centers w .. kday Service Saturda y Service Sunday S ervic e Number fiNo P M Numbet /W. P M Number P M Activity C e n te r o f AM/PM of AM/PM Of AM/PM AM Routes Only Only Routt$ Only Only Routes Onl y Only U nivers i t y 01 West FIOtida 1 0 0 0 N/A N/A T o t a l Univers-ity of Fl orida!S h a nds 11 0 7 0 N I A NJA Total 2 0 2 0 NIA NIA Cam pus Total S FCC-Oownto-om 3 0 2 0 NIA N I A Cam pus Total Centra l F l 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 N/A COll ege Tota l Hlll$bor ough Commu nity 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 NIA Col tege Tota l U n iversity of South florid a 11 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 5 NIA T otal Dayton a B each C o mmunity 4 0 4 0 3 3 0 0 NIA College Total Sovlh FIOfld.a Education 2 0 1 0 NJA N/A Center Tota l Manatee Com m unity 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 NIA T P olk County Comm u nity 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 NIA Collage (USF) Total POlk County Comml..lnity 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 N I A Col lege Total FAMU Tota J 5 1 4 0 3 1 0 0 NIA Palm BeaCh Community 3 3 0 0 3 1 1 1 NJA Ml a mi O$d e CC Noctt'l C3mpus 6 2 4 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 Tota l 6CCMain 3 0 1 0 0 NIA C a m pus T ota l T otal 60 6 44 0 3 1 17 2 9 3 3 0 0 Sch!Uiing for f'Ujor ActiVIty centers F-Test

    PAGE 154

    -----,OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Sunday Service Only one of the educational activity centers (Miami-Dade Community College) is in session on Sundays, and it is served in both the AM and PM of its operating hours by a ll three of the routes that access the school on that day. Although most transit systems decrease the hours of operation on Sundays and often begin service on this day later than during weekdays or even Saturdays, the early start time of Sunday classes (7:30 AM) is within the realm of service for a l a rge r system such as Miami-Dade Transit. Patterns and Assessment In general, the education activity centers are not well served in the PM portion of their operating hours during weekdays. This primarily is due to the fact that, as suggested by the data presented Table 4-7, most of the transit systems have ceased daily operations by the time evening classes have ended. However, many of the major activity centers included in the education land use category do receive transit service during the portion of the school day during which the majority of classes are conducted. Despite a typically shorter transit span of service on Saturdays, more education activity centers that are in operation on that day are served in both the AM and PM because Saturday course scheduling does not exceed the hours of transit operation. Although only one of the education activity centers is in operation on Sunday, it is served in both the AM and PM. The activity centers in this category are sometimes accessed by transit outside the realm of the operating hours of each activity center, such as on Saturdays or Sundays, because several of the education activity centers, particularly the community colleges, are used as transfer points for some of the transit systems. Transit scheduling, therefore, may not necessarily be structured around class meeting times, but rather at intervals that lend themse lves to making transfers to other routes within the system. In addition, the majority of the classes meet within the hours of transit service. This results in several routes that access the education activity centers during their operating hours, but do not seNe them in the AM or PM. Recreation The final land use category to be considered in this analysis i ncludes 11 recreational activity centers. The recreation land use category has been divided into shift rec rea tion (5 activity centers) and non-shift recreation (6 activity centers}, and the totals for this category are presented in Tables 4-8 through 4-10. Due to the proliferation of hotels on Florida beaches and the nature of that business being a 24-hour operation, all of the beaches and the one hotel provided as major activity centers for this category were considered under the classification of shift recreation (Tables 4-8 and 4-9). Non-shift recreation (Table 4-10) is made up of those

    PAGE 155

    -----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----activity centers with established operating hours that do not necessitate the division of three shifts. Shift Recreation Weekday Seryice Information obta ine d regarding hotel shift hours was similar to that of the major activity centers in the medica l land use category. Despite some variation according to job t i tle, Shift 1 is generally considered to be 7:00AM to 3:00 PM, Shift 2 Is 3:00 PM to 11: 00 PM, and Shift 3 is 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. As with the other categories, 30 minutes was added to eac h end of these shift times to account for the l ogistics of arrival and departure in determining whether the activity center is served by transit. As illustrated In Table 4 8, the beaches and hotels of the recreat io n category are accessed by a total of 12 rou te s on weekdays. Shift 1 (6:30AM to 3:30 PM) is served in the AM and PM by five bus routes, and seven bus routes serve the PMonly. There are no bus routes that exdusively serve the AM of th is shift. Four bus routes serve Shift 2 (2:30PM to 11:30 PM) in the AM and PM, and seven routes serve this shift in the AM-only. No routes p rovide servi c e in the PM-only Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 7:30AM) is served at some point by ten of the 12 routes. Three bus routes serve this shift in both the AM and PM. Two bus routes serve the shift in the AM-on ly, and five bus routes serve the third shift in the PM-o nly during weekdays. It should be noted that the two routes tha t serve Pensacola Beach during Shift 1 i n the PM only, Shift 2 in the AM and PM, and Shift 3 i n the AMonly operate from May to September, and Friday is the on l y weekday that these routes a r e in service. Table4-8 Weekday Transit Service to Shift Recreation Major Activity Centers Shift 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 Number of IW PM AM/PM IW PM AM/PM IW PM Activity Center Route& J>Jio/PM Only Only Only Only Only Onl y Pensacola Total 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 Ft Lauderdale B eac h 4 4 0 0 Total 2 2 0 3 0 1 Man a tee Beach T o tal 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 Boca Raton 0 0 1 HoteUResort T ota1 0 1 0 0 0 1 BeachGs (Brevard 3 1 0 2 Covnty) Total 0 2 0 0 0 1 T otal 1 2 5 0 7 4 7 0 3 2 5 operate$ F rida y only; May -September SChedufing fOr Major Activity Cenrers Field Test

    PAGE 156

    ---__,OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Shift Recreation Saturday Servig: Nine transit routes provide access to the shift recreation activity centers on Saturdays, as presented in Table 4-9. Of these routes, three serve Shift 1 (6:30AM to 11:30 PM) in the AM and PM and six routes serve Shift 1 in the PM-only. No routes serve the AM-only portion of this shift. Similarly, Shift 2 (2:30PM to 11:30 PM) is served by three bus routes during both the AM and PM, but the remaining six routes for this shift provide service in the AM-only. However, it should be noted that two of the three bus routes that serve the AM and PM portion of Shift 2, and the PM of Shift 1 on Saturdays are the aforementioned summer routes along Pensacola Beach, and their service characteristics apply only from May to September. Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 7:30 AM) is served in a fairly equal d istribution by eight of the nine routes that access these activity centers. Three routes serve both the AM and PM, two routes serve the AM-only (both of which are the Pensacola Beach summer routes), and three routes serve the PM-only of this shift on Saturdays. Shift Recreation Sunday Service Access to the shift recreation centers on Sundays is provided by a total of six bus routes. Indicative of the typically shorter transit operating hours on Sundays, Shift 1 (6:30 AM to 3:30 PM) is served exc.lusive.ly in the PM-only by these six routes. Two routes serve Shift 2 (2:30 PM to 11:30 PM) in the AM and PM and four routes serve in the AM-only. Shift 3 (10:30 PM to 7:30 AM) is served by two bus routes in the AM-only and one bus route in the PM-only on Sundays. However, as previously stated, the two routes accessing Pensacola Beach operate from May to September only, and the composition of transit service, therefore, changes for the period from October to April. Shift 1 would be served in the PM-only by four routes rather than six; Shift 2 would be served by its four bus routes in the AM-only and no bus routes in both the AM and PM; and Shift 3 would be served by one bus route in the PM-only during this period. Patterns and A5sessmo;:nt As was observed for the airport and medical land use categories, Shift 1 is served most frequently in the PM-only and Shift 2 typically is served in its AM-only. This is to be expected as the beginning time of Shift 1 (6:30 AM) often is prior to the start of transit service and the PM of Shift 2 (11:30 PM) occurs after many transit agencies have ceased operations for the day. Shift 3, if it is served at all, typically is served by transit only during the PM, as most of the systems are in operation by this time (7:30 AM). However, most are not operating at 10:30 PM, the AM of Shift 3.

    PAGE 157

    Ta ble4-9 Saturday and S u nday T ransit Service to Shift R ecreation Majo r Activity Centers Sa11Jrday Service Sunday Shift 1 Shift 3 S hift 1 Shlft2 Shift 3 Activity Number PM PM PM P M PM P M Number ANo PM AM PM PM PM of AM/PM AM/PM AMJPM o f AM/PM AM/PM PM/PM Cente< RoutH Only Only Only Only Only Only RouCH Only Only Only Only Only Only p.,..,_ 2 0 0 2' 2' 0 0 0 2' 0 2 0 0 2 2' 0 0 0 2 0 BNdl Fl L.oudefdole 3 0 1 1 3 0 3 0 I 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 Beach T 01<11 Ma.n:.ltee 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B-each Total SQea Raton HoceiiR.esort 1 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total Beaches (Btevafd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 County) Total TOiol 9 3 0 6 3 e 0 3 2 3 e 0 0 6 2 0 0 2 I Oporoteo only -. -

    PAGE 158

    ------
    PAGE 159

    ----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----bus routes that access these activity centers on Sundays only serve the AM portion of operating hours. Two routes provide service during both the AM and PM and one route serves the PMonly portion of the activity centers' operating hours on Sundays. Patterns and Assessment One of the most obvious characteristics of non-shift recreation service is that these activity centers are primarily served in the AM-only (32 of 45 routes), further indicating that transit is not adequately serving the PM needs of the various activity centers included in this analysis. It also should be noted that the one bus route that consistently served the PM-only within this category is an overnight route in the Miami-Dade system Only ten of the 45 routes in this category provide both AM and PM service throughout the span of the week. One reason that these areas may not be well served during the PM of their operating hours is that, with the exception of lincoln Road Mall in Miami (10 of the 19 weekday routes), these activity centers typically may be considered strictly daytime attractions, and, for the most part, they are. However, current scheduling negates the needs of employees who do not complete their workday in time for the last transit departure from the activity centers. Conclusion The existing conditions of transit service to major activity centers as reported by the MPOs for the 13 transit service areas included in this analysis, have been evaluated by determining whether an activity center is served by the bus routes within a particular transit system. This determination was made based on whether an activity center is served by transit in the AM only, the PM-only, or both the AM and PM. While providing service that spans the entire operating hours of an activity center and slightly beyond to account for workers' needs is optimal, structuring transit service around a particular activity center is not always feasible due to financial and operational constraints. However, the categorization of the major activity centers into land use categories and subsequent analysis of their useful transit service allow for the observation of general patterns and trends that may provide insight into the transit needs of the many who access these activity centers, especially the employees of these establishments. The assessment of the useful transit service accessing the major activity centers in this analysis provides insight into the current conditions of transit service and offers the opportunity to evaluate the gaps in service that may exist, as well as the potential for improvements in the level of transit service for major activity centers. Tran s i t users and non-users alike frequently cite the inconvenience of bus transit scheduling to desirable locations as a barrier to transit use. An evaluation of current transit conditions at popular destinations affords the opportunity to structure bus transit routes and their scheduling to maximize the benefits of transit service. Scheduling for Major Activity Ct111lel'$ Fkld Telt

    PAGE 160

    ------oce Coast 7 :00AM5:00 PM 8 :30AM-4:00PM 1 1:30AM 2:30PM LMAT 5 :45AM7 :00P M 7:00AM-6:00PM No SetVlce On l y two routes on Sundays: ono makes three trips a n d one makes fo ur trips during opetating hours 'very limited Sunday seN i ce : 6 routes i n Gteater Daytona Beach only. Sci>Jufing for Major Adivity Cerrtr= Field Test

    PAGE 161

    -----
    PAGE 162

    -----IOPERAnONAL BARRIERS 8o. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Table 4 -12 Level of Transit Service Access for Airport Activity Centers Buses Per Activity Center Operating Hour N=10 Maximum Min imum Average Median Weekday Service 565 0.50 1.45 1.00 Saturday Service 4 .08 0.24 1.01 0.53 Sunday Service 3.14 0.00 0.48 0.13 Airports are considered a 24-hour operation and, as described in the previous section, none of the transit systems included in this analysis access airports for this entire operating period. For this reason, the airport activity centers produced some of the lowest buses per acoh scores among the different land use categories. It also should be noted that for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, Miami-Dade Transit has the maximum number of buses per acoh accessing the activity centers in the airport l and use category (5.65, 4.08, and 3.14 buses per acoh on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, respectively). This transit system is the largest among the 13 included i n this evaluation. Comparatively, the second largest system included in the analysis, Broward County Trans it, only had 2.12, 1.4B and 0.79 buses per acoh on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, respectively. Medical Activity Centers Table 4-13 presents the number of buses per acoh by weekday, Saturday, and Sunday that access activity centers Included in the medical land use category During weekdays, the average number of buses per acoh that access medical activity centers is 1.84. The maximum is 5.30, the minimum is 0.46, and the median is 1.11 buses per acoh. As with the airport category, the medical activity centers receive slightly less service on Saturdays. The median remains the same, 1.11, but the maximum number of buses per acoh decreases to 4.49 and the minimum is 0.38, while the average is 1.66 buses per acoh. Sundays reveal a dramatically decreased level of transit service, with a maximum number of buses per acoh of 1.10 and the minimum and median both equaling zero. The average number of buses per acoh on Sundays is 0.26. This partially is attributable to the fact that 5 of the 13 transit systems in this analysis do not operate on Sundays, as previously described in Table 4-11

    PAGE 163

    -----
    PAGE 164

    ----
    PAGE 165

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---Table 4 level of Transit Service Access for Business/Government Activity Centers Buses Per Activity Center Operating Hour N;25 Maximum Min imum Average Median Weekday Service 59.40 0.15 9 .55 3.00 Saturday Service N/A N/A NIA N/A S unday Service N /A N /A N/A N/A As with the previous cat e gories, Miami-Dade Transit prov ides the maximum numbe r of buses per acoh accessing the activity centers in this category (59.40). Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HARlLine) serves Downtown Tampa with 40.60 buses per acoh, the second highest leve l of transi t service to the bus iness/govern ment activity centers. The relatively high level of service to these activity centers may be ex plained by the fact that radial transit systems were typically developed with downtowns/CBDs as their core, and most of the act ivity centers in this category are situated in these areas. The minimum number of buses per acoh (0.15) is p rovi ded to t he 1itusville central business district (CBD) by Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT). It should be noted, however, that this transi t system evolved from a door-to-door paratransit operation, originally developed to serve the elderly population in Brevard County. The cur rent transit situation in this area is somewhat of a combined paratransit-type service and regular fixed -route system. Education Activity Centers Table 4-16 r eveals that the education category activity centers receive the second highest leve l of weekday transit se.rvice, with a weekday maximum of 29.79 and a minimum of 0.47. The average i s 6.66 and the median is 2. 91 buses accessing these activity centers per hour of operation. The range of Saturday transit service in thi s category is greatly reduced, from the minimum o f 0 .00 to the maximum of 7 .20 buses per acoh. However, the Saturday average is 4.09 bus per acoh and the median is 3.10 buses per acoh, not s ig nificantly lower than t he weekday average (6.66) and median {2.91). aasses are held on Sundays at only one of the education activity centers and this i s the only activity ce nte r that rec e ives Sunday transit service, therefore accounting for the identica l maximum, minimum, average, and median figures of 4.95 buses per acoh for Sundays. 5chedu/ing for I'Ujor ActMty Centers Field Test

    PAGE 166

    ----i0PERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Table4-16 Level of Transit Service Access for Education Activity Centers Buses Per Activity Center Operating Hour Maximum Minimum AverageM edian Weekday Service 29.79 0.47 6 66 2.91 Sa turday Service 7.20 0 .00 4.09 3 .10 Sunday Service 4 .95 4 .95 4.95 4 .95 A s with each of the other land use categories, the education activity centers in Miami-Dade County once again receive the highest level of transit service on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. As Illustrated in Table 4-7, 11 of the 16 activity centers In this cat egory hold Saturday classes, al t hough the operating hours are less than those during weekdays. In fact all but one of the education activity centers receive some transit service on Saturdays, albeit at a reduced level of service than is provided during weekdays. With even shorter operating hours than those of Saturday one activ ity center in this category is I n operation on Sunday and I s served by 4 95 buses per acoh on that day. Recreation Activity Centers The final land use category addressed In the l eve l of trans i t service access t o major activity centers analysis focuses on recreational facilities The number of buses per acoh accessing the activity centers in the recreation category is presented in Table 4-17 During weekdays, the activity centers are ac cessed by a minimum of 0.47 and a maximum of 27.00 buses per acoh. The weekday average is 4.28 and the median i s 1.50 buses per acoh. On Saturdays, the recreation activity centers rece ive a slightly lower level of transit service w ith a maximum of 18.40, a minimum of 0.00 an average of 3.21, and a median of 1.48 buses per acoh. As expected, Table 4 -17 reveals a lower leve l of transit service on Sundays ranging from the minimum of 0.00 to the maximum of 15.92 buses per acoh. The Sunday average Is 1.80 and the median is 0.00 buses per acoh.

    PAGE 167

    ----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;E-----Table 4-17 Level of Transit Service Access for Recreation Activity Centers Buses Per Activity Center Operating Hou r N;11 Maximum Minimum Average Median Weekday Service 27.00 0 .47 4.28 1.50 Saturday Service 18 .40 0.00 3.21 1.48 Sunday Service 1 5.92 0.00 1.80 0.00 As exhibited in the previous catego ries, the largest transit system in the analysis, Miami-Dade Transit, provides the highest leve l of transit service to recreation activity centers on weekdays (27 .00), Saturdays (18.40), and Sundays (15.92 ). The minimum le vels of transit service are spread among the transit systems during the three time periods. During weekdays, the minimum (0.47) buses per acoh are provided by PalmTran to the recreation activity center located in Boca Raton. On Saturdays, Space Coast Area Transit does not provide transit service to the recreation activity center within its service area, resul ting in 0.00 buses per acoh on that day. However, all of the other activity centers indude d In the recreation land use category do receive some transit service on Saturdays, as i.s evident from the Saturday average of 3.21 buses per acoh This is significant as most recreation activity centers, such as beaches and parks, are most heavily used on the weekends. As with the Sunday service in other categories, the fact that some transit systems do not operate on that day results in zero vehicles serving some of the r ecreation activity centers on Sundays In fact, the level of transit service access to the recreation activity centers i s drastically reduced on Sundays, as more than half of the activity centers i nclu ded in this category do not receive any transit service on Sundays. Sch
    PAGE 168

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS T O TRANSIT USE-----Major Findings o f the Transit Scheduling for Major Activity Centers Field Test A common complaint made by tTansit passengers, as well as non-users, is that public transit does not travel to desired destinations at the times when people would like to trave l to and from those destina tions The Intent of the transi t scheduling for majo r activity centers fie ld test was to provide a prelimin ary assessment of whether and to what deg ree transit service In Florida Is accessing major activity centers in order to identify possible gaps in the scheduling of transit serv ice to activity centers. Toward this end information was collected and analyzed in relation t o the operating hours of and transit service provided to 94 major activity centers located in 13 transit service areas throughout Florida. These data were organized i nto six land use categories ( airports medical, shopping, bus i ness/govemment, education, and recreation) and compared in order to determine the existing conditions of transit s ervice access to majo r activity centers in Florida and the l evel o f tran sit service provided t o these activity centers The existi ng con ditio ns analy si.s e va l uated whether or not the activity cent ers included in the a nalysis are served by transit in terms of the earliest and latest trip(s) available to transit patrons. This anal ysis focused on the availability of transi t service, while the leve l of tTansit service access analys is addressed the question of hew much transit serv ice is provided to the 94 major activity centers This was accomplished by cons i dering the number of bus routes frequency of bus serv i ce, and percent of the activity centers' operating hours that receive transit service Thus, the assessment of the level of transit service access to major activity cente rs provides a comparat i ve analysis of the number of buses that access each major activity center per activity center operating hour. The major findings from e ach analysis are provi d ed in the follow ing sections. Summary of Major Rndlngs Existing Conditions of Transit Service to Major Activ ity Centers A ll of the major activity cent ers i ncluded in the existing conditions of transit service to major activity centers a nalysis are accessible by transit ; however, they may or may not be accessible at the most desirable or necessary times. Some activity cente. rs require a relatively ear1y AM start that may not be served by a transit system that is not yet in se rvice for the day. Other activity centers are in operation beyond the dally span of se rvice of many of the transit systems and are, therefore, not served by transit in the PM period. Tab l e 4 presents the general operating hours of each of the 13 transit systems included in this analysis. These hours were obtained by examinin g the pr in ted transit i nformation materia l s (schedules and route maps), as well as through direct contact with severa l of the transit agencies. In the event of discrepancies between the printed timetables and the information pro vi ded by the transit agencies, an estim a tion was made to describe a transit system 's general hours of opera tion

    PAGE 169

    ----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS&. IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT Us;e----Based on data presented in Tables 4-1 through 4-10 of this chapter, as well as the Information compiled in Table 4-11, the following patterns have been identified related to transit service availability to the major activity centers included in this analysis. The major activity centers in the airport land use category are generally not served or are poorly served by transit for the AM portion of the first shift the PM portion of the second shi ft, and both portions of the third shift. These times are generally outside the operating hours for most of the transit systems included in this analysis. The airports are consistently served by transit in the PM portion of Shift 1 and AM portion of Shift 2, which are situated in the mid-afternoon when all of the transit systems are in full operation. A similar situation exists at the major activity centers of the medical land use category, in that the AM portion of Shift 1 and the PM portion of Shift 2 are frequently not served by transit, but the PM portion of Shift 1 and the AM portion of Shift 2 a r e consistently served due to their mid-afternoon start (Shift 2) and end (Shift 1) times. As with the airport category, Shift 3 is infrequently served in the AM portion. However, in contrast to the airports, the PM portion of Shift 3 is frequently served by transit because most of the bus routes are in operation by the time this shift ends. The overall pattern of transit service at the shopping major activity centers is that they are served in the AM but are generally not served in the PM. The mid-to late morning AM start times associated w ith these activity centers allows for transit service, but many systems have ceased daily operations by the typically late-evening PM end times of these activity centers. In addition, the shopp i ng major activity centers often serve as transfer poi nts to other routes, and frequently are served by transit hours before shopping activities begin. In general, the business/government major activity centers are well served by transit. The business day falls well within the daily span of service, and these activity centers are commonly located in downtown areas, the traditional hub of transit activity around which a radial network i s structured Those business centers located outside the city center also are relatively well served by transit. Major activity centers in the education land use category most frequently are served by transit in the AM-only, although course scheduling results in the PM portion of these act i v i ty centers ending in the late evening during weekdays. Similar to the shopping category, most of the transit systems are not in service by the time evening classes have been dismissed, resulting in a gap in service for the PM portion of the education category s day Saturdays generally are well served in this category, however, because S<:h
    PAGE 170

    ----
    PAGE 171

    -----!OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----attributable to the fact that business/government activity centers typically are located in downtown areas, which are often the hub of transit activity. Comparatively, other land use categories, such as the medica l category, seem to be less well served by trans i t during weekdays. The low numbers for this category likely are re.lated to the fact that, for the purposes of this study and in rea lity medical centers and hospitals are considered to be 24hour operations. Because transit service is generally not provided 24 hours per day, these activity centers appear to have a lower level of transit service. Furthermore, the level of transit service access to major activity centers is most certainly affected by the day of the week that is being measured. As de monstrated in Table 4-11, several of the transit systems provide shortened service on Saturdays and Sundays, and some do not operate on Sundays at all. In determining the level of transit service access for the major activity centers, the variation of an activity center's operating hours, as well as the variation in the hours of transit operation, must be considered. Based upon the data compiled in Tables 4-12 through 4-17, the following are general findings in relation to the leve l of transit service access to the major activity centers in this study. M iami-Da de Transit consistently provides the highest level of transit service access to major activity centers when compared with the other 12 transit systems in cluded in the analysis. The major activity centers located in Brevard County tend to receive the lowest level of transit service in comparison to the other 12 transit service areas included in the analysis. Most of the land use categories included in the analysis appear to receive a sufficient level of transit service during weekdays and Saturdays. However, transit service in most transit service areas is drastically reduced or curtailed on Sundays, resu lting in low level s of transit service to major activity centers on this particular day. The activity centers categorized under the airport and medical land use categories receive the lowest level of transit service due to the fact that these activity centers are 24-hour per day operations and none of the transit systems included in this analysis provide 24-hour service consistently. Airports, while rece iving some transit service, a re not well served by any transit system included in the analysis. The weekday average of 1.45 buses per acoh and the Saturday average of 1.01 buses per acoh suggest that transit service to airports i s not designed to accommodate the airport worker or, in most cases, travelers. Similarly, of the six transit

    PAGE 172

    -----
    PAGE 173

    ----....,OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US,E---- The weekday range for the level of transit service to recreation activity centers is 0.47 to 27.00 buses per acoh. In accordance with the general pattern of other land use categories, the activity centers included in the recreation category receive a lower leve l of service on weekends (from 0.00 to 18.40 buses per acoh on Saturdays and between 0.00 to 15.92 buses per acoh on Sundays). However, the activity centers in this category likely are utili z ed primarily on weekends. Therefore, the results in this category demonstrate a potential need for additional transit service access on Saturdays and Sundays.

    PAGE 174

    ----
    PAGE 175

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US;E-----Recommendation 2: Evaluate Scheduling Process and Priorities Scheduling decisions made by transit planners and schedulers at transit agencies are gui ded by a myriad of variables that inclu de, but are not limi ted to, customer travel demands. Scheduling decisions also are influenced by decisions related to transit system priorities such as the goal of ge09raphic coverage versus ridersh ip maximization, union rules, funding considerations and their relat i onshi p to the span of service, days of service, and frequency of transit service, as well as political influences related to customer requests and complaints. In order to achieve a full understanding of the transit scheduling process, espec iall y as it relates to transit service access to major act ivi ty centers, it is recommended that the transit p lanning staff and schedulers at each of the 22 F lo ri da transit systems be surveyed to gain insights into the formal and Informal scheduling processes employed and the priorities of each system as they pertain to scheduling existing transit services and planning future services. Recommendation 3: Develop Guidelines for Level of Transit SeNice Access Standards The r e lativ e simplicity of the level of transit service access equation that was introduced prev ious ly in this document should allow transit agencies throughout the state to conduct similar anal yses of their own ridership attractors, as was suggested in a previous recommendation. As the systems conduct this type of analysis, however, invariably, they will want to have a standard or accepta ble range with which to compare their scores. To this end, it is recommended that further research be completed on this type of analysis with regard to the development of "ru les of thumb" scores (or ranges of scores) for each of the activity center types. This will p rovide the transit agencies with the comparative values that they will need for their level of transit service access analyses, which can also serve as goals for future accessibility improvements to their activity centers. Recommendation 4: Assess the "Hub and Spoke" Configuration of Transit Services The predominance of "hub and spoke," or radial, configuration of transit services throughout Florida was mentioned several times in this chapter with regard to transit service access to the major activity centers included in the transit scheduling fie ld test. This configuration of transit services is characterized by transit "hubs," typically located in downtown areas, from which transit services "ra di ate" out into the transit service area. The typical design of this configuration, with the majority of bus routes beginning and ending at hubs located in downtown business districts, was well-suited for past e m p loyment and residence patterns. However, the prevalence of suburb-to-suburb travel and commutes today suggests that some transit service areas might be better suited for alternative forms of transit system configurations, wherein suburb-to-suburb travel does not necessitate travel to downtown areas

    PAGE 176

    ----OPE RATI O N A L BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS T O TRAN SIT USE----that significantly ina-e ase total travel time and make transit a less attractiv e transportation option than the personal automobile Therefore, it is recommended that, based on the results of the transit service access to major transit activ ity center s ana lyses, t r ansit agencies strong l y cons ider alternativ e sys tem configur ations better suited to today's travel demands, as well as those of the future. Recommendation 5: Consider Increasing Evening Span of Transit Service The transit scheduling for major activity centers field t est revealed a consist ent pattern of ceasin g transit operations prior to the clos ing times assoc iated with the major activity centers included in the analyses This pattern of AM-only service was evident in each of the six land use categories. This is l i kely a major source for the common perception that buses do not travel to the places that people wish to go at the times that they wish to travel The l ack of evenin g serv ice is particu l a rly problematic for workers Who w ish to use transit for commuting purposes. Of the 13 transit system s Included in the field test, only 3 operate services unti l 9:00 PM or l ater on w ee kdays, only 2 transit systems p rovide service beyond 9:00 PM on satu r d a ys, and only MDT operates service this late on Sundays. Given the prominent role of the service industry in Florida's economy, it is likely that a very larg e portion of the permanent and visiting population either works beyond the typical 8:30 AM t o 5:30 PM workday or is utilizing sef\lices beyond those hours. Therefore, it is recommended that transit agencies conside r making later evening service a high priority in either the reallocation of exis ting resources or the planning of system enhanc eme nts. Sdtedu/1119 Activity Crren F-TtJst

    PAGE 177

    ----
    PAGE 178

    ----
    PAGE 179

    -----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Bibliography Abdei-Aty, Mohamed A., Ryuich Kitamura, and Paul P. Jovanis. "Investigating Effect of Advanced Traveler Information on Commuter Tendency to Use Transit." Transportation Research Record 1550 (1996):65-72. Abdei-Aty, Mohamed A. and Paul P. Jovanis. "The Effect of ITS on Transit Ridership ITS Quarterfy3(2) (1995):21-25. Algers, Staffan, Stein Hansen, and Goran Tegner. "Role of Waiting Time, Comfort, and Convenience in Modal Choice for Work Trip." Transportation Research Record 534 (1975):38-51. Bakr, Mamdouh M. and Richard K. Robinson. "Commuter Preference For Bus Stop Sign Information." Transportation Engineering Joumal of ASCE 104 (1978):267-278. Benjamin, Julian and David Hartgen. The Perception and Incidence of Crime on Middle-Sized Transit Systems in the Southeastern, U.S.A.: An Overview and Case Study. Raleigh, North Carolina: University of North Carolina, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, 1994. Byrd, Joseph P. IV. "Characteristics, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Transit Nonusers in the Atlanta Region." Transportation Research Record563 (1976):29-37 Cervero, Robert. ''Tra cking Accessibility." Access 11 (1997):27-31. Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR). Performance Evaluation of Florida's Public Transit Systems. Tampa, Flori da: Center for Urban Transportation Research, 2000 Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR). Customer Satisfaction Index for Florida Transit Properties. Tampa, Flori da: Center for Urban Transportation Research, 2000. Charles River Associates, Incorporated. Building Transit Ridership: An Exploration of Transit's Market Share and the Public Policies That Influence It Transit Cooperative Research Program, (1997) Report 27. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press. Bibfiograplty

    PAGE 180

    ----OPERAnONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Evans John E (Jay ) IV, V ijay Perincheny and G. Bruce Doug l as m "Tran si t Friend li ness Factor: Approa ch to Quan t ifying Transit Access Environment in a Transportation Planning Model. Trilnsportation Research Ream:i1604 (1997):32-39. E verett, Peter B., Victori a B. Anderson, and Udit Mak ranczy "Transit Route Pamphl ets: Do They Work?" Transit Journa/ 3(3) (1977):590. Field ing, Gordon J., Douglas P. Blankenship, and Timo t hy Tar diff. "Consumer Attitudes Toward Public Transit. Transportation Research Rerord563 (1976):2228 Foster, N orm an SJ., Peter C. Dam i ano, Elizabet h T. M omany, and Herm ine T. M cleran. Rural Pub li c Tran sportation : Perception s of Tran sit Managers, Directors of Ar ea Agencies on Aging, and Eld ers. Transportation Research Record155 7 (1996):5863. F rlman, Margareta, Bo E dvard sso n, and Tommy Garling. "Perceived Service Quality Attributes in Public T r ansport : I nferences from Comp l aints and Negative Critical Incidents." Journal of Public Transportation 2(1} (1998 ):67-89. Gustafson, R.L, H.N. Curd, and T. F Golob. Preferences for a Demand-Responsive Transporta tion System: A Case Study Report." Highway Research Ream:t367(197l}:3145. Inga ll s Gerald L., David T. Hartgen, and Timothy W Owens "Public Fear of Crime and Its Role I n Bus Tran sit U se." Transportation Research Record1433 (1994):201 -2 11. Uff, S D Public Information Systems in Urban Mass Transit. Unpub li shed Mas t er's Thesis. Evanston Illinois : Northwestern University 1971 Linsalata, Jim. Americans in Transit: A Profile of Public Transit Passengers. Washington, DC: American Publi c Transit Associati on, 1992. Lou kaitou-Sider ls An astasia. Reviving Transit COrridors and Transit R id i ng." Access 4 ( 1994):27 -31. Loukaitou Sideris, Anastasia and Robin Ug get. "On Bu. s S t op Crime. Acress 16 (2000) : 27-33. M i erzejewski, Edward A., and William L. Ball. N ew Findings on Factors Related to Transit Use." ITE Journa l February (1990): 34-39.

    PAGE 181

    -------
    PAGE 182

    BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE-----Winters, Philip L., Rollo C. Axton, and James B. Gunnell. "Transit and R i deshari ng Information Study." Transportation Research Record1321 (1991):97-102.

    PAGE 183

    ---OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPED IMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---Appendix A Transit Matrix

    PAGE 184

    Table A 1 Time Scheduling Ooy Schodulln Sin It Routos We ek day ISat.ISun Sun. Only Houfty Week Week(Week-(May SalJ Week -nme Time (by Exact AMI day day/Sal end .) All Mon. Sat. include Sun. end Table Table Map Transit TY!le M in ) Time P M Only Separate Separate week Sat. Only Holidays) Separate Only 01her Only &Mop On ly Baytown Ride G uide X X X X T rolley BCT 8 Tr ansi t Guide Tim e Table R oute s #1, 2 ,5-7,9-1 2 1415,1 7,20 ,28,30X X X 31,34, 36,40,50,55-56 6 0 7 2 8 1 838 4 93 Time Table Rou tes -18,22 X X X X Time T able Routes X X X #3 57 6 2,75 ,95 Time Tab le Rou t e #75 X X X Tlma Table Routes 1192,94 X X Combined Routes X X X (A, B.C,O) POftllxooke Pines Community Shunle B u s SeMce R oute and X X X TimeTable Miramar Corrvnunity Stlunle Bus Service R oute and X X X TimeTable Coconu t Cree k Shuttle Service X X X Bus Route and Time T a b l e Coo per C it y Commun ity Bus X X X Rout e and TNYie T able B roward Urban S h unle X X West ern E xpr ess Guides X X X X Tamarac Transit Route X X X X Timetables IRed, Gr. Ywl X ECAT Ride Guide 7/30120001 X X Ride Guide {2/4/2001 ) X X

    PAGE 185

    Table A Time Scheduling Day Scheduling Sin le Routes Weekday ISat./Sun. Sun. On l y Hourly Week-Week(Week (May Sal./ Week Time Time (by Exact AMI day day /Sat. end.) All Mon. Sat. include Sun. end Tablo Table Map Transit Tvoe Min.) Time P M Only Separate Separate Week Sat. Only Holidays) Sepa r a t e Only Other Only &Map On l y HARTline Transit Guide Express Routes X X X South Countv Circulator X X X Hartline Routes # 1 2 5,6 7 8,10,11 '12,15,19,30,32,34,36,3 X X X 746 HartUne Routes #3 14 39 X X X Hartline Routes #4, 9,16 17, 1 8,31 ,33, X X X 38 41 87,88 JTA Transit Guido Routes : Blanding F iy, AlllngtonFiy,OrgPkFiy, X X X X A r gvleFiv HghldFiv Routes: St. AugExpS$-35, CCX X X X 37 Routes: S$2 4 20; WS3,6,10,20; NS-9 12,22 ; X X X X Alllna ton 2-3 Routes: Northwest Loooer X X X X Rout e : NS X X X X Routes : Arlington 1 ,5,20; B H 1 2,3 ; WS1 ,2,4,5 7 8,9; SS X X X X 1 ,3,5,6,7,8,9,21,40; N S 1 -8101520 Cily of Key Bus Schedule X X West L MAT or Route Map & Sc h edu le: Bartov. X X X Citrus Exoress22X Connection Route Map & Schedule (all the X X X rest)

    PAGE 186

    T able A 1 limo Sehedullno D a Se h e dulina S i n l o Routos Weekday /Sat.JSun Sun. Only Hourly WeekWeek -(Wde X Transit Rider's Handbook X MetroMover Guide X Transit Mao MetroRail Guide X X X Dade-Monroe Exoress X X X Busw ay/C oral Reel Max X X X Molto Area Express Rout e s X X X ( the rest). Tri Rai l Koge r Shulll Kendall Area Transit X X X Bu sway Loca l NilJht owt S huttl e, W est Dade & SeaPort X X X Connection North D ad e & Dorel eonn eccio X X X M e tr o bu s Sched ule : R. V, X X X Metrobu s Schedul e : A-W, 1 (Letters & Number$ not X X X I included in above li Me trobus Schedule: 95X X X X

    PAGE 187

    Table A 1 Time Scheduling Da Scheduling S i n le Routes Weekday /Sai./S u n Sun. Only Hoolly Week Week(Week (May Sal./ Week Time Time (by Exact AM/ day day /Sat end. ) AU Mon Sat include Sun. end Tab l e Tab l e Map Transit Type Min.) Time PM Only Separate Separate Wee k Sat Only Holidays) Separate Only Othe< Only &Map Only Okaloosa County Ride t h e wave Guide X X T ransi t PaimTran Svslem & Ride(s Guide X X SvslemMao X Route Map & SchedUle #42, 60 X X X Route Map & SchedUle X X X Combined 54/55 Route Map & Schedu l e #1 X X X Weekend O nlv Roule Map & Sch edu l e X X X #1 52 53 94 Weekday Only Route Maps (e l l the rest) X X X PCPT Route Maps & Schedules X X X X PCPT System Poclcet Map PSTA Suncoast Beach Trolley X X X SYstem Mao Route Maps & Schedules: X X X 100x ,444, 58,64 ,91,92.94, 96.9! Route #419,3S,52.59,74 X X X Route#62 X X X Routes #7, 75 .80 X X X Routes #22,30,32,67.73,78 .82 X X X Route Maps & Sched ules (aU X X X X llle res!) RTS Sorina Service Schedu l e X X Sarasota South Eoress Countv X X X X County Area South & North County Guides Transi t (split county each one is a X X comp Jete guidel S arasota Trotie}' X X X X X Space Coast Countywide Schedules & Rout X X X Area Transit Maps SUN T RAN Bus Route Map X X X TALTRAN The Ride Guide X X -------X -----

    PAGE 188

    T i me Sch edulina Oa Schedulin Sin le Routes Weekday /Sa t.IS un Sun. Only Hourly Week Week(Wee k (May Sat./ We e k Time Time (by Exacl AM/ day day /Sat. end.) A ll Mon. Sat. inc lude Sun end Tab l e Tab l e Map Transi t Tvoe Min.) T ime PM Only Separate Separat e Week Sal. Only H olidays) Separate Only Other Only & Map Only TRI-RAIL Tra i n Schedule and System X X X Information Swao Shoo Shuttle X X X TMAXShutt l e X X X Ro ute 63 X X X X MIA Terminal X X X Koger Miami Airport Station, & X X X Rout e 7 9 Routes 33 ,53, & 74: Boca X X X X Raton Stati o n Combi ned R o utes: 4 1/42143 & X 23124 X X X VOTRAN Bus Se
    PAGE 189

    Table A-1 ---Multiple Routes Color Scheme Stop All nment Route & Transfers nm e Wri tten Separate Separate Tab l es o n Transer Time Time & Hor izontal Vert ical Table. Gu ide Letters, Points Table Tab les & Multiple Map(s) 2 Mutti -(Left to (Top to Info Map. or and/o r Dots, or on Transit Tvoe Only One Ma p Maps Only Color Color B&W Pi es Righi) Bollom) Na((alive List Table Numbers Map Baytown Ride Guide X X X X Trotlev BCT B Transit Guide X X X X T ime Table Routes #1,2,5 -7,9 12, 14-15,17,20,28 ,30 X X X X X X 31.34,36,40,50,55 56,60 72,81 83-84 93 T i me Table Routes #18,22 X X X X X X Time Tab le Rou tes X X X X X #35762 75 95 Time Tab l e Route #75 X X X X X Time T able Routes #92, 94 X X X X X Combined Margate Inner-City Routes (ABC D) X X X X X X Pembrooke Pines Community Shuttle Bus Service Route and X X X X TimeTable Miramar Community ShutUe Bus Service Route and X X X X X X TimeTable Coconu t Creek Shuttle Service X X X X X Bus Route and Time Table Cooper City Community Bus X X X X Route and Time Table Broward U rban Shuttle X X X X Westem ExP
    PAGE 190

    Table A 1 M ultlol e Routes Color Scheme Stoo All nmon t Route & Tranarera rome Writlen Separate Sepatale Tables on Transe< Time T1m& & Horizontal Vertical Table Guide Loners. Points Table Tabl es& Multiple Map(s ) 2 Mufti--(left to (Top to In f o Map, or and/or Dots. or on Transit Tvoe On ly One M ap Maps Only Color Color B&V. Pies Right) Bottom) Narralive list Table Numbers Map HARTline Transit Guide X X X X X ss Routes X X X X South Co untv Circula t or X X X X X Hartline Rou t es 1.2 ,5,6,7, 8,10.11 1 2,15 19,30 ,32,3 4 3 6,3 X X X X 7 4 6 H art l ine Routes #3,14, 39 X X X X Hartline Rou tes 114,9.1 6, 17,18,31, 33, X X X X 36,41,87 .88 JTA G uide X X X X X X Routes: Blandingf ly, Arlingtonfly. OrgPkFiy, "H..hk!Av' X X X X Rootes : SI.AugExpSS-35, CCX X X X 37 Routes: SS.2.4.20: WS. 3,6,1 X X X X Arli on 2-3 Routes: Northwest Loooer X X X X Rout e: N S -11 X X X X Rootcs : A rlington 1,5, 2 0; BH1.2.3: WS1. 2,4 5 7,8 ,9; SS X X X X 1 ,3,5 ,6, 7 .8 9 2 1,40; N S. 1 8101 5 2 0 City of Koy Bus Sc hedul e X X X X X X W es t LMATor Route Map & Schedule : BartO\\ X X X X X X X Citrus E x or es s22X ConnecUon Route Map & SChedul e (all the X X X X X X X -_ _[_OSI) -

    PAGE 191

    Table A-1 Multiolc Routes Color Scheme Stoo All nment Route & Transfers Time Written Separate Sepa rate Tables on Transer Time Time & Horizontal Vertical Table, Guide Letters, Points Table Tab les & MuHi ple Map{s) 2 Mulli (Left to (Top to Int o Map, or and/or D ots, or on Transit T Only One Map Maps Only Color Color B&W Pies Right) Bottom) Narrative List Tab l e Numbers Map LeeTran SVtemMap X X X Trollev Guide X X X X Combined R o utes: 1101115 X X X X X Routes: 20. 85 X X X X X X R oute : 150 X X X X X X Route the res! X X X X X X LYNX Public Bus_S)'stem Mao X X X X X Schedule Book X X X X X Downtown Dlsnev D irect X X X X X X link 1 -I 3,5,10 ,12. 14,18,27 .34 .43-X X X X 44 47 52 54 I L INK (all the r est) X X X X X I MCA T Ride Guide X X X X X X Miami-Oade STS Ride(s Guide X X Transit T r ansit RldMs Handbook X X X X X X MetroMover Guide X X X X X Transij MaD X X X X X MetroRail Guide X X X X X Dade-Monroe Express X X X X X Buswav/Coral Reef Max X X X X X M etro Area Express Routes X X X X X (the r est), Tri-Rall Koger Shuttl Kendall Area Transit X X X X X Busway Local. Night Owl Shuttle, W
    PAGE 192

    T able A-1 --M ultiple Routes Cofor Scheme Stop AI nment Route & Transfers Time WriUen Separate Tables on Transer Time Time & Horizonta l V e rtical Tab l e Guido LeHers. Po ints Tabl e Tables & Multip le Map (s ) 2 Mulli (Left 10 (Top to Info Map, or and/or Dots, or on Transa Type Only One Map Maps Only Color Color B&W Pies Righi) Bollom) Narrative Ust Table Numbers Map Okaloosa Counlv Ride the Wave X X X X X X Transit PalmTran Mao & Rlde(s Guide X X X X X X X Svstem Mao X X X X X X X Rou t e Map & Sched u l e 1142, 60 X X X X X Route Map & Schedu l e X X X X X Combine d 54155 Route Map & Schedule 111 X X X X X Weekend Only Route Map & Schedule X X X X X #1 52 53 94 Weekdav Onlv Route Maps {all the rest X X X X X PCPT Route MapS & Schadul os X X X X PCPT System Pock et Map X X X X PST A Suncoast Beach Trollev X X X X SvstemMao X X X X X X Route MapS & Schedules: X X X X 100.,444, 58, 64,91,92 94,96,95 Route 114,19 38 52 59,74 X X X X Route tl62 X X X X Routes #7,75,80 X X X X Routes # 22.3 0.32,6 7,73,78.82 X X X X X Routo M ap s & Sched u les (al l X X X X X tile r e st) RTS Sl)rlnQ Service Schedule X X X X X X X X X Sarasota South ExD
    PAGE 193

    Table A-1 Multi ole Routes Color Scheme Stoo Ali nment Route & Transfers Time Written Separate Separate Tables on Transer Time Time & Horizonta l Ven i cal Table, Guide LeHers Poin ts Tab l e Tables & Multiple Map(s) 2 Mulli(left to (TOt> to I nfo Map, or and/or Dots. o r on Transit Tyoe Only On e Map Maps O nly Color ColO< B&W Pies R ig ht) Botlom) Narrative List Table Numbers Map TRIRAI L Train Schedule and System X X X X X X X X I Information Swan Shoo Shuttle X X X X X T MAX Shuttle X X X X X Route63 X X X X MIA Termina l X X X Koger Miami Air port Stat ion, & X X X X X Route 79 Routes 33,53, & 74; Boca X X X X Raton Station Co mbined Roules: 41142/43 & X X X X 23/2 4 VOTRAN Bus Service Guide (Sun. X X X X X X Service) Trolley Service X X X X Ho l iday Scl1edul e X X X X Beach Tran X X X Wesl Volusla Bus Service X X X X X X Guide SE Volusla Bus Service Guide X X X X X X Votusia/OrJando Bus Service X X X X X Guide Daytona Beach Bus Service X X X X X X Guide WHAT Rou t e Mao & Schedules X X X X X X X

    PAGE 194

    Table A Mlscellanous Points on Non Time System Fare System Transit Tvoe Table I nfo Info Lege nd Ads. Baytown Ride Guide Trollev X X BCT B Transit Guide X X X Time Tab l e Routes #1, 2,5-7,9 12,14 15.17,20 ,28,30 X 31,34,36 40,50,$5 X X X 56,60,72,81 83-84,93 T ime Table Routes #18 .22 X X X X Time Tabfe Rou tes X X X X #3 57,62, 75 95 T ime T able RO
    PAGE 195

    Tabl e A-1 Mlscellanous Points on Non T i me System Fare S ystem T ransi t Type Table I nfo Info Legend Ads HARTiine Transit Guide X X X Exoress Routes X X X X South Countv C i rcu l ato r X X X X Hart l i ne Routes #1.2,5 6,7 8,10,11 12 15.19 30,32,34 ,3 6 3 X X X 746 Hartline Routes #3,14 39 X X X Hartli n e Routes #4,9,16.17.18.3 1 ,3 3 X X X 38418788 JTA Transit G u i de X X Rout es: B l andlngFly M ing tonF i y,Org P kFty, X A r avleFiv. HahldFrY X X Rout es: St.AugExpSS 35, CC X X X 37 Rou tes: SS-2 .4 ,20; WS 3,6,10 ,20; NS 9 ,12. 22; X X X Arl i naton 2 Routes: Northwest Loane r X X X Rout e : NS11 X X X R outes: Arling ton 1,5 ,2 0: BH 1, 2 3; WS-1 2,4 5,7 8 9 ; SS X X X 1,3 5 6 7,8 9 21.40; N S-18 101520 C i ty of Key Bus Sche d u l e X X X X West LMATor Route Map & Schedule : BartOl\ X X X Citrus Exoress 22X Connec1ion Route Ma p & Schedul e (all !he X X X r est) ---

    PAGE 196

    Table A-1 Mlscellanous Points on NonTime System Fare System Transit Tvoo T able Info Info Legend Ads. LeeTra n SvtemMao X X X Trollev Guide X X Combined Routes: 110/1 1 5 X X X Routes: 20. 85 X X Route : 150 X X Route Maos all t he reSil X X LYNX Publi c Bus Svstem Ma X X X X X Sclledute Book X X X X Downtown Disnev Direct X X X X Link 13 5, 10, 1 2, 14, 18. 27,34.43 X X X 44,47,52 54 LINK all the X X X MCAT Ride Guide X X X Miami-Dade STS Rlde(s Gu i de X X Transit Transit Ridefs Handbook X X MetroMover Guide X X X Transit Mao X X X X MetroRail Gui de X X X Dade-Monroe EXOress X X X X Buswav/Coral Reef Max X X X X Metro Area E.xpress Routes X X X (the rest). Tri-Rail Koger Shuttl Kendall Area Transit X X X X Busway Loca t. Night Owl Shutlle, West Dade & SeaPort X X X Connection Nor1h Dad e & Dora! Connec 11on X X X Metro bus Schedule: R. V, X X X 6 ,28, 29.48,56 57,65104 Metrobus Sclledule: AW, 1 9 1 (Letters & Numbers no t i ncluded i n above X X X Metrobus Schedule : 95X I.... X X X

    PAGE 197

    Tpble A-1 Miscellanous Points on NOn Time System Fare System Transit Type Table Info Info legend Ads. Okaloosa Countv Ride the Wave Guide X X X Transit Pa l m Tran Svstem Mao & Ride(s Guide X X X X X Svstem Mao X X X Route Map & Schedule #42, 60 X X X X Route Map & Schedule X X X X Combined 54155 Route Map & Schedule #1 X X X X Weekend OnlY Route Map & Schedu le X X X X #1 52 53 94 Weekdav OnJy Route Maps (all the rest) X X X X PCPT Route Maps & Schedules X X X X PCPT System Pocket Map X X X PSTA Sun coast Beach Tro l ley X X X SvstemMap X X X X Route Maps & Schedules: X X X X 100x,444, 58,64,91 Route #4, 19,38 ,52 ,59 ,74 X X X X Route 1162 X X X X Routes #7 75 80 X X X X Routes #22,30,32,67.73,78,82 X X X X Route MaPS & Schedules (all X X X X the rest\ RTS Spring Serv i ce Schedule X X X X Sarasota Sout h Express County X X County Area South & North County Guides Transit (split county each one is a X X X X complete QlJide). Sarasota Trolley X X Space Coast Countywide Schedules & Rout X X X X A rea Transit MaPS SUNTRAN Bus Route Map X X X X TA LTRAN The Ride Guide X X X X

    PAGE 198

    T able A 1 M i5Cella nous Points on Non-Time Systern Fare System Transit T voe Table I nfo I nf o lOjJend Ads. TR IRAil Tra i n Sclledule and System X X X X I nformation Swao Shoo S h u ttl e X TMAXShutlie X Route63 X M I A Termi n a l X Kog er. Miami Airport Station, & X X Route 7 9 Rout es 33, 53 & 74; Boca X X Raton Station Combined R o utes: 4 1/42/43 & X 23/24 VOTRAN Bus Service Guide (Sun. X X X X Service\ T r o l f e v Servi c e X X X Holiday Schedule X Beach Tran X X west Volusia Bus Service X X X X Gu i de SE Volusi a Bus Service G u ide X X X X VolusiafOrlando Bus Servi ce X X X Guide Daytona Beach Bus Service X X X X G uide WHAT Route Man & Schedu les X X X

    PAGE 199

    T a b l e A 1 S stemWi d e T r ansfer Routes Rid e R i d e Gu ide Gu ide N ot Not (Ail with Sy s te m On On o n on routes/ Sy s tem Map M ap/ Map/ Map/ Map/ No Wi d e Guide On Not On N ot Transit Type SWM) Map O nly TT onTT TT onTT Othe r Bayt own Ride Guide X X Tr oll ey BCT B Tran s tt G uide X Tim e Table Routes #1,2 ,5 7,9 1 2 14 15,17,20,28,3 oX 3 1 34,36,40 50,55 56 60 72,81 83-84 93 Time Ta b l e Routes #18,22 X T i m e Table Routes X # 3 57 6 2 759 5 T ime T able Route #75 X Time Table Ro utes #92, 94 X Combined Margate lnnerC ity Routes X {A B C,DI Pemb
    PAGE 200

    Tabl e A-1 S stem-Wide Trans-for Routes Ride Ride Guide Guide N o t N ot (All With System O n On on on r outes/ System Map Map/ Map/ Map/ Map/ N o Wlde Guide O n Not On N ot T ransit Tvoe SWM) Map Only TT onTT TT onTT H ARTline Guide X Exoress Routes X South Countv C ircul ator X H a rtl i ne Route s #1, 2 5,6.7 8.10,11,12,15,19,30,32,34,36,3 X 746 Hart l ine Routes #3,14,39 X Hartline Routes #4.9 ,16, 1 7, 1 8,3 1,33, X 38.41.87,88 JTA Transit Guide X X Routes : Bland i ngF iy, ArlingtonF i y ,OrgPkFiy. X Arav l eFiv. Hah l dFiv. Routes : St.AugExpSS 35 CC 37 X Routes: SS -2,4 ,20; ws-3,6, 1 0,20; NS 9,12 22: X Arlinoton 2-3 Routes: NorthWest Loooer X Route : N$-11 X Routes : Artington 1 5,20: BH 1,2 3; WS-1 .2,4,5, 7 8 9; SSX 1,3,5,6.7,8 9,21.40; NS1 8 1 0.15.20 City of Key Bus Sch edule X X We s t lMAT o r Route Map & Schedu le: Barto X Citrus Exo r ess 22X Connection Route Map & Sche du l e (all the X rest\

    PAGE 201

    Till!! A-1 --S stem-Wido Transfer Rout e s -Ride Guide Guide Not Not (All with System On On on on routes/ System Map Map/ Map/ Map/ Map/ No Wide Guide On Not On Not Transit Tvoe SWM) Map Only n on n n onn Ot h e r L..,Tran Svtem Mao X )( Trollev Guide X Combined Routes: 1 1011 15 X Routes: 20, 85 X Route : 150 X Ro u te M aos a l l the rest) X LYNX Public Sus >vstem Mao X X Schedule Book X X Downtown Disn e y Direct X Link 3 5 10 12,14, 18, 27,34 ,43X 44 47 52 54 LINK all the rest) X MCAT Ride Guide X X M iami-Cede STS Ride( s Guide Transit T ransit Ride(s Ha n dbook MetroMover Gui de X Transit Mao X X MetroRail Guide X Da de-Monroe Ex o ress Buswav/Co r a l Reef Max Metro A rea Express Routes X (the rest) Tri -Rail Koger Shutt! Kendall Area Transit X Busway Local, Night OWl Shutt le, West Dade & SeaPort X Connection NOI1h Dade & Ooral Connectio X Metrobus Schedule: R V X 6 28 2948 5857 65104 Me tro bus Sch edu l e: A-W, 1 -91 (Letters & Numbers not X included in abov e list l nol Metrc>bus Schedule : 95X X

    PAGE 202

    Tabl eA S stem-Wide Transfer Routes I !e Ride Guide Guide Not Not (All with System On On on on routes/ System Map Map/ Map/ Map/ Mapl ,.. ___ 'Sit I No IMde Guide On Not On N o t I T e SWM) Map Only TT on n n on TT Othe r) --Transit Palm T ran PCPl I PSTA RldA th8 'Map & I Route Map & Sch e dule #42, 6( 'Map& Comtwt IJte Map & :::>cr .......... 'leekend Only -- Map & Schea .. #1 .52.53,94 Weekday On l v Maps (all !he resll F Route Maps & PCPT System Pocket Map 1 Trollev >Map Rou1e Maps & Schedul es : -t:nnv AAA c;A Qi O"l OA OC X X X X X ? X X X X X X X ? I ? X X ''Y bad -X I I I I I I I I I .rte s #7, An X Rout es #22,30.32,67 73, 78,82 s (a l l the restl TS I North y Area Transit (split countv. each one i s a Space Coast Countyw i de Schedules & Routel Area Transi t Maps SUNTRAN Bus Route Map TALTRAN The Ride X X x X -X X X X

    PAGE 203

    Tpblf A 1 s stemW ida Transfe r Routes R i de Ride Guide Gui de Not Not (All with System On On on on routes/ System Map Map/ Map/ Map/ Map/ No Wide Guide On Not On Not Transit Tvoe SWM) Map Only TT onTT TT onTT Other TRt-RAJL Tra i n Schedule and System X Information Swap Shop Shuttle TMAX Shullle Route 63 M I A T erminal Koger, Miami Airport Station. & Rout e 79 Routes 33,5 3 & 74: Boca Raton StaUon Combined Rout&s: 41142/43 & 23/24 VOTRAN Bus Service Guide (Sun. X See, Service\ Mao' Trolle v Service H oliday Schedule X Beach Tran X Very Bad I West Volusi a Bus Service X Very' Guide Bad I SE V o l usia Bus Service Gui de ? ? ? ? Ve'YI Bad Vo lusi a/Or lando Bus Service X Very; Guide Bad Daytona Beach Bus SeNice X Very Guide B a d WHAT Route Mao & Schedul es ? ? ? ?

    PAGE 204

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS 8t IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US>E----AppendixB Appendix B Observation Guide

    PAGE 205

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE,---Appendix C Interview Guide

    PAGE 206

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT US:E----AppendixO Appendix D Demographics Questionnaire Demll!lraph/cs Questionnaire

    PAGE 207

    ----OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----AppendixE Appendix E Participant Worksheet & Participant Score Sheet

    PAGE 208

    PARTICIPANT#: TRIP PLANNING WORKSHEET BTT-29-S It's Monday You're at the Panama City Mall and you need to get to the Greyho und Bus Station by 4 PM. What is the most d i rect route(s} to take in order to get there on ti me? Please note a n y required transfers. Assume that you are on time if you arrive on or before the destination time Please choose the arrival time that is closest to OUr required destinatio n time and the l isted bus stop that is nearest to your destination. Origin Information: Route: Bus Stop: Time: Transfer Information (If necessary): Route: Bus Stop: T i me : Destination Information: Bus Stop: nme:

    PAGE 209

    PARTICIPANT#: -------TRIP PLANNING WORKSHEET LNX-4-C It's Saturday and you are at the Altamonte Mall. You need to get to Orange Blossom Trail and Central Florida Parkway (Greenway ) by 6:00 PM. What is the most direct route(s) to take in order to get there on time? Please note any required transfers. Assume that you are on time if you arrive on or before the destination time. Please choose the arrival time that is closest to your required destination time and the listed bus stop that is nearest to your destination Origin Information: Route: Bus Stop: Time: Transfer information (If necessary): Route: Bus Stop: Time: Destination Information: Bus Stop: Time:

    PAGE 210

    ----OPERAnONAL B A R RIERS 8r. IMP E DIME N TS TO T RANSIT USE----Appendix F Additional Demographic Data & Statistical Correlations

    PAGE 211

    SECTION 1: PREUMINARY STUDY DATA, INCLUDING DEMOGRAPHICS Table F 1 Gender of participants in Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 8 47.1 47.1 47. 1 2.00 9 52 9 52.9 1 00 0 Total 1 7 100.0 100.0 Table F 2 Age of participants in Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 4 23 5 23.5 23 .5 2.00 6 35.3 35.3 58.8 3.00 4 23.5 23 5 82.4 4.00 2 11.8 1 1.8 94.1 5.00 1 5.9 5 9 100.0 Total 17 100 0 10 0.0 Table F-3 Ethnicity of participants in Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 1 64.7 68.8 68.8 2.00 1 5.9 6 .3 75. 0 3 00 3 17 .6 18.8 93.8 5.00 1 5.9 6.3 100.0 Total 16 94.1 1 00 0 M issing System 1 5.9 Tota l 17 100 0

    PAGE 212

    Table F 4 Household Income of participants i n Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 2 1 1.8 11. 8 11. 8 2.00 2 11.8 11. 8 23 5 3.00 4 23 5 23 5 47 1 5 00 9 52. 9 52. 9 100.0 Total 17 100 .0 100.0 Table F 5 Education Level of participants In Preliminary Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 3.00 4 23 5 23 5 23 5 4 .00 6 35. 3 35.3 58. 8 5.00 7 41 .2 41 2 100 0 Total 17 100 0 100.0 Table F 6 Personal Vehicles In H ousehold of participants In Preliminary Study F r equency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Per cent Valid 1 .00 3 17.6 17. 6 17.6 2.00 5 29 4 29.4 47.1 3.00 7 41.2 41 2 88. 2 5.00 2 11. 8 11.8 100 0 Total 17 100 .0 100.0 Table F 7 Use of Publi c Transportation by participants in Preliminary Study F requency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 9 52.9 90.0 90.0 2.00 1 5 9 10.0 100 0 Total 10 58.8 100.0 Missing System 7 4 1.2 Total 17 100 0

    PAGE 213

    Table F 8 Comparative statistics for Prelim inary Study (comparing simple and complex sessions) SIMPCOMP N Mean Std Deviation COMPOS1A 1.00 1 7 14.2941 8.18.36 2.00 1 6 11.9438 7.3437 COMPOS2A 1.00 17 17.2353 9.8459 2.00 16 14 1028 8.8657 Table F 9 Std. Error Mean 1.9848 1.8359 2.3880 2.2 164 Comparative statistics for Preliminary Study (comparing males and females) GENDER N Mean Std. Std. Error Deviation Mean COMPOS1A 1.00 15 1 6.0800 5.7704 1.4899 2.00 18 10.7167 8 4870 2.0004 COMPOS2A 1.00 15 19.1927 7.0621 1 .8234 2.00 18 12.8 197 1 0.2338 2.412 1 Table F10 Comparative statistics for Preliminary Study (comparing s imple and complex sessions, total time as dependent measure) SIMPCOMP N Mean Std Std. Error Deviation Mean TOTTIIME 1.00 1 7 5.3176 1.73 6 7 .4212 2.00 9 7 .4444 2.2973 .7658 Table F -11 Comparative statistics for Preliminary Study (comparing males and females, total time as dependent measure) GENDER N Mean Std. Std. Error Deviation Mean TOTTTIME 1.00 12 4.6167 1 1366 .3281 2.00 14 7.2857 2.0913 .5589

    PAGE 214

    Table F Comparative statistics for Preliminary Study (comparing simple and complex sessions, task difficulty as dependent measure) SIMPCOMP N Mean Std. Std. Error Deviation Mean TASKDIFF 1.00 17 4 1176 1.7987 .4362 2.00 16 5.5625 1 7500 .4375

    PAGE 215

    SEcnON 2 : DATA FOR F1NAL STUDY Ta ble F 1 3 Gender of Participants of Study Fr equency Percent Valid Cumula tive Percent Percent Valid 1.00 42 57 5 58.3 58 3 2.00 30 4 1 1 41. 7 100 0 Total 72 98. 6 100 0 Missing System 1 1 4 Total 73 100.0 Table F-14 Table for Age of Participants of Study Age Categories Number (Total N = 48) Age Categories Number (Total N = 25) 18-34 25 18-25 11 35-49 16 26-33 5 50-64 6 34-41 6 65 and older 1 42-49 1 50-57 1 58 and o lder 1 Tab l e F -15 Ettmicity of Participants of Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulat ive Percent Percent Vali d 1.00 35 47 9 63 6 63 6 2.00 1 0 1 3.7 18.2 81. 8 3.00 7 9 6 12. 7 94. 5 4.00 2 2.7 3.6 98. 2 5.00 1 1.4 1 8 100 0 Total 55 75. 3 100. 0 Missing System 18 24.7 Tota l 73 100 0

    PAGE 216

    Table F -16 Household Income of Participants of Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulat i ve Percent Percent Valid 1.00 13 1 7.8 17. 8 17 8 2 .00 24 3 2 9 32. 9 50. 7 3 00 18 2 4 7 24 7 75 3 4.00 9 12. 3 12.3 87.7 5 00 9 12 3 12 3 100 0 Total 73 100 .0 100.0 Table F -17 Education Level of Participants of Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulat i ve Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 1 4 1.4 1.4 2.00 23 31. 5 31 5 32. 9 3 00 31 4 2 5 42 .5 75.3 4.00 1 0 13 7 13 7 89. 0 5.00 8 11.0 11. 0 1 00.0 Tota l 73 100 0 100.0 Table F -18 Personal Vehicles of Participants of Study Frequency Percent Val i d Cumu l ative Percent Percent Valid 1 .00 3 4.1 4 1 4 1 2.00 22 30. 1 30.1 34.2 3.00 29 39 7 39.7 74 0 4 .00 19 26.0 26. 0 100.0 Total 73 100 0 100.0 Tablef-19 Pu blic: Transportation usage of Participants o f Study Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 29 39 7 39.7 3 9.7 2 00 44 60 3 60. 3 10 0 0 Total 7 3 100 0 100 0

    PAGE 217

    Primary Dependent measures: Composla : 3 points for each of the 7 (s i m ple) and J O (co mplex) comp onent part s of the route, with simp l e not having transfer items, and complex having t he 3 transfe r items. Thi s is th11: adjus t ed by. 1 for create max of21 for both simple and comp l ex Compos2a: 5 poin t s for frrst 2 i tems, t hen 3 poin t s for each ofthe other 5 (simple ) an d 8 ( complex ) compo n ent partS o f the route. wi.t b simple not ha\'ing transfe r items,and com p l ex havi ng the 3 trans f er items This is then ad j usted b" .735 for comple x scores to crea t e max o f25 for both simp l e and comp lex TotTime (total time): t his was only available for t h ose that complet e d task witb.in maximum allowable tim e. Table F 20 Intercorrelations between primary dependent measures, as well as ratings of task difficulty. TOTTI M E COMPOS1A COMPOS2A TASKDIFF TOTTI ME Peason C orrelation 1 000 -. 047 -.055 .20 3 Sig. (2-tailed) .668 .617 060 N 86 8 6 86 86 COMPOS1A Peason Correlation -047 1.000 .998'' -.430*' Sig. (2-tail ed) 668 . 000 .000 N 8 6 145 145 145 COMPOS2A Peason Corre lation .055 .998* 1.00 0 -.430** Slg (2-tailed) 617 .00 0 .000 N 86 1 45 145 145 TASKDIFF Peason Correlation 203 -.430*' .430*' 1.000 Slg. (2-talled) .06 0 0 00 .0 00 N 86 145 145 145 Correlation IS s1gmficant a t the 0 .01 level (2-ta l l ed) Table F-21 Descriptive Statistics for Primary Dependent Measures, Simple Session s N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation TOTT I ME 48 2.00 8.10 5.2 0 44 1.8566 COMPOS1A 73 .00 21. 00 9.2466 8.4225 COMPOS2A 73 00 25.00 10.6986 10 1 990 Valid N (llstwlse) 48

    PAGE 218

    Table F-22 Descriptive Statistics for Primary Dependent Measures, Complex Sessions N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation TOTTIME 38 1.00 10.24 6.7363 2.5533 COMPOS1A 72 .00 21. 00 7 .0292 6.6703 COMPOS2A 72 .0 0 24.99 7.9523 7 9692 Valid N (llstwise) 38 Table F-23 Means of Primary Dependent Measures by Materials used, simple sessions MATERIAL TOTTiME COMPOS1A COMPOS2A BCT-19-S Mean 4.8250 17.2500 20.2500 N 4 4 4 Std. Deviation 2 .5 145 7 5000 9.5000 BCT-2-S Mean 3 2800 1 6.000 19 3333 N 3 3 3 Std. Deviation 1.2701 1.2701 5.5076 BTT-29-S Mean 5.0000 21.0000 25 0000 N 1 1 1 Std. Deviation . ECT-7-S Mean 4.6667 11.2 500 13 .250 0 N 3 4 4 Std Dev i ation 1.1547 8.6168 10.2429 HRT-2-S Mean 4.0000 5.0000 5.0000 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 1.7321 1.7321 JTA-1-S Mean 2.4900 7.0000 8.3333 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 12.1244 14.4338 LMT 1-51 Mean 4 0950 9.0000 10.3333 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviation .1344 10.8167 13.0512 LNX-14-S Mean 6.0000 4.5000 5 .5 000 N 1 4 4 Std. Deviation 9.0000 11.0000 L.NX-4-S Mean 6 0167 7.0000 8 .3333 N 3 3 3 Std. Deviation 2.887E-02 9.6437 11.9304 LT-5-S Mean 4.8700 8.2500 9.2500 N 4 4 4 Std. Deviation 1.5731 8.9582 10.8743

    PAGE 219

    Table F-23 Means of Primary Dependent Measures by Materials used, simple sessions (cont.) MATERI A L TOTTI M E COMPOS1A COMPO S 2A MCT-13.S Mean 8.0350 8.0000 8.0000 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviation 4.950E-02 1.73 2 1 1 7321 MDT-4-S Mea n 3 7100 7 0000 8 3333 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviation 2 2 62 7 6 9282 9 2376 PST-2.S Mean 5 0000 4.5000 5 5000 N 2 4 4 Std. Dev iation 1 .4 1 42 7 1414 9 110 4 PTS Mean 5.2000 10 .5000 11.5000 N 2 2 2 Std. Deviation 2828 2.1213 3 5355 RTS-13-S M ean 5 0000 7.5000 8 5000 N 2 4 4 Std. Deviation .0000 9 9499 1 1 7 898 SCAT 285 Mean 6 0000 14 0000 16 0000 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviation 2 8284 7.54 98 9 539 4 SCT-17-S Mean 4 .4175 17.2500 20 25 0 0 N 4 4 4 Std. Deviation 2 8325 7.5000 9 5000 SCT-7-NS Mea n 5 0000 9 .750 0 10 7500 N 2 4 4 Std. Deviation 1 4 1 42 7.8899 9 8107 SUN-12.S M ean 8 0333 15. 7500 18 7500 N 3 4 4 Std. Deviation 5.774E 02 10 5 000 1 2 5000 TLT-12 S Mean 7 5000 1.0000 1 0000 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviation .7 071 1.7321 1 .7321

    PAGE 220

    Table F-23 Means of Primary Dependent Measures by Materials used, simple sessions {cont.) MATERIAL TOTTI ME COMPOS1A CO MPOS2A VOT-17-S Mean .7 500 .750 0 N 4 4 Std. Deviation 1.5000 1 .5000 VOT-19-S Mean 5.4000 8 0000 9.3333 N 2 3 3 Std. Deviation 1.3718 11.3578 13.6504 Total Mean 5 2044 9.2466 10.6986 N 48 73 73 Std. Deviation 1.8566 8.4225 10 1990

    PAGE 221

    Table F -24 Means of Primary Dependent Measures by Materials used, complex sessions MATERIAL TOTTI ME COMPOS1A COMPOS2A BCT-2-C Mean 3 1400 4.7250 4 9613 N 2 4 4 Std. Deviation 3.0264 1.0500 1.1025 BTT-29-C Mean 6 1500 4 9000 5 1450 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 5.2849 5 5491 ECT-7-C Mean 10 0000 1 1 2000 13.2300 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 10. 5698 12.5597 HRT-2-C Mean 9 0000 7.3500 7.7175 N 1 2 2 Std Deviation 4 .4 548 4.6775 JTA-1 C Mean 1 .0500 1.1025 N 2 2 Std. Deviation 1.4849 1.5592 LNX 14-C Mean 5 7550 .0000 .0000 N 2 4 4 Std. Deviation 5 3104 .0000 .0000 LNX-4-C Mean 7.1533 6 .3 000 6.9825 N 3 4 4 Std. Deviation 2.4904 4 5365 5.4509 LT-5-C Mean 6.6667 1 8.2000 21.5600 N 3 3 3 Std. Deviation .5774 4.8497 5.9409

    PAGE 222

    TableF-24 Means of Primary Dependent Measu res by Materials used, complex sessions (cont.) MATERIAL TOTTI M E COMPOS1A COMPOS2A MCT-13 C Mean 5.4567 12.6000 15 .0675 N 3 4 4 Std. Deviation 1.5019 10.2879 12.2034 MDT-4-C Mean 7.2500 5 7750 6.0638 N 3 4 4 Std. Deviation 2.4192 4.6564 4.8893 PST-2-C Mean 7.0000 10.5000 12.4950 N 3 4 4 Std. Deviation 2 6458 7 2746 9 3358 PT-2C Mean 6 7050 10 5000 11.5000 N 4 5 5 Std. Deviation 2 9329 7 .8575 9.5324 RTS-13-C Mean 4.4400 2.8000 2.9400 N 1 3 3 Std. Deviation 2.4249 2 5461 SCAT-28C Mean 3.6750 3.8588 N 4 4 Std. Deviation 3 5864 3.7658 SCT-17-C Mean 4 .0000 3 6750 3.8588 N 1 4 4 Std. Deviation 3.5864 3.7658 SCT-7-SC Mean 8.6667 4 9000 5 1450 N 3 3 3 Std. Deviation 1.5275 5.2649 5.5491 SUN 12-C Mean 7 1633 13.1250 15 .6188 N 3 4 4 Std. Deviation 2.4698 6 2708 7 879 1

    PAGE 223

    Table F-24 Means of Primary Depend ent Measures by Materials used complex sessions (cont.) MATERIAL TOTTI ME COMPOS1A COMPOS2A TLT-12-C Mea n 8 3200 7 .3500 7.7175 N 1 4 4 Std. Dev iation 6.0622 6.3653 VOT-C Mean 7.13 0 0 5.8800 6.7620 N 3 5 5 Std. Deviation 4.4760 7.7728 9.4040 VOT-19-C Mean 3.5000 3.6750 N 3 3 Std Deviation 3.2078 3.3682 Total Mean 6.7363 7.0292 7.9523 N 38 72 72 Std. Deviation 2.5533 6.6703 7 9692

    PAGE 224

    Table F 25 Frequency of Categories of Alignment i n Simple Sessions F req u ency Percent Val i d Cumulat i v e P e rcent P e r cent Valid 1 00 54 74.0 74. 0 74. 0 2 0 0 19 26. 0 2 6 0 100 0 Total 73 1 0 0.0 1 00. 0 Table F 26 Frequ ency of Categories of R outes in Simple Sessions Fr e qu ency Percent V a lid Cumulativ e Percent Per cent Valid 1 .00 4 3 5 8.9 58. 9 58. 9 2.0 0 4 5 5 5 5 64.4 3 0 0 26 35 6 35.6 1 0 0 0 To ta l 73 100 0 100 0 Table F 27 Frequency of Categories of transfers in Simple Sessions F requ ency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Per cent Val i d 1.00 5 6 8 6 8 6 8 2 00 3 1 4 2 5 42 5 4 9 3 3 00 10 13 7 13 7 63. 0 4.00 23 31.5 31. 5 94. 5 5 0 0 4 5.5 5 5 100. 0 Total 73 100 0 100. 0 Table F 28 Frequency of Categories of Alignment in Complex Sessions F r e q u ency Per cent Valid C umulati ve Percent Percent Valid 1 .00 54 7 5 0 7 5.0 75.0 2.00 1 8 25.0 25. 0 100.0 T otal 72 100 0 100.0

    PAGE 225

    Table F-29 Frequency of categories of Routes in Complex Sessions Frequency Per cent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 39 54.2 54. 2 54.2 2 .00 3 4.2 4 2 58.3 3.00 30 4 1 .7 41. 7 100.0 T otal 72 100.0 10 0 0 Table F30 Frequency of categories of Transfers in Complex Sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumu l ative Percent Percent Valid 1 00 2 2 8 2 .8 2.8 2.00 34 47.2 47.2 50. 0 3.00 11 15 .3 1 5.3 65 3 4.00 2 2 3 0 .6 3 0.6 95. 8 5 00 3 4 .2 4.2 100. 0 Total 72 100. 0 100 0 Demographics for participants who quit both sessions Table F-31 Gender of participants who quit both sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 00 1 1 6.7 20 0 20.0 2.00 4 66.7 80.0 100 0 Total 5 83.3 M issing System 1 16 .7 Total 6 1 00 0

    PAGE 226

    TableF-32 Age of participants who quit both sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 1 6.7 16 7 16 .7 2.00 2 33.3 33.3 50.0 3 00 3 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 6 100. 0 100.0 Table F -33 Ethnicity of participants who quit both sessions Frequency Per cen t Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 4 66. 7 66.7 66 .7 2.00 2 33.3 33. 3 100 0 Total 6 100.0 100.0 TableF-34 Household Income of participants w ho quit both sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 16.7 16.7 16.7 2 00 2 33. 3 33.3 50 0 3 00 1 16.7 16.7 66 7 4 .00 2 33 3 33. 3 100 0 Tota l 6 100. 0 100.0 Table F-35 Educati o n Level of participants who Quit both sessions Frequency Percent Vali d Cumulative Percent Per ce n t Valid 1.00 1 16.7 16.7 16 7 2.00 1 16 7 16.7 33. 3 3 .00 3 50 0 50.0 83 3 5 .00 1 16 7 16.7 100 0 Total 6 100.0 100.0

    PAGE 227

    Table F-36 Personal Vehicles of participants who quit both sessions F reque ncy Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 16.7 16.7 16.7 2.00 1 16 7 16. 7 33.3 3.00 3 50.0 50 .0 83 .3 5.00 1 16.7 16.7 10 0 .0 Tota l 6 100. 0 100 .0 Table F -37 Public Transportation usage of participants who quit both sessions Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 16.7 16 7 16.7 2.00 5 83.3 8 3.3 10 0 .0 Total 6 1 0 0.0 1 00 .0

    PAGE 228

    ---OPERATIONAL BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE---Appendix G Major Activity Centers Detailed Data AppendlxG Activity Centers Deta iled Datil

    PAGE 229

    Table G-1: Airport A c t ivity Centers IWday If Sar 'Sun Mot Route Airport WtekdiY Hours Op. H,. S1turday Hours Op. H,. Sundly Hours Op. HI'$ Routes ServedWkdy Pensacola 1 : SAM2 P M ; Shift2: 2 PMShift 1 ; SAM 2 PM; Shift2 : 2 PMS h ift 1 ; 5 AtA2 PM: Shift 2 : 2PM-S1 P M ; S 2 Regional A i r port 11 P M : S hlfl3: 11 PMSAM 24 11 P M:Shift3: 1 1 PM-SAM 2 4 1 1 PM;Sh ift3: 1 1 PM -SAM 24 2 2 AM 18 1 : SAM2 PM; Shift 2:2PMShi ft t; 5 AM 2 PM; Shift 2 : 2 PM Sh i ft 1 :5AM2 PM ; S h ift 2 : 2 PM $ 1 PM; S2 Ta mpa tnrt Airport 11 PM ; S hift :!: 1 1 PMSAM 24 1 1 P M ; Shift 3:11PM-5AM 24 1 1 PM ;Shifl3: 11 PM -SAM 2 4 I 30 AM ;S3PM Beach Shill I : SAM2 PM; SMI2: 2 PM SNII 1 : 5AM2 PM; SIU!I2: 2 PM-Shift 1 : SAM 2 PM ; S h ;tt 2 : 2 PM S t PM:S2 Airport 11 P M : Shift 3 : 11 PM 5 AM 24 11 PM; SNft 3: II PM SAM 24 11 P M: Sh;l\3: 11 PM SAM 24 1 10 AM S1 PIA: 52 Fort lauderdale Sh ift 1 : S AM 2 PM; Sh ift 2:2PM-S h i ft 1 : SAM2 PM; S h;ft 2 :2PM-S hill I : 5 AM 2 PM; Sh;ft 2:2PM AMJPM;S3 n-tollywoo d Airport II PM : Shift 3 : 11 PM S AM 24 I I P M : Shift 3 : II PM SAM 2 4 I I PM ; 5hift3: 1 1 PM SAM 24 I 1 AMII'M Shift t : S AM 2 PM: Shift 2 ; 2 PM-S hift t : 5 AM 2 PM; Shift 2:2PM S hift 1: S AM 2 PM ; Sh i ft 2: 2 PM S 1 P M ; S2 Sarasota A irport II PM ; Shlfl3: 11 PM-SAM 24 1 1 P M ; Sh i ft 3: t 1 PM-5AM 24 11 P M ; Sh;tt3: 11 PM-SAM 24 2 2 AM S1 PM; 52 15 AM; S3PM Shift 1 : 5 AM 2 PM; Sh ift 2: 2 PM S hift t : 5 AM-2 PM; Shift 2 :2PM-Shill1: 5 AM 2 PM ; Sh i ft 2 :2PM Sl PM; 5 2 I Sara sota Airport 11 PM; S hift 3 : 11 P M SAM 24 I I PM ; Shift3: 11 PM 5 AM 24 11 PM : Shift 3 :11PM SAM 24 I 10 AM ' Lakeland LencSer Sh ift t : S AM 2 P M ; Shift 2 :2PMShift 1 : 5 AM 2 PM; Shift 2: 2 PM Shift 1: S A M 2 PM; Sh ift 2: 2 P M St PM; S2 I Regional A irport 1t PM:Shiftl: 1 1 P M-5AM 24 II PM; Shi ft 3 : II PM 5 AM 24 11 P M : Shift 3 : II PM SAM 24 I 40X AM;S3PM Wut Palm Beach S hill t : 5 AM 2 PM; Shifl2: 2 PM Shiflt: 5 AM 2 PM; Shift 2 : 2 PM Sluft t: S AM 2 PM; Shift 2: 2 PM StPM;S2, lni'I Aitport II PM ; Shift 3: 1 1 PM S AM 24 II PM; Shill 3: 11 PM SAM 24 11 PM; Sh ift 3 : 11 PM 5 A M 24 2 ... AM; S3 PM I 24 24 53 St PM: AM ;S3PM S h ift 1 : 5 A M 2 PM ; Shif12 : 2 PM S h ift 1 : 5AM 2 PM; Shif12: 2 PM 1 : SAM 2 PM; Shift 2:2PM S1 PM: S 2 Mlamf lnt'f Ah'Port 11 11 PMSAM 24 11 PM; Shift 3 :11PM SAM 24 1 1 PM; 3 : 11 P M -5AM 2 4 4 7 AM ; S3PM S1 PM; S 2 AM/PM ; S3 37 AM/PM S 1 P M ; 5 2 42 AM : S3PM S1 PM;S2 AIMPIA. 53 J I Melbourne lnt' l Sl'lift 1 :5AM 2 PM; Shift2: 2 PM 1 :5AM 2 PM; Shin 2 :2PM Shin 1 : SAM 2 PM; S hin 2 : 2 PM S 1 PM: S2 Airport II P M ; S hift 3 :11PM -5AM 24 1t P M ; Shift 3: 1 1 PM 5 AM 2 4 11 PM; S hift 3 : 1 1 PM SAM 24 1 21 AM

    PAGE 230

    Table G-1: A i rp ort Activity C ente rs Fln.al A v g. Span of Wkdy WI< day Wl
    PAGE 231

    Table G-1: Airport Activity Centers Flnat Final Avg. Span of Sat. Avg. Span of Sun. sat Sat. Transit #I Sun. Se-rved sun. I Sun. Sun. Sun Transit Airport busl hr First Bus Last Bus Sorv!ce Span Routes Sun. Frequency bus lhr bus lhr First Bus Last sus Servl<:o Span Pensa<:ola Regional A i rport 1.0 0.00 12.08 1 0.00 0 50 6.00 51 PM: 52 -every2 8:50AM 8 :55 PM 1 2.08 AM h ours 0 50 0.50 1 1:50AM 5:50PM E6:57AMIW E7:57PMIW 51 PM ; 52 ,.e very 2 E 8 :35AM/ E 8 :35PM/ T ampa lnt1 Airport 1.0 6:43AM 7:43PM 13.23 13 .23 1 AM hour s 0 50 0.50 W 7 :12AM W8:42PM 13.50 Daytona Beach Airport 2 0 8:05AM 6 :05PM 10.00 10 00 0 Fort Laud&Tdale N 5 : 30AM15 N 10: 35 PM/ 5 51 PM; 52 51 PM; 52 N9:15AM/ N 6 :30PM/ /Hollywood Airport 2.0 6:20AM 11:15 P M 17. 75 17.75 1 AM AM 2.00 2 00 S9:15AM 5 6 :45PM 9 .50 Saraso t a Airport 1 0 6:35AM 5 : 4 7 PM 12.60 0 Inbound 6:24 Inbound 6 : 1 8 AMI Outboun d PM/ O utbOund 7 : 0 1 AM 7 :00PM Saras.ota Airport 1 0 6:35AM 6:35PM 12 .00 0 Lakeland Lender Regional Airport 1.0 8:34AM 5 :41PM 9.12 0 West Palm Beach E7:13AM/W E6:03PM/W 51 PM; 52 E 10: 1 3 AMI E 3 : 13PM/ lnrl Airport 1.0 8:07AM 6:07PM 10 .90 1 AM every hour 1.00 1.00 W9:07AM W4:07PM 7 00 E6:23AMIW E7:25PM/W 5 1 PM; 52 E 6 :23AM / E 7:34PM/ Miamllnt'l Airport 1.3 7 :33AM 6:34PM 13. 03 18.85 AM: 53 PM every hour 1.1 1.05 W7:32AM W6:34 PIA 13 .18 17 .95 51 PM : 52 N6: 25AMI S N 11: 27 PMIS AM;S3 N 6:28AM/ N 10 : 29 PMI 6:47AM 1 1 :10 P M 17. 03 AM/PM every t.ovt 1 1 $6:48AM S 10:44 PM 16 27 N6: 36AM15 N 6 :20PM/$ Sl PM; 52 N6:45 PJN N 7:10PM/ 6:59AM 6:27PM 11.85 AM evety h o u r 1 .0 $ 7:42AM S 7 : 13PM 1 2 .47 51 PM: 52 E6:10AMIW E 1:01 AM/W AM; 53 E 5:06AM / E 1 1 : 03 PM/ 6 : 17AM I 2 : 35AM 18.85 AM/PM -every hour 1.1 W5:45AM W10:34 PM 17.95 11: 48AM I Melbourne lnt1 51 PM; 5 2 12:48: 1:48 Airport --------------9:29AM 4:09PM 8.50 1 A M PM 1 50 1.50 1 f : 48 AM 1:o48PM 2 0 0

    PAGE 232

    Table G-2: Medical Activity Centers Wday #Sat #Svn Op. Op. Op. I of Route Hospitat Weekday Hours H,. Saturday Hours Hro Sund3y Hours Hrs Routes Sorvod Wl
    PAGE 233

    Table G-2 : M edic a l Activity Centers Final Avg. Avg. Span of Wl
    PAGE 234

    Table G-2: Medical Activity Centers Final Avg. Fino! Span of Sal. I Sun. Sun. Span of Sun. Sat. Transk I Sun. StNed So n. .,.. buo Sun Transit H .. pjtol Firat Bus Lnt ev:s S..-vtce Span -Sun. fly lhr F l1'$18uo t..ut Buo Spon IW1onCounty-Dopl 12.03 12.03 0 1 1 .02 0 18 N 6 : 50 AMI S 6 : 15 N 9:.00 PM/ S I 0 :05 S l PM ; "'C!Y 80 N9:05AMI N6:25PMI Mtmorll Hospital AM PM 15. 83 2 S2AM minutes 0 75 0 .78 S 10 :10AM $6:10 PM 9 42 E 6:35 AMI W 6 :30 E 8 :25 PMI W 7 : 50 Sl PM ; every 76 E 0:25AM / E 5 :55PM/ AM PM S2AM mlnu1os o .ao W11:00AM W6: 30PM N -6: 05 AMI S : 45 N -11:2 0 PMI S S 1 P M ; every .45 N:15AM/ N:55PMI Holy Crott Hospital AM -11:10 P M 17.58 2 S2AM mlnu101 1 33 1.17 S:00AM $:15PM 11.25 N-8:25AMIS-6:15 N 9 :30PM/S S1 PM ; N 10:25AM I N:25PMI AM 8 : 4 5 PM S2AM every h our 1 00 S :25AM $ 6 :25PM lnbound--6:10 AM/ lnbound-6:10 PM/ Ooctor'l Hospital OufbOund-6: 55 AM Oull>oond-6:50 PM 13.58 0 lnbound-5 :55 AMI lnbo un d :35 P M / Oulbooo
    PAGE 235

    Table G.J: S hoppin g Activity C e nters tWdaj I Sat I Sun Op. Op. Op. . Route -Wildly Shopping Mall Hours H,. Saturcby Hours Hrs Sunday Hours Hra Routn Wl
    PAGE 236

    Table G-3: Shopping Activity Ce n ters I Woay #Sat #Sun Op. Op. O p. fol Route Served Wkday Shopping M all Hrs Saturday Hours Hrs Sunday Hours Hrs Rout es Wl
    PAGE 237

    Table G-3 : Shop ping Activity Centers I Wdo) 18.\l I Sun Op. Op. Op. I of Routo -Wltday Shopping""''' Weekday Hours Hra S.atutdly Hours Hrs Sunday HOUt$ Hra RO: 9 : 50 ; M all 9 :30 AJio 9:30 PM 1 2 9 :30AM 9: 30 PM 12 11 :30 AM-6:30PM 1 6 AM 11:20 AM; 12: 50 ; 3:00; :20 PM 1.6 1 2 12 1 7 AM f:2SPM 1 0 12 1 2 1 8 IWo ._y .... 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 8 -#JtlefY 100 mn.es 0 8

    PAGE 238

    Table G-3: Shopping Activity Centers Fl : na f Avg AyV. Spano/ Wll>lna Moll buo/h< First Bus laiiBus Service Span Sat. RoutH sa F requency lhl h Flro18uo U-tyMall 1.0 5:68 PM 11.25 13.35 IW 2 1 0 1 0 7 :41 NJ. 5:35AM 5:35P M 12.00 IW ...,..., hour 1 0 G : 3SIW 6 :12 AM 15:1 2 PM 12.00 Oekt: M11l 2.5 6:27AM S lOOPM 13.55 13.05 AM every 30 minutM 2.0 1 8 7:27AM 6:55AM 8 :00PM 13.08 AM every 30 m lnuleS 2 0 7:2SAM 8 : 58AM 7 :30PM 12 .53 AM every 45 m inulos 1 3 7 :28AM Buller Plaza 3.0 6:28/W 7 :30PM 13.03 13.37 AM every 30 minvtes 2 0 u 7 : 29AM E -6:50AMIW E-7:30PMIW -7:00AM 7 :150 PM 13 .00 A M every o4.S minutes 1 3 7:30A M 6 : 42AM 8 : 45PM 12.05 AM tNery 45 minutes 1 3 7 :27AM lnbouncJ..6: 50 AMI lnb0un d ... S:40 PM/ avo ry hour In AM/every 70 minutes l n b ound-6:50 AM/ 1.0 Outbouncl-6 :40 AM Outbounc!-5:40 PM 11.00 11.00 AM In PM 1 0 1 0 Outbound-6;40 AM e 6 :27 AMJ w 7 : oo E 9:47 PM/ W 9:00 E 7 :47 A M I W 8 : 04 CJtrus Park Mall 1.0 AM PM 1 5 .33 15.33 AM/PM fNeryhour 1 0 1 0 A M Brandon Towne CenteJr G.ll 8;34/Wo 11.02 15.33 every2 holn 0 5 0.1 10:32 AM N 6:50 AMI S 6:45 N 7:07 PW S 1:05 N 9 :49AMISNS AM PM 12.28 Nlo -eoety211oui$ 0 5 NA 8 :29/W 7:35PM 11.10 AM every hour 1 0 7:30AM 7 :43 1-H 7:45PM 12 03 AM eCryhour 1.0 7 : 27AM Inbound 7 :38 AMI Inbound 8 :31 PMI InbOUnd 7 : 59 AMI Volutla M all 1 3 OutbOund 7 15 AM Outbound 8 :15PM 11.27 12.38 AM 3 hour 1.0 1 3 OutbOund 7 : 1 7 AM 7 : 22AM 6 : 50PM 11 7 AM 4YafY 30 m nutes 2.0 8 :22AM Inbound 7:26 AMI Inbound 6 :01 PMI Inbound 7 :26 AMI Outbound 6 :64 AM Outbound 8 : 27 PM 11.55 AM every hour 1.0 Oulbound G :$4 AM e r:o9 AMIW s : E 7 :09 PMI W 8 :45 AM PM 12.38 0 0 Ounlawton Squ1,. 1.0 6 : 07AM 8:10PM 10. 2 8 12. 57 AM 6 every hour 1 0 1.0 8 :07 AliA I n b ound 7:17 AMI InbOund 7 : 07 PM/ Inbound 7 :11 AMI Outbound 6 : 33AM Outbound 6 :32 PM 12.57 AM every hour 1 0 OutbOund 0 :33AM 7 :08AM 8:16P M 11.13 AM every hour 1.0 7 :08AM 7:06AM 6:16PM 11. 1 7 AM every hour 1 0 7:06 AliA 7 :04AM 5:13PM 10.15 AM every hour 1 0 7 : 04 AliA N 7 : 5 1 AMI S 6 06 N 5:51 PMIS 6 : 03 N 7 :61 AMI S 8>05 Crowne Cem.r 0 7 AM P M 1D.20 12.62 AM 3 ...,...,2holn 0 5 0 1 AM N 6:64 AMI S 71lll N 4:51 PW S 7 : 03 N 8:51 AMI S t:06 AM PM 12.15 IWo 0 5 AM 6 :28AM 5:48PM 1 .33 AM t:tery hour 1 0 7:28AM sawv'" M illo M all s.o --------------::..-----:.-6 :45AM 1 0 :50 PM 16.08 17.25 AMIPM 3 evecy 30 m t nutes 2 0 2 0 8:5SAM

    PAGE 239

    Tabl e G 3: Shopping Activity Centers M oll M all A"'J Wkday Anal Served rL sal Avg. I SaL I s-t. bus bus/ lhr ht I:I1 lllho E ; 20 AMI W E :20 PM/ W -----E : 20 Af-'' Mall 1.3 -6:35AM 8 :35 PM 12 .75 17. 0 8 A M 3 every hOur 1.0 1.3 AM E 9:00AM/ W 6 :05 E 9 : 00 P MIW 6 :00 E AMI W 8 :00 AM PM 14 92 AM hOur _ t.O A M 'E6:50AMIW5:50 ET0:20l'MI\"i" ------E8: 50AMIW5:50 1 AM 10;85 P M 11.08 AM/ PM ave-ry 3 0 minutes 2 .0 A M N6:10AMI S6:35 N10: 50PMIS N 6 : 10AMIS8:35 tMell 1 8 AM P M 17. 5 8 17.7 5 AfN P M 3 every hOur 1.0 1.3 AM 1 0 1 C ircle I 1 0 plaza I 1.0 t Plna Plaz a .at M a ll 0 9 1 .0 2.0 I E j IWti:OO I El AM 6 :$2AM Ou1bound 8 :15AM !1:32AM 1 7 : 23 AJAJ 16: 53 AM I 6 :25AM! 7 : 15PM 1 3 2 5 AM every hour 1.0 IW8:45 P M 1 15 .50 AM/PM 8 :35PM 11. 28 I 12.92 AM 5:43PM 10 .13 AM 3 ovetY 30 min utes every hout f:Yery hour 2.0 1.0 l 1 0 1 0 El AM A C') .AU I 7:0 5 PM! Inbound 7:ot AMI nd G.02 PM 12.83 AM mvy hoound AM j 6:34 PM! Inbound 7:50 AJN kl4 PM 1 1.03 11.68 MIIPM 2 every hoound 7:32AM 3 PM/ lnl>o\Jnd 77.1 AMI 15 :53 PM 11.50 AMJPM eYOI"f hour 1.0 ( ( Oulbound 8 : 63AM Outbound 7 : 03 AM j 6 :28AM! t 6 :18PM/ ( 1 tnbound 0 : 25 AM I Outbound 7 : 01PM 12.60 13.15 AM everyl'lour 1.0 1 0 Outbound 7:32AM 6:28A M I 6 : 40 PMI I I InbOund & : 28 AMI Outbound6 :32PM 1 1 20 AM every hour 1 0 Outbound7 : 32AM 6:35PM 12. 1 2 AM .avery h our 1 .0 :1 5 :52 AMI 1 InbOund 6 : 2 7 PM/ Oulbound 6 :30Am Outbound 8 :57PM I 13.08 6 :05AM 7:05AM 7 :05AM 7:00AM 8 :05PM 8 :05PM 8:05P M i PM ; p,.. 12.00 t1.1 11. 1 II 11. 0 AM 12.00 I AM AM AM AM AM 5 hour every h o u r every hour every hour every hour every hour 1 .0 1.0 l 1 0 1 0 7 :05AM 8 : 05PM 11.00 I 11.00 I AM 1 every hour 1.0 I 1 0 12.50 I 12.SO I A M 2 2.< 2 0 j 5 :52 AMI n 'M 7:05AM 7 : 05AM 7 : 40AM

    PAGE 240

    Tab l e G-3: Shopping Activity Centers Final Avg. Avg. Span of Wkd y ts.tt S..t. Wl
    PAGE 241

    Table G-3: Sho p p i n g Activity Centers Final Avg, Final Span of Sal Sun. S un. S p a n of S un. Sal Transit #Sun. SeNed bus b u s Sun. Transit Shopping Ma.ll Last Bus Servleo Span Routes Sun. Sun. frft(lu ency lhr lhr First Bus Last Bus S ervice Span University Man 6:56PM 1 1 .25 12.35 0 5 :35PM 11.00 Oaks Mall 6 :30PM 11.05 11.33 0 6:30PM 11. 08 6:45PM 11. 28 Butler Plaza 6 :00PM 10.52 11.30 0 -6:00PM 10.50 6:45PM 11.30 l nbound ... 5;40 PM/ I Paddock Mall Olrlboun d .... 5 :40 PM 11.00 11.00 0 E 9:47 PW W 9 : 04 E 7 :47 AMI E 7 : 4 7 PMI Citrus Park Mall PM 14.00 14.00 1 AMIPM every hou r 1.00 1.00 W8: 04AM W8:04 PM 12.28 1 0 : 46AM: 12:46; 2 :55; I Brandon Towne 4 :5.5 P M f 10:55A M ; Center 6 :35PM 8.05 11.20 2 AM 12:55: 2 : 55; 4:55PM 1.30 0 90 10:46AM 4 :55PM 8 02 N 6 :39 PM/ S 6:29 PM 10 .83 6 :35PM 11.08 AM/PM every 2 houts o .so 10:39A M 6 :40PM 6:35PM 11.13 I nbound 6 :08 PM/ VoiU$Ia Mall Ovtbound 5:17PM 10.85 11.43 1 1.00 9.23 6:28PM 10 10 AM every hour 1.00 8 : 20AM 5:34PM I nbound 6 :01 PMI Ou1bound 6:27 PM 1 1.55 Ounl awton Square 5:17PM 9.17 12.67 0 I nbound 7:07 PM/ Outbound 6 :32 PM 12.57 6 :16PM 11.13 6:16PM 1 1 17 5: 13PM 10.15 N 5:51 PM/ S 6:03 Crowne Center PM 10 20 10. 62 0 N 4:51 PM/ S 5 : 05 PM 8 23 5 :46PM 10 .33 Sawgrass MIUs Mall 11:25PM 16 .50 17.25 3 AM every 30 m inutes 2.00 1 67 9:45AM 7 :00PM 9 67 ------

    PAGE 242

    Table 0-3: Shopping Activity Centers Final Avg Final Spnof Sat. Sun. Sun. Span of Sun. Sal Ttll"'ltt I Sun. S4Ned bus bus Sun Transh Shoo>!>lng aw.!l Last Bus S..vlu Spon Ro"'" Su:n. Sun.F-lhr ltv Fittl Bus Last Bus Service SIWI 11:30 PM ---1 .00 !1:00AM 6;10 PM 11:30 PM ,.,. every 30 n"W'Iutes 2 .00 9:30 AM 7 :10PM PornDroko '""" E-7:20PMIW Regional Mall -6:35PM 17.01 2 1 25 11 .08 E 9:00 PMI W 8 :00 E AMI E 8:00PM/ PM AM/PM every hour 1 .00 W8:55AM WS: OOPM E 10:20PMIW E 11:otOAMI E 6 :10 PMI 10:55PM AM every 40 minutes 1.50 W10:40AM W6:10PM N 10:30 PM/S N 9:15AM/ N 7:15PM/ Corat Squire M all II:Zil PM 17.33 3 AM/PM evert hour 1 00 1 00 S 9 :25AM SS:OSP M 10,83 6:00PM evory hour 1 00 !0:50AM 6:00PM E 9:30PM/ W 8:<5 PM PM every J\0\lr 1 00 10 :50AM 7:00PM Mll 6:35PM 12 U 0 5 :43PM I nbound 7 : 05 PM/ Outbound 6 :02 PM I nbound 6:34 PMJ Sl ,......,.,. Clrclo 01-..c! 6:24 PM 11.61 0 ,_6;23PMI OUII>ound 5 :53 PM Inbound 6 : I 6 PM/ Southgate Plaza Oulbouod 7 :01 PM 13.15 0 Inbound 5 : 40 PM/ Outbound 6:32 PM 6:35PM Inbound 6 : 27 PM/ O u tbo und 6:57 PM ;cortez Plaza TraMfer Plaza 6:05PM 12.00 0 6:05PM 6:05PM 6:05PM 6 :05PM Pnmouutt01aat Ellenton 6 :05PM 11 .00 0 l.al
    PAGE 243

    Table G-3: Shopping Activi ty Centers Final Avg. Final Span of S..t. Sun. Sun. Span of Sun. Sot Tr ansit fl Sun. Served bus bus Sun. Transit Shopping Moll Las.t Bus Servk:e Span Routes Sun Su n Frequency lhr /hr F irs t Bus LntBus Service Span 5:28PM Spring Lake Sq. Shopping Center 4:48PM 9.00 0 I nbound 7:44PM/ Govemor's Sq. Mall Outboun d 7:22 PM 14.78 1 1.50 5.l3 11\bound 6 :4S PM/ Outbound 6:23 PM Inbound 6:15PM/ Out boun d 5 :53 9 :40PM every 40 minutes 1.50 12:20PM 5:40PM Palm Beach Gardens Man 6 :50PM 11.08 4 IWo every hOur 1 .00 1 00 11:00AM 5:00PM 7.26 5 :50PM Mil ovory hOur 1.00 9:45AM 4 : 45PM 5 : 05 PM AM every hOur 1.00 1 0 : 5 5AM 3 :55PM 5:00PM AM every hour 1.00 1 0 :55AM 4 :00PM N 1:09AM/ S 1 2 :05 N6:41 AM/ N 12:08AM/ Aventura Mall AM 19. 8 5 1 9 86 /Wo/PM -every 20 minutes 2 6 2.00 S 5 :05AM 5 10PM 19 05 19.53 11:00 PM 15 77 AM/P M 1 1 7 :15AM 9 :21 PM 14. 1 6:24PM 8.12 AM every hour 1 0 10:19AM 6 :24PM 8 .08 1 2:38 AM 1 8 .5 5 AMIPM ... every 20 min utes 3 3 6 : 05/Wo 12:37 AM 18. 53 Melbourne Square 11:54AM; 12 : 54 ; 1 :54 Mal1 4:35PM 7.00 1 PM/12; 1; 2 PM 2 .86 2 86 11: 5 4AM 2:00PM 2.10 Merritt l$land Sq Mall 4 : 15PM 6 .42 0 0 00 0 .00 --

    PAGE 244

    Table G-4 : Governmen t Activity Cente"' I Sat Sun S.l Op. Sun Op of Served -dayllouro Op. HtS Hts HI$ Hours Hts Routos Ro..to Wkdy Frequ.my M .C Blandlanl Judldat llu!ldlll every hOUi' 108 AM every Mur OOWrM:own Plaza 7:30AM 8 :0 0 P M 10. 5 9 2 AMIPM every 30 min 10 5 5 AMIPM fNery30 mln 10 5 6 MNPM e:very hour 10. 6 7 MNPM every h our 10 5 10 every h o ur 10 5 11 AMIPM evefY hour 10 5 15 AMIPM f!Very h our 1 0 5 24 AM tNf11Y h our 10 5 4 3 AM evecy hour -Square 7:30 NoA 6.'00 PM 10 5 2 3 AAM'M OefY 1v In AW ""''"! 70 min In PM 10.1 -every hr in AJN every 70 min In PM C...r>Cy COu!thouN 7:301WoB:OOPM 10.5 2 3 -""''"! lv in NN every 70 min In PM 10.5 -tNery hr In ANJ eviJfY 70 min in P M Downtown Tam.,. 7 : 30 IWI 8 : 00 P M 10-5 2t I AMIPM ""'fl\l'$ry 1 S-30 min 10 5 2 AMIPM every 15min 10 .5 3 AMIPM -every 20--30 m in 10 5 AMIPM every hou r 10. 5 5 AM/PM every30mln 10. 5 6 AM/PM every 30 mJn 10 5 7 AMIPM every 30 min 10 5 8 AM/PM every 30 min 10.5 9 AM/PM every ... 2.5-30 min 10. 5 1 0 AM/PM every 30 minutes 1 0 5 1 2 AM/PM ... every 20-30 min 10.5 1 4 AM/PM every hour 10. 5 1 7 AM -every 30-60 min 10.5 18 -evory30 now. 1 0 5 19 -O
    PAGE 245

    Table G-4: Government Activity Centers I Sot Sun Sat. Op Sun. O p I of SeNed Governmentt8us ln8M Weekday Hours Op. Hra Hro Hro Hours Hn R out .. Route I Wkdy Wkdy Frequency 6 :30; 7 : 10 ; 7:4&; 8 :15 AM/4: 1 2; 4 :5 2 ; 5:1 9; 5 :27; 5 : 4 6 10.S 22X AM I'M 10. 5 23X /W. 7 : 1 2 ; 7 : 2 5 : 27: 5:47PM 10 5 26X AM 6 : 36; 7 : 20; 7 :55 /W./4: 1 0; 4:45 ; 5 :15PM 10. 5 2 7 X AM 7 :19; 7 : 4 2 ; 8 : 12 AM/4:17 ; 4 : 47; 5 :22; 5 : 4 6PM 1U 2 6 X AM 7 : 2 0 ; 7 ; 5 0 : 8 :20 AM/4:40; 5 :15PM 1 0 6 30 AM/PM min 1 0 5 31 PM .... Wet)' 2 houl'$ 10-$ <6 -1 U 50X AM 1:30. 8 20AM/4; 40; 5:15PM 1 M 54X Ml 7 :23 AM/5:22 PM E 6 : 4 6; 7 :57; 8 : 57 AM/1: 47; 4 :47; 5 : 5 7 ; 6:46PM/ W 10 8 5 8LX AM/PM 4 :59; M9; 8 : 59; 11:59 AM/2: 59; 4 :10; 5 : 10PM E 6 :60; 7 : 24: 7 : 51 ; 8 : 20AM ; 1 ;34; 5 ; 4 0 ; 6 ; 07; 6:35; 6 :58PM! W 6 : 02; 6 :2 9 ; 6 : 50AM; 12: 1 5; 4 : 1 0: 4 : 4 0; 1o.5 200X Ml 5:1 0 ; 5:40PM Wtstshore Buslnese D lt'ttic t 7 :30AM-6:00PM 10. 5 4 10 AM/PM every30min 10. 5 30 AM/PM every30min 1 0 6 36 AM/PM OVOty 30m., E 6<36; 7:45 ; 6:46AM ; 1 :37; 4 : 3 7; 5 : 4 5; 6<36 PM/ W 1 0-5 56LX AM/PM 5 :09: 8:09; 7 :09AM ; 12:09; 3 : 0 9; 4 : 2 5; 5 :25PM Port of Tamp 7 :30AM 6:00 PM 10.S 1 19 AM/PM every 3D m i n 7 :30 7:30 A M AMMacOUJAFB 7 :30AM 6:00 PM 10.S GPM 10 5 6PM 10 5 3 4 A M /PM every hOur 1 0.S 1 7 AM/PM every 3D min 10.5 25X AM 7 :10AM; 5 :10PM I D owntown Dyton a S.ach 7:30AM-6:00P M 1 0 .. 5 11 1 A AM/P M 1 0 5 1 8 AM/PM ewryhour 1 0 6 3 AM/PM every hiM" 1 0 5 4 AM every hovf 10.6 5 AM every hour 1G.5 6 AM/PM every hour 1G.5 7 AM/PM tJvery how 10.S 8 AIM'M every hour 10.S 9 PM every hour

    PAGE 246

    Government Activity Centers !Sat Sun #Wday SaL Op. Sun. Op. #of Served Govemment/Buslnets Weekday Hours Op. Hrs Hrs Hrs Hours Hrs Routes Route fl Wkdy Wkdy Frequency 10.5 10 AMIPM every 30min 10.S 11 AMIPM every hour 10.S 12 AMIPM every hour 1o.5 15 AMIPM every 30min 10.5 17A AM/PM every hour 10.S 176 AMIPM every hovr 10.5 60 AMIPM evory hour New Smyrna Downtown 7:30AM 6:00 PM 10.S 3 42 every hour 10.5 43A every 2 hours 10.5 436 every 2 hours Downtown Fort Laudefdale (community routes not Included) 7:30AM 6 :00 PM 10.5 15 1 AMIPM every 20min 10.5 9 AMIPM every 40min 10.5 10 AMIPM every 30min 10.5 (1 AM/PM every 30mln 1o.5 14 AM/PM every 30min 10.S 20 AM/PM every40m!n 10.5 22 AM/PM every 25 min 1G.6 30 AM/PM every 30min 10.5 31 AM/PM every 30min 10.5 40 AM/I'M every 1 !> min 10.5 50 AM/I'M every 30min 10.5 55 AM/I'M every 40min 10.5 60 AMII'M every 30min 10.5 81 AM/I'M every 30min 10.5 84 AM/PM every 30min Downtown Sar.tSota (1st & Lemon) 7:30AM 6:00 PM 10.5 13 I AM/PM every hour 10.5 2 AM/PM every hour 10.5 3 AM/PM every hour 10.5 4 PM &very hour 10.5 5 AM/PM every hou r 10.5 6 AM/PM every hour 10.5 7 AM/PM every hour 10.5 8 AM/PM evef'Y hour 10.5 11 AM/PM every hour -----

    PAGE 247

    Table G-4: Government Activity Cen ters I Sat Sun Wdoy St Op. Sun. Op. l o l SO
    PAGE 248

    T a ble G-4 : Government Activity C enters #Sat Sun IWdoy Sot Op. Sun. Op. I of SoNed GowmmentiBuslness -Way Hours Op.Hrs Hrs Hrs Hoors Hrs Routu Route I 'Mcdy 'McdyFr-y 1 0.5 3 -........ 20-30-10.5 e evesy how 1 0.5 7 --every 20-30 min 10. 5 9 AM/PM -every 2()..40 min 10.5 10 AM/PM -tMJry 31)..40 min 10.5 11 AM/PM ... every 7 mini-every 40 min after -10 P M 1 0.5 16 A M/PM evety 20 min 1 0 5 2 1 A M/PM every 30 min 1 o.5 24 A M /PM -every 1 !5-30 min 10. 5 46 AM/P M overy hour 1 0.5 n AM/PM -every 10 30 mini every ht 1fttr -to PM N every 35 mil"'l3 : 32 PM 8 :15 PMI S evtty S..20 1G.6 9SX AM/PM m in 6;.48 AM 9 i 03 AM 1o.5 B AMIPM -every 1$.30 min 1o.5 c AM/PM OYer'f 20 min/ every tv--10 Pt.l IO.S K -"'"""Y 20 "*' 10.5 s --12.201Nn IO.S T AM/PM "'"""Y 20.30 min 811CI)'nt 10. 5 MAX AMIPM every 15min F lgttr every 1 5 minf no strvica E 9:25AM. -1:54 PM/W 9 : 15 1G.6 MAX A M /PM AM 4 :06PM Night OWl 1 0.S Shuttl e P M every h o u r Seaport 10.5 C<>n. AM/PM evory 1 min Tllutvlllo CBD ( N orll\ Gov 1 Center@ Inbound 7:00: 10:20 AM: 1:30: 2 :40PM/ Outbound Ptlm Ave & South St.) 7:30AM 8 :00 Pt.l 10.S I 5 AM 10:05 AM: 12:30; 6:00PM C B O St Florid a Ave ) 7:30 AM e :oo Pt.l 10 5 I e 6 ;15; 9;35; 11: 15 AM: 12 :45: 2:55: 4 :15PM Inbound 7:50: 8 :55: 11:20 ANI; 2:3 5 ; 5:00 PW Coonty Govemrnonl Center 7:30 AM &00 Pt.l lo.5 3 5 8:00: 9 :00: 11 :30 ANI; 2:45 : 5:07 Pt.l 10. 5 11 7:50-5:07 Pt.l klbound 8:00: 9:<15; 11:30 AM: 2:50: 5:07 PM/ 1 0 5 29 Outbound 7:; 50; 8 : 55; 11:21 AM ; 2 :$; 4;.41 P M -------

    PAGE 249

    Table G-4: Government Activity Cen ters Flnal Av;. Avg Span of Wkdy sal s ... Wkday Wkday Wl
    PAGE 250

    Table G-4: Gove rnment Activity Centers F ina l Avg. Avg Span of Wl
    PAGE 251

    Table G-4: Government Activity Centers Final Ayg. Avg. Span of Wlcdy I SoL Sot. Wl
    PAGE 252

    Tabl e G-4 : Government Aetlvlty Ce nters Final Avg. Avg. Span of WI< ely #Sal Sal WI< day Wl
    PAGE 253

    Table G-4 : Government Activity Centers F1nal AV9-Span of _, ISt. WI< day Wkcoo CBD (Or onge St@ Florlcho A.,., l 0 8 0 1 8:15AM <1:15PM 8 .00 8.00 0 0 0 County GOernment Center 1 1 0 1 7:50/INo 5 :07PM 9 .28 9 .28 0 2 7:50/INo 5;07 PM 9 .28 1.1 7 :50AM 5 : 07PM 9.28 ------

    PAGE 254

    Tbl e G-4: Government A ctivity Ce nte,. Fina r F ina l Span o f Sot Sun Avg. Sponol Sun Sot Transit I Sun Srved F,.q sun. Sun. Sun. Tranelt Fttst But: Last Bus Service Spon RoutH Sun. -bus Itt< bwlhr First Bus La:&t B us s.tvt .. Spon M.C B lonehonf Judleal Bufldlng 6;30 IW. 5:30PM IUlO 12.00 0.00 0.00 -5:50AM -5:50PM 12.00 0 00 ..O:lOA M -5:40PM 11. 50 0 .00 -6:45AM -5:45PM 11.00 0 00 Mlrcus Pointe Commerce Park m arcua pofnt blvd west of 29 Downlown Ptaza 7:00AM 5 :30PM 11.00 7:00AM 5:00PM 7 :5 7AM 5 :00PM 7:57AM 5 :00PM 7:00AM 5 :00PM 7:57AM 5 :00PM 7 :5 7AM 5 :00PM 7:57AM 5 :00PM Oown14wnSqua,. 7 : 15AM 6;15 PM 11.00 11.00 0 7 : 15AM 6 :15PM 11.00 Co
    PAGE 255

    Table G-4 : Government Activity Centers Final Fl'f\1.1 Span of Sat. Sun. AYl!. Span o f Sun. Sat Transrt I Sun. Served Fnoq. I Sun. Sun. Sun. Transit GovenvnnttBuslneu First BU1 Last BUll SeNiee Span Routes Sun. uoncy bus lhr bu$ Jhr F1f'lt Bus Last Bus Service Spon I every Wests-hore 8uslnen Dtsttlct 7 : 03AM 7 :05PM 14.30 3 hl>ur 1 .00 0.83 7 :01AM 6:00 PM 1 4 .20 E 7:aaAM/W E8:10PMIW ...... 'Y e a : & AMI E 8 :51PM/ 6:26AM 7 :31PM 2 hrs o.so W8:58AM W8:30PM N7:29AM/S N 7:29PM/$ .... 'Y N 8Q9AM/ N6:39PIN 7 :44AM 8:A4 PM hoU< 1.00 S 7 :06AM S 7 : 07PM every Port of Tampa 7:27 /W. 7 :34PM 12.12 1 hour 1.00 1 .00 7 : 2 5AM 6:30PM 11.08 MacOIII AFB 7 :21AM 6 :30PM 1t.18 8:27AM 6 :32PM DowniOwn Daytona BNeh 7 : 28AM 6 :32PM 12.67 7:58AM 6:02PM 7 : 28AM 6:02PM 7 : 58AM 5 :32PM 7 : 28AM 6:32PM 6 : 58AM 7 :02PM 8 : 28AM 5 :32PM 7 : 28AM 6 :02PM --------------------

    PAGE 256

    Table G-4: Government Activity Centers Final Final Span of Sat. Sun. Avg. Span of Sun. Sat. Transit sun. Served Freq. #Sun. Sun. Sun Transit Govemmont/Buatness First Bus Last Bus Service Span ROt.lteS Sun uency bus /hr bus lhr First Bus Last Bus Service Span 6 :58AM 6 : 02PM 7 :58AM 6:02PM 6 :58AM 6:32PM 6:28AM 6 : 32PM 8:28AM 7:02PM 7 : 58AM 6 :32PM Hew Smyma Downtown 7 :43AM 5 :45PM 10.08 7:40AM 4:45PM 8:40AM 5 :45PM Downtown Fort Lauderdale (community routes not lncruded) 5:55AM 11: 00 PM 17.67 7:00AM 9:05PM 6 :10AM 11: 00 PM E&N5:45 E&N10:40 AMIS&W PMIS&W 5:<40AM 11:20PM 7 :00AM 1f:OOPM 6 :40AM 9 : 10PM 6 :10PM 11:00PM 6 :25AM 10 :SOPM 6 :55AM 11: 00 PM E6:05AMIW E 10:55 PM/ 7 :15AM WfO:OOPM 6:20AM 11:00 P.M 6:50AM 8 :00PM 5:55AM 10:25 PM 6:00AM 11: 00 PM 6:25AM 7:30PM Downtown Sarasota C1st & lemon) 6:12AM 6 :15PM 12 67 7 :07AM 6:15PM 6:40AM 6:45PM 8 :06AM 6 :15PM 6 :40AM 6:45PM 6:40AM 6 :45PM 6:10AM 6:15PM 6 :40AM 6 : 45PM 6 : 10AM 6:15PM

    PAGE 257

    Table G-4: Government Activity Centers Final Fln'l Span of Sal Sun. Avg, Span of Sun. Sat. Transit I# Sun. Served Freq-I Sun. Sun. Sun. Transit Gov&rnment/Buslnen First Bus Last Bus Service Span Routes Sun. uenc.y bus/hr bus /hr Bus Last Bus Service Span 7:08AM 5 :45PM 6 :40AM 6 :45PM 6:05AM 6 : 45PM 7:37AM 5 : 45PM County CourthoUS& 6:20AM 6 : 50PM 1 2 .50 0 I E6: 50AM/ W E 6:50 PMI 6:50AM W6: 50PM I 6:50AM 6:50PM 6:35AM 6:35PM 6 : 20AM 6:20PM Downtown Palmetto (10t h St a .n
    PAGE 258

    Tble G-4: Government Activity Cente .. Fina l Final Sp., of Sat Sun. AVIJ. Sponol Sun. Sot. Transit I Sun. SotVOd Freq tSun. Sun. Sun Transit GovtmmenVBualnn:s flm&ut lnt8us Service Span RoLIIH Sun. ...... bus/hr buolhr First Bus Las.t Bus Serwlct Span 5:28AM 1 :10AM 6:17AM 8 :00PM 5:68AM !2:10AM 6:18A M 0 :05PM 5 : 48AM I 2:10AM 6 :03AM !0:30PM 6 : 47AM !1 :10PM 5 :58AM !2: 10AM 5 :58AM 1 :10AM 6 : 58AM 7 :56PM 4:58AM I 2:12AM 6:18AM 8:50 PM 5:34AM 1 :10AM 6:58AM 9 :00PM CW !2:19AM CW5:29AMI ccw 1 2 : 26 CCW5:36 AM AM 6 :22AM 0 :30PM Titusville CBD ( N orth Gov"t Center 8 Plm Ave. & South Sl) 0 Cocoo CBO (Orange St @ Aorido Ave.) 0 COunl)< Government Cerrte<

    PAGE 259

    Table G-5 : Education Activity Cen t ers Wday I Sat t;Sun Op. Op. Op. I of Sorvod ActiVIty Cent" Wkday Hours Hrs Sat Hours Hro Sun. Hours Hrs Routes Route 11 Wkdy Wkdy Frequency I 7:45; 8:45 AM/12:45; 1:4$ ; 5 :45: Uni versity of West F1orfda 7 :30AM 8:55 PM 13.42 1 22 4:45PM University of F lor lda/Shanfi 6 : 5 5 />M 10 :40 PM 15.75 11 1 AM (Nery20 min I 15.75 5 AM e:very 30 min 15.75 6 AM OWly 30 mlnuto-.s every 1 0 min 6:45AM 5 :30PM/ 15.75 9 every 20 min 5:30PM 8 PM 15.75 10 every hour every 1 S min 6:45 AM 5 :00 PMI 15.75 1 2 every 20 m i n 5 P M -8 P M every 1 5 min 6 :30AM -5:30PM/ 15.75 13 AM every 30 min 5:30PM 7:45PM every 15 min 7:00AM. 6 :00PM/ 15.75 16 AM every 30 min 6:00 PM -7:45 PM every 15 m in 6 :00AM-6 :00 PMI 15.7 5 20 AM every 30 m in 6 : 00 PM 8:30 PM 15.75 35 avery 15 min 15.75 43 AM every hour SFCC-Matn Campus 7:30AM 10:15 PM 14.75 2 10 AM evoryhOur 14 .75 43 AM f:NOtyhOur SFCC Downtown Campus 7 :30AM -10:15 PM 14.75 3 5 A M every 30 m in 6 tJVeryhOur to AM every h our C.ntral FL comm. College 7 :30AM 1 0:10 PM 14.67 2 3 AM every hr in AfiVevery 70 m i n in PM 4 AM every h r in APlVevery 7 0 m in i n P M HUisborough Comm COl l ege 7 :30AM 10 :15 PM 1'-75 7 :30AM 5:15PM 9.75 2 11 MA el/6ry 30 mi n 14.75 9.75 32 AM every h o u r Unlv&Rity of South Florid a 6:30AM 10:20 PM 15.83 7:30AM 5:30PM 1 0 11 1 AM every 20-30 m in every 15-30 m in/ e very h r afte,...S 2 AM P M 5 AM every 30min

    PAGE 260

    Table G S: Education Activity Centers Wdly sat I SUfi Op. Op Op. tel S..rved ... --H,. Sat. Hours HJ$ S\ln. HOUJS Hrs Routot Wkdy Wl
    PAGE 261

    Table G: Education Activity Centers Wd&:y #Sat I Sun Op. Op. Op. of Served Activity Center W1
    PAGE 262

    Tab l e G-5: Education Activity Ce n tera Avg Final Avg. Wl
    PAGE 263

    Table G-5: Education Activity Centers Avg. Fi nal Avg. ; WI< ely Wkdy Span. o f Wl
    PAGE 264

    Table G-5: Education Activity Centers Avg. Final AVIJ. Wld I Sat. bus bus Activity Center hr hr Arat Bus Last Bus Service Span Sat Routes sat. Frequency lhr /hr First Bus Inbound 7 : 10AM/ Inbound 6:30 Inbound 7 :10 FAMU (Florida Agricultural & Outbound 7:26 PMI Outbound AMI Outbound Mechanical Univers ity ) 1.5 1.7 AM 6:46PM 11.60 3 evety40min 1 5 1 .5 7:26AM Inbound 6:50AM/ Inbound 5 :30 Inboun d 6:50 Outbound 7:10 PM/ Outbound AMI Outbound 1.5 AM 6:30PM 11.67 fNery 40mln 1.5 7:10AM I nbound 6:10AM/ Inbound 9:50 Inbound 6:30 Outbound 5:50 PM/ Outbound AMI Outbound 2.3 AM !0:10PM 16.33 AM/PM I!Nery 40 min 1.5 6:10AM 2.0 7:30AM 5 :00PM 9 .50 0.0 1.0 7 :15AM 5 :00 PM 9.75 0.0 N 6 :00AM/ S N 9:30PMIS N 7 :25AMIS Palm Beach Comm. College 2 0 1.3 5:30AM 8:00PM 16. 00 18.00 AM/PM 3 every hour 1.0 1 0 8:05AM N:55 AMI N-6:55PMI N-7:50AM/ 1.0 &-6:55AM S-5: 55 PM 1 2.00 PM every hour 1.0 S:50AM E5:47AMIW E7:07PMIW E7:22AMIW 1.0 6 :03AM 7:03PM 13. 33 AM every hour 1 0 7:08AM Miami-Dade CC North E 5:28AMIW E9:43 PMIW E6:17AM/W Campus 2.8 2.1 6:00AM !O:OOPM 16.53 2o.82 AM/PM 3 2 6 2.4 6:30AM N 7:01AM/ S N 8:40PM/$ 1.0 5:16AM 9:13PM 15 97 0 0 N 5 :30AM/ S N 2:05AM/$ N 6:04AM/$ 3.2 5:28AM 12:31 AM 2Q.62 AMIPM -&vory20mln 3 0 5 :35AM N8:16AM/ S N 7:21 PMIS 1.5 5:53AM 6:53PM 13.47 0 0 N6:19AMIS N 11:50PM/S N6:46AM/S 2.2 5 :33AM 12:01 AM 1 8 .47 AM/PM every 40min 1 .5 6 :15AM 2.0 5 :52AM 10:30PM 16.63 0 0 BCC Main Camput o.a 0 .9 7 :25AM 4:40PM 9 25 8 25 0 0.0 1.0 7:50AM 7:50AM 0.02 1.0 8 :20AM 4:25PM 8 08

    PAGE 265

    Table G-5: Educatio n Activity Centers Final Avg Final Span of Sat. Sun. Sun. Sun. Span of Sun. Sat. Transit N Sun. Servod Freq bus bus Sun. Transit Ac1ivity Center Last Bus Service Span Routes Sun. uency lhr lhr First Bus last Sus Service Span Unlvtrslty of West Florida 0 E6:t3PM/W University of FloridaiShands 5 : 43 P M 1 1 00 11.67 0 E6:50PMIW 6 :07PM 11.72 5 : 30PM 10.00 E 5:48PMIW 5 : 05PM 10.72 5:45PM 10.50 5:45PM 1 0 50 6 : 15PM 10 50 6:00PM 10.50 SFCCMaln Campus 5 : 27PM 10 .00 10 .00 E-6:55PMI SFCCDowntown Campus W-6:05PM 11.83 11. 83 N:05PMI $:50PM 10.42 5 :27PM 10.00 Central FL Comm. College 5 :42PM 10.95 10. 95 0 5:37PM N : 45PMI Hillsborough Comm. College $-6:55PM 11.08 11.35 0 7 : 00PM 1 1 35 University of South F l orida 8:50PM 15.15 0 8 : 20PM N 9 : 14PM/ S 8:43PM 14.52 ----------

    PAGE 266

    Table G-41: Recreation Activity Centers IWd01 S:t I Sun Op. Op. Op. I of Roc:-Loeallon -dayHOU!S HIS Salunloy Hours Hrs Sundy Hours Hrs Roona A..,.. I NM.!onal Museum of Naval AviatiOn 8:30AM 5:30PM I 8;30 AM 5:30 PM 8:30 AM 5:30 PM 1 14 Sl1ift 1 ; 7 AM 3 PM; Shift 2: 3 PM Sl1ift 1 ; 7 AM 3 PM ; Sll;tt 2: 3 PM Shift 1 ; 7 AM 3 PM; Sh ift 2: 3 PM Pensacola Bach 11 PM; Shift 3 : 11 PM 7 AM 24 11 PM ;Shift3: 11 PM7 AM 14 11PM;SIIM3:11PM-7AM 24 South Bach Street 9 :30AM 9 : 30 P M 12 9;30 AM 9 : 30 PM 1Z 11:30 A M 6 :00PM 6 5 4 lA 12 12 6.5 4 12 12 6.5 7 12 1Z 6 5 12 Oc.an Cent&r 2 lA 1 8 Shill 1 : 7 AM 3 PM; Shill 2: 3 PM Shift 1 : 7 AJA 3 PM ; Shill 2 : 3 PM Shift 1: 7 AM 3 PM; Slllll 2: 3 PM Fort Loudonlalo DeitCh 11 PM: Shift :1: 11 PM 7 AM 24 11 PM; Shift 3 : 11 PM 7 AM 2 4 11 PM; Sh;tt 3 :11PM 7 AM 20 4 11 .. 14 .. 3IS .. .. 24 62 14 14 24 72 Shift 1 : 7 AM 3 PM; Shift 2 : 3 PM Shifl1: 7 AM 3 PM; Shift 2: 3 PM Shi ft 1 : 7AM 3 PM: Shifl2: 3 PM Manatte Beach 11 PM; S hifl3: 11 PM 7 AM 24 11 PM; Shift 3 : 11 PM 7 AM 24 11 PM; Shift 3: 11 PM 7 AM 24 2 3 24 24 5 Jlke Gaithe r Park 8 :00AM 8 :00 PM 1Z 8 :00AM 8 :00PM 1Z 8:00AM 8:00PM 12 1 5 Shift 1:7AM 3 PM; Shift 2 :3PM Shift 1 :7AM 3 PM; Shift 2:3PMShift 1 : 7 AM 3 PM; Shift 2: 3 PM Boca Rton Hott1 11 PM ; Shift3 : 11 PM-7AM 24 11 PM ; Shift 3 : 11 PM 7 AM 14 11 PM:ShiftJ : 11 PM-7AM 24 1 92 Mltml Beach (Uneoln Ro.d) 10:00 AM 12 :00 P M 14 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 13 11:00 AM 12:00 AM 13 10 A c 14 13 13 H 14 13 13 L

    PAGE 267

    Table G-6: Rec reation Activi ty Ce nters t#Wday #Sat #Sun Op Op. Op. #of Recre a t ion location W"kday Hours HI$ S aturday HO Uni Hrs Sunday Hours Hrs Routes Route# 1 4 13 13 M 1 4 13 13 R 1 3 13 s 14 13 13 w I 14 13 13 Fl agler MAX Night OWL 14 13 13 S h uttle Cor al Roof Metro Zoo 9 :00AM 6 : 00 PM 9 9:00AM 6 :00 PtA 9 9:00AM 6 :00 PtA 9 1 MAX B eaehes (4th Stre.t & S h ift 1 : 7 AM3 PM ; Shift 2 : 3 PM S h ift 1 :7AM 3PM; 3PM Shift 1 : 7 AM3 PM; S h ift 2 :3PMA1A) 11 PM; Shift 3 : 11 PM 7 AM 24 1 1 PM: Shift 3 :11PM-7 AM 24 11 P M; S h i ft 3 :11PM 7 AM 24 3 9 11 26

    PAGE 268

    Table G-6: Recreation Activity Centers F inal Wl
    PAGE 269

    Ta ble G -6: Recreation Act ivity Cen ters Final Wkdy Avg. Span of Wl!dy bust W kdy Wl!d y Trensl t Recreation Location Se
    PAGE 270

    Table G-6: Rec r eation Activity Centers Avg. Fino! Sal Sal Span of Sat sat. b
    PAGE 271

    Table G : Recreation ActiVity Centers Avg, Final Sat. Sat Span o f Sal. I Sal bus bus/ Sat. Tr;mslt I Sun. Served Recroatt o n L ocation Routes Sat Frequency lhr hr ArstBus Last BU5 Service Span Routes Sun. every hou r 1 .0 E6:26PJNW5:46 AM E 11:14 PM/W 10 :22 PM 17 .47 AM every 12 m i n utes/every 30 min utes after .. 10:30 PM 4.3 N 5 :23AM/ S 5:12AM N 1:33 A M I S 1:21AM 20.35 AMIPM every 20 m in u tes/every 45 m in utes af\er-7:00 PM 2.4 8 : 14AM 8:33PM 12 32 AM ClOCkwi se t 1 :59 PM/ C k>ckw ise 6 :09AM/ Counterclockwi se t 1:46 Counterclockwise 5:56 every hour 1 .0 PM AM 6 38 PM Motrozoo 1 every 40 min utes 1 5 1 5 N 8 : 56 AIN S 9 :06AM N 5 : 36 PINS 5:48PM 8.87 8.87 1 AM Bea ches (4th Street & A1A) -----------

    PAGE 272

    BARRIERS & IMPEDIMENTS TO TRANSIT USE----Appendix H Route Transit Service Tables A/ltMndlxH Route Transit Service Tables

    PAGE 273

    Tabl e H -1: Airports-Weekday '?'-';.,,,,...'*-:,: .. ..,-. ' Mkd.a Service Shll\1 Shift 2 Shift 3 Activity NumbOr of Routtt AMI AM PM AMI AM PM AMI AM PM C.nttr Routos PM Only Only PM Only Onty PM Only Only Pensacol a Re ional 1 2 Pt-nsacola Reolonal Total 1 . 0 0 0 I 0 0 Q 0 Ta International 1 30 ./ ., ./ Ta m pa Internati onal Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Daytona Beach 1 10 Daytona Beac h Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ft. Laude r da l e/Ho i oOd 1 1 ., ., ./ Fl LaudtrdaloiHoll Total 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 S3t3$0ta Sarasota Coun 2 2 1 5 ./ ./ ./ Stue.sota (Sarasols County) 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 Total Sarasota {Mana lee Counl 1 10 ./ ./ Sa r asota (Manalee C(lunty) 1 0 0 1 0 t 0 0 0 0 Total lakeland L ender Reai o n a l 1 .t ./ Lake.iand lender Regional t 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1----Tola l _ __ West Pal m Beach International 2 44 ./ ., S3 ., .,-., Wtst Palm Beach Inte rnational 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 Tots \ M i am i International 4 7 37 ../ ../ .,

    PAGE 274

    0 li ..

    PAGE 275

    Table H -2 : Airpol't$-SaturdayiSunday ""? fJ setiinliVSI-iYfC. ,. .. / Su-Service ., . Shift 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 Shift I Shift 2 Shift 3 Activi ty Humbtr AMI ..... Pr.l AMI AM Pr.l AMI AM PM Number AMI AM PM AMI AM PM AMI AM PM or Routes or Roltte-s. Conter Routes PM Only Only P M Only Only PM Only Only Routes PM Only PM Only Only PM O nl y Only Pensaoo l a R ional 1 I 18 ./ ./ 1 8 ./ ./ Pensacoia Regional -iO(al 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 TiMOa I nternatio na l 1 1 3 0 ./ ./ 30 ./ ./ Tal"''\pa Internatio nal -. Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Da tons Beach 1 0 10 ./ ./ Oa ona Seae h Tot a l 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -Ft. La u der daleiHoll ood I 1 1 ./ ./ 1 ,r .I Ft. --lauderdale/HollywoOd f 0 0 1 f 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Tota l Sarasota Coun 2 0 2 ./ ./ 15 ./ ./ ./ -Sa rssot! .. \Sarasota ---Cou n t T ota l 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 I 0 Sarasota Co unt I 0 10 ./ ,r -" Coun Total 1 0 0 I 0 f 0 0 0 0 0 I lak.e l :::? lender Re iona l 1 0 i 40X ./ ./ lender -R i onal Total 1 0 0 f 0 f 0 0 0 0 0 -I West Pakn Beach I I -

    PAGE 276

    ... .... ;, -SlllftZ ShillS Shlfl1 Shift Z Slllft3 AdlviiY NUTtt.r AMI AM PM AMJ AM PM AMI AM P M Hum bet AMI AM P M AMI AM P M AMI AM P M of Rof R-Ctnt., R <>
    PAGE 277

    Cel>to< of 2 9 1 0 Holy ;:;;;.1 2 I S 2 5 ; 2 2 6 1 2o T.;..l TOiif 5 Table H-3 M edica i-Wfi.kday PM PM : A MI?W PM Only Only P M Only Only PM Onl y ,( ,( ,( 0 0 2 0 ,( ,( ,( ,( 2 0 0 0 2 0 I 0 ,( 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 ,( ,( ,( ,/ 1 1 7 0 i 0 1 0 0 0 PM Onl y I 2 ,/ ,/ 1 ,(

    PAGE 278

    Table M ed ical-Sat urday/Sunday .;!;> ;( ''-';'"i: ,<>'. /..,:;,! ._, _ .. SUnday S..VI oe :. '<;: ; l .. ,. ', .,_. .. -,, .. -"' -._, .. . . .. l-:;: ... ::. Shift 2 Shift 3 Shift t Shift 2 Shift 3 Acttvlty Number Routn AMI A M P M AMJ AM P M A M I AM P M N umbe r Routes AMI A M P M AMJ AM P M AMJ A M P M Center of Pill Only Onl y Pill Only O nly P M O nly Only of PM Onl y Only P M Only Only P M Only O nly Routn RoU1tS Memor ia l 2 2 Hosoi t s l 9 .; .r ,/ 9 ,/ ,/ 1 7 .; .r ,/ 17 ,/ 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Hospital T OII I H o l y Cross 2 2 HO$Di1al 10-tO .r 20 .; ,f .; 2 0 .r .; HolyCross 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Hosplto l Toto l -Doctor' s 2 Hosoital 14 ,f .r ,f 1 5 ,f .; .r Doctor's 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hoo ollal Total -Sarasota 2 Memoria l H .. pl l a l 5 ,f .r 1 7 .r SaraS-Ota 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M emorial Hosoltal TOll I -. Blake Hos. ital 2 4 .; " 6 .r " Bla k e Hospital 2 t 0 t 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Total La k eland 1 Regiona l Medtcal Center 52 .r Lakeland t 0 0 I 0 t 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    PAGE 279

    ... .. S und.a Strvk -Shlft1 Shlft2 S hift 3 Shift 1 Shift 2 Sh 3 Aet M iy N um be r -AMI AM P M AM P M -A M P M N umbtt Ro...-n AMI AM P M -A M P M AMI A M P M C...ltt or P M Onl y Only Only Only P M Only Onty ol P M Only Only P M Only Only P M Only only Rout.. Rout u R Wlntemo..., 1 Ho!l>kal 2 0 ./ W l n te rhlwn 1 0 0 1 u 1 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 u u u 0 Hooo llo l Tolol T M H C 4 1 4 ./ ./ ./ .,12 ./ ./ 18 ./ 29 4 0 0 3 0 -s-0 0 0 3 ;-0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

    PAGE 280

    Tabl e H-5: Shopping -;;..-,J S.r:vlc. . :lf, ,-. -,,, _ . ,, Su rvlte ,_;:s,_... .. : a-. "RoutK. o AM PM Number of Routes AMJ AM PM Humber of Routn AMI AM PM : ,. eemer .. .... :-:. ... P M Only Only Routes PM Only Only Routes PM Only Only .. ' . Unlverslt Mall 3 2 5 0 5 -1 9 ./ 9 ./ ./ 19 ./ Unlversi Mall Total 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 Oaks Ma1 1 3 3 0 5 ./ 5 ./ 20 -1 20 ./ 75 75 ./ Oakt Mall Tota l 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 -Butlef Ptaza 3 3 0 1 ./ 1 12 ./ 12 75 ./ 7 5 ./ BuUw Plaza Total 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 -' Paddock Mal l 1 1 0 ; 4 ./ 4 ./ Paddock MAll Total 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Cifrus Park MaJI 1 1 1 39 ./ 39 ./ 39 Citrus Park M all Total 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 -0 '" 0 Bnmdon Towne Center 4 4 2 8 ./ 8 8 ./ 31 ./ 31 ./ 37 ./ 37 37 38 38 Brandon Towne Center 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 2 I 1 0 Total --Volusia M all 4 3 1 9 9 ./ 10 10 10 ./ 1 1 11 ./ 60 Volusla M all T otal 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 -. -L__

    PAGE 281

    -0 .. . ' "'" ' '. ,.. ... '.._:w.el( S.rviC
    PAGE 282

    : .' ... 1'o.t -: .... :-)-... -lSatu Service ;<>}:;-;{ . .... ServQ _, . 1f'outea: AMI AM PM N umber of RoutH AM/ AM PM Number of Route s AMI AM P M .. Cent:.r";'.: ,"'{ ; :':" ;. PM Only Onty Routts PM Onl y Only Routes PM Of' I)' Only .. .:-<-i :. ';..> <\ . . . , .; , .; 14 .; u .; 1 7 .; 17 SouthDat. Piau Total 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 Cortez P laza 6 5 0 2 2 .; 6 7 6 .; 8 .( 8 .; 9 .( 9 ./ 10 .; 10 .; 15 .; Cortez Plaza Total 6 0 6 0 5 0 5 0 0 Wai-Ma:rt P iau 2 1 0 8 8 15 WaiMart Plaza Total 2 1 0 Prime Outlets at E llenton 1 0 1 ;' 1 Prime Outlets a t EUenton 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Toul ----' Lakeland S uare Mal l 2 2 0 50 ;' 50 5 1 .( 51 ;' Lakeland Square Mall 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 Totll -S rl Lake uare 1 1 0 10 10 .; s n Lal
    PAGE 283

    J. , -... . .. Saturda'\ Servfoe 1 j ;"' , ., SundiYSerYk e ... __ -'Jt:: AcUvlly Number Routts AM1 NA PM Number of Routes AMJ AM P M Number of RoutH AMI AM PM Ctnter of PM On l y Only Routes PM Only Only Routes PM Only O nly Routes 3 ,( 3 ,( 3 .r 20 ,( 20 ,( 20 2 1 2 1 ,( 2 1 .r Palm Boach Gardens M all 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 Total Aventur a MaJI 6 4 3 ,( 3 ,( 3 v' 9 ,( 9 ,( 9 v' 95X E E ,( E v' s ,( s s ,( Biscayn e v' MAX Aventura Mall Total 6 3 3 0 4 3 0 0 4 3 1 o-Meiboume S uare Mall 5 1 1 21 ,( 21 2 1 23 ,( 24 2 & 32 Melbourne Square M all 5 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Total Mertitt SQuar e Ma 1 1 4 1 0 6 ,( 9 7 ,( & ,( 9 M errittS uare MaU T o ta l 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0

    PAGE 284

    Tablo H-6: Busineu-Govemment -_,.,.,, ...... s .. A
    PAGE 285

    . ---------A
    PAGE 286

    r ,_. :'ty i; ).o;,.;.c, -,. .... ... ttr ,_ ov ..... ',;/ $!riel ;t Tota l j MacDIII AFB Totl l ... I h Total Downtown I
    PAGE 287

    ' .. """"'1:':J.;.-;; -; .. ..!.;i w ,a.rvlu ; ;,_.. d Saturdav ;; Sunda Setvl'e AetMiy Number Routes AMI AM PM Number ROU1es AMI AM PM Number Routes AMI AM PM Coiiter _. . 01 PM On\Y Only 01 P M Only Only 01 PM Only Only Routes Routes Downtown Total Downtown Ft. 15 lauderdale 1 9 10 1 1 14 ,( 20 ,( 22 ,( 30 ,( 31 "' 40 ,( 50 ,( 55 60 ,( 61 ./ 84 :Downtown Ft. 15 15 0 0 NIA -N / A Lauderd:ale Total OOWtltown Sat asota 13 -1 ,( 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 < 1 1 12 ,( 15 ,( 17 ---16 Downtown Sarasota 13 10 1 1 N/A NIA Total 5 \r.tanateeJ 2 3 ,( 4 ,( 9 ,(

    PAGE 288

    -........: --"' a . -Huo_!1!' -AM PM Number Rouws AMI AM PM Numbof RoutH AMI AM P M cOf PM Only Only Of P M Only Only Of PM Only Only R ....... Rouws RoutH 10 County Coutihou .. Total 5 5 0 0 N/A N/A -Downtown Palmetto 1 10 Downtown Plrnetto 2 2 0 0 N/A N//1 Total Lakeland 2 20 30 Lakoland Cloy Holl 1 0 0 NIA ''"' Toto -Koger center iranahasS<>el 2 25 26 Koger Center Toll 2 2 0 0 N /A Nl County Gcwerrvnant 10 Center (Pam 8eoch 1 2 31 40 41 42 43 44 46 54155 ., County 10 6 0 N/A NIA To tal! -TREX Bluelake Oftice 2 2 3 TREX Blue tab otnc 2 2 0 0 NIA N/11 Comaltx Total

    PAGE 290

    c 0 J J

    PAGE 291

    Table H 7 : Education ;, "' . > WHI< d s...,..,.. -1S 1turda Nice -Sunda Service .f, ' .. -: . . RoutH AMI A M PM Number Routes AMI A M P M Routea AMI AM PM Numbei P M Only Only of PM Only Only Number o f PM Only Only Actlvliv C.ntor Of Routes Routes Routes University of West Flo r ida 1 22 -University of West Florida Total 1 0 0 0 NIA NJA Unive r sitY of F l orida/ S ha n d s 1 1 1 ,/ 5 ,/ 8 ,/ 9 10 12 1 3 ,/ 16 ,/ 20 ,/ 35 <3 ,/ U nlversfty of I Florida/ Shands Total 11 0 7 0 NIA SFCC Main Cafl11)us 2 10 -1 4 3 SFCc-Maln --1 Campus Total 2 0 2 0 NIA NJA SFCC-Oowntown Campus 3 5 -1 6 I 1 0 ,/ -1 SFCC-I Down-1own I Campus Total 3 0 2 0 N I A NIA I

    PAGE 292

    . . . . w . ; .,..,_.., a.tUrdi. Ci6J .... .. ... I :M',.'--t 'o<\: ,. Sund Serv1c._tri"'-A - .-; -0, _:.,.:.y -:r:: -,.. R.. AM. PM RoutH ..,., AM P M R o u tes AMI AM. PM ., -.. .ACtiv ity ,>.' P M 01\lY OnlY of PM O nl y ontv Num borof PM Only Only .Of RoUtes I( . r Routes R outes . C omm u ni t y C o lle ge 2 3 ,( 3 4 ,( 4 Cenl ral Fl Community College Total 2 0 2 0 2 0 I 0 NJA Hillsb o rou gh Communrtv C OIIeQe 2 2 11 ,( 11 ,( 3 2 ,( 3 1 ,( Hillsborough Community College Total 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 N / A U n iv e rs.ily of South F lo rida 11 1 0 1 ,( 1 ,( 2 ,( 2 7 5 ,( 5 ,( 6 ,( 6 ,( 7 7 ,( 9 ,( 9 ,( 12 ,( 12 ,( 18 ./ 18 ./ 3 3 ./ 33 ./ 57LX ./ 8 3 ,( 83 ./ Unlve nlty of South Florida Total 11 0 10 0 10 b 0 5 N/A Bea ch comm u nitv Colleae 4 3 6 ./ 6 9 ./ 9 1 0 ./ 10 60 ./ D aytona Beach Community College Total 4 0 4 0 3 3 0 0 N/A

    PAGE 293

    . """ -Roulol AMI AM P M Ntmbet RO
    PAGE 294

    -.. a... s u Met -... -." --Hu.n"-....... PM Numi>M R-Alii Pll Routes All/ All Only of P M Only Nt.M'I'Ibtrof PM Only Conlor ot RoUIOo -FAMUTolal 5 1 0 3 1 0 0 N/A Palm Beach 3 3 2 .2 .-61 6 1 62 62 Plm Beach Community c<,ii.,.. To,.l 3 3 0 0 3 I I I N/A Miam i-Dade CC N orth Campus 6 3 3 7 .7 7 21 27 .27 27 .32 .32 27MAX _.-_ 32 .75 M loml.o.do CC Hottheo...,... Total 6 2 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 BCC Main Camou 3 0 NIA 6 10 30 BCCMafn Compuo To,.l 3 0 I 0 0 N/A

    PAGE 295

    Ta.bJo H-8: Non..Sh ift s.tu s.rv s c. -Adl>lly Num.betof --AM PM Nwnbtrof Routet AMI AM PM Numbetof RoutH AMI AM P M Cnte r -Pll Only Only Ro\ltOS PM Only Only Rootos P M Only Only Museum of 1 1 Naval Aviation .. ./ 14 Na UOnal Museum of t 0 1 0 1 t 0 0 0 Nava l AvlaUon T ota l Soulh Beac h Slreel 4 4 lA l A 4 4 7 7 12 1 2 SouthTttch Street 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 Totti Sun tlh 2 2 lA lA tB tB Sun Splash Park 2 0 2 0 2 o 2 0 0 Total Gtlher Par1t 1 1 5 5 7ako Gallllor Port< -t 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 ToUJ Road 10 8 8 A A A c c c ./ H H H ./ L L "' L M ./ M M R s s s w w Night OWL Night w OWL FlagletMA ./ X ---;;;;ohl O'M. ./ lincoln Road Tota l tO 3 6 I 8 3 I 8 2 t MtlmZoo 1 1 1 Ca!Roel 7 CaiRMI Coral ./

    PAGE 296

    !

    PAGE 297

    T a b l e H 9 : Shltt Recreatlo,._W e e kday Shift 1 Shl 2 S hiftS AciMty Numbe r R ... H ""' A M A M P M AMJ A M P M c-r of P M Only PM Only Only PM O nly Only R outH Pensacora Beac:h 2 R ed Blue Ptn 4a oola Bea c h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tota l F t LaudetdaJa Bea ch 11 ./ 36 ./ ./ ./ 62 ./ ./ 72 ./ ./ F L leude r date 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 I BuchToWI Manatee Beach 2 3 ./ 5 M a na te9 S.a eh 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 T otal 8oca Raton I Hote liR eoon 9 2 -"" ./ Boa Raton I 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 I Hot eiiRMOrt Tota l Bea ches 3 Coun t 9 ../ II ./ 2 6 ./_ S.tc:h n (BI"t'Verd Covntyj Total 3 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1

    PAGE 298

    Table K-10 Shift R&c:tHtion-Saturday/Sunday l '$,; ... atu '">;J.-.. .. . ''-J ; Sunda Servlee .. .... -,-::.J.-,. . / ij;_:.,. t!. :t . Shtft 1 ;., .;':'<- . Shift 2 . Shlll-3 Ill f Shift hlft3 ;., Activity Number RO

    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 nam 2200409Ia 4500
    controlfield tag 001 029924318
    005 20110805145534.0
    008 020206s2001 flu bt 000|0 eng d
    datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
    subfield code a C01-00121
    C01-00317
    027
    NCTR 392-11
    035
    (OCoLC)48947672
    040
    CBT
    c CBT
    d FHM
    043
    n-us-fl
    090
    HE4487.F6
    b H47 2001
    1 100
    Hardin, Jennifer A.
    0 245
    Assessment of operational barriers and impediments to transit use :
    transit information and scheduling for major activity centers /
    [Jennfier Hardin, Lisa Tucker, Linda Callejas]
    3 246
    Transit information and scheduling for major activity centers
    260
    Tampa, Fla. :
    National Center for Transit Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida ;
    [Springfield, VA :
    Available through the National Technical Information Service,
    2001]
    300
    vi, 174, [138] p. ;
    28 cm.
    500
    Cover title.
    5 FTS
    536
    Performed for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration and Florida Dept. of Transportation under contract no.
    DTRS98-G-0032.
    "December 2001."
    FTS
    504
    Includes bibliographical references (p. 171-174).
    530
    Also available online.
    FTS
    650
    Local transit
    z Florida
    x Management.
    Local transit
    Florida
    Time-tables.
    Scheduling.
    Choice of transportation.
    7
    activity centers
    2 trt
    700
    Tucker, Lisa.
    Callejas, Linda.
    710
    United States.
    Dept. of Transportation
    Office of Research and Special Programs.
    Florida.
    Dept. of Transportation.
    National Center for Transit Research (U.S.)
    University of South Florida.
    Center for Urban Transportation Research.
    773
    t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
    4 856
    u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.121
    FTS
    y USF ONLINE ACCESS
    http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.317
    FTS
    USF ONLINE ACCESS
    951
    10
    SFU01:001444444;
    FTS