USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Bay County transit development plan, 2003-2007

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

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

Subjects

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

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 50919099
usfldc doi - C01-00175
usfldc handle - c1.175
System ID:
SFS0032279:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00175
035
(OCoLC) 50919099
040
FHM
049
FHmm
2 110
Bay County (Fla.)
0 245
Bay County transit development plan, 2003-2007
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 2002 September
650
Bus lines--Florida--Bay County--Planning
Local transit--Florida--Bay County--Planning
710
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Panama City (Fla.) Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.175



PAGE 1

B COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2003-2007 FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE 2

Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3435 North 12"' Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32503 (850) 595 or 1 Fax (850) 595 Project Staff: Mary Bo Robinson Gary Mackey Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 420 2 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, Rorida 33620 (813) 974-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Project Staff: Bill Morris Victoria Perk Chandra Foreman Holly Carapella Nilgiin Kamp Martin Catala Kristine Bezdecny

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF fiGURES......................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ......................... .......... ..... .. ................ .................... vii PREFACE ........ .. ,, . . . . . . . .... IX CHAPTER ONE: AssESSMENT OF CoMMUNITY AND CUSTOMER TRANSIT NEEDS 1 Introduction . . . . . .. . . .. ... . .... .... .............. ... . . . .. . ... . ............. .. .. . ....... .. .. . . 1 .History of Public Transportation In Bay County .......... .............................. ........ 2 Progress Toward Meeting Goal s and Initiatives from Last Major TOP Update ..... 3 Population 0\aractertsttc:s .... .. ....... ... ........ ...... ... .. ............. ... ... .. ... ...................... 6 Population, Population Densities, and Population Projecti ons ........ ........ ...... 7 Regional City Population ................................. ........ ... ... .. ..... ......... Bay County Demographics .................................................. ... .................... Age ......................................................................... .. ..................... 17 21 21 Income ............................................................. ........... ................... 27 HOtJSel1old Density ............. ......... .. ......... ................................... ..... 27 La.bor Force O'lafi!ld.etistit:s .......................... .... ................................ 31 Interviews wittt COmmun.ity' Le.aders . .................. ............... ........... ................... 32 CUrrent status of Public T ransportation In Bay County ....................... : ...... 33 Goals for Public T ransportation in Bay County .. ........... .... ... ....................... 37 Trans latio n of Current Status to Future Vision ...... .. ... .. ..... ... ... .. ... .............. 40 Citizens Advisory Committee Workshop ........................... ... .. .......................... 42 Bay Town Trolley Rided\eck ................................................... ... ...... ................. 42 Bay Town Trolley On-Board ................................................................ 65 System Overview ........................................................................................ 65 Survey Methodology .. ........................ ............ .............. ... .... ...... .... .............. 65 ResporJSe Rates ............................................................................. SUrvey Analysis ......................................................................................... .. System Profile -Demographic Information ............................................. system Profile-Travel Behavior ..... ............................................................ System Profil e -User Satisfaction .... ........................ .... .... .. ... ..................... Summary of Performance Aspects ................................ ..... ... .. .. ............... BTT Survey Conclusions ................. ...... ......................................... ........... . 66 66 67 70 76 84 85 Bay Coordinated Tran s portation Custome r Satisfaction Survey ..................... 85 CHAPTER Two: ANALYSIS OF ExisTING SERVICES . . . ..... .. . .. . . ......... 87 lntrodi.IC:tion . . . ... .. . . . .... . .. .. . ... .. .. . . . ... .. . ... . .. . ... . ... . ... . .. ... .. ......... ..... 87 Analysis of Existing Servtces . .. .. . . . .... . . .. . .. .. . . .. . ... .. .. . . . . 87 The Purpose of Pe.rfonnance Review............................................................. 87 Performance Review Database -Bay Town Trolley....................................... 89 Performance Review Data Base-Bay Coordinated Transportation .... ..... .. ...... 91 Performance Evaluation of Existing BTT Service ............................................. 93 Ovetview of BIT .............. ...... ............................... ... .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . 93 Table of Contents

PAGE 4

BTT' Trend Anatysis .................. . .................... ..... .. .. .................................... 95 General Perfonnance IndiCiJ!Drs .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .................... 96 Ridership, Route Mileage, and Level of Service .......... ..... .............. 96 Expenses and Revenues .. .... .. .... ..... ..... ... .. ....... .. ... ..... ..... ..... .... 98 Employees, Vehldes, and Fuel Consumption . ... ...... ...... ......... 100 Effectiveness Measures............ ......................................... ............. 101 Service Supply, Service Consumption, and Quality of Service.......... 101 Effidency Measures....................................................................... 103 Cost Efficiency . .. . . . . .. . . . . ... . ............ 103 Farebox Recovery, Average Fare, and Labor Productivity ... ... ......... 105 Vehlde Utirlzation and Energy Uti l ization . . . 107 Rxec:tRoute Peer Review AnaJysis.................. ................................. ........... 108 Conclusions-BTT Performance Evaluation ... ......... ................ 119 Review of Existing BCT Services ....... .. ......... .. ... .. .. ..................... 123 BCT Trend Anal ysis . . .. . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . 123 General Perfrmnance Indicators... ........ .............. ..... ................. ..... 123 Effectiveness Measures.................................................................. 124 Effidency Measures ....................................................................... 125 Conclusions -Bcr Performance Evaluation .... ..... .......... ......... 130 CHAPTER THREE: PUBUC TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND INITIAllVES .......... 133 Implications of Goals nd Initiatives for In Bay County ................... 133 Goal 1: Continue to Strengthen the Coordinated System ........ .... ................ 134 Goal 2: Expand and Enhance Axed-Route Tra nsit Services .. ................ ....... 135 Goal 3: Broaden Community Support for and Usage of Fixed-Route Service. 138 Goal 4 : Continu e to Focus on C ustomer Service a nd Customer Satisfaction .... 140 Goal 5 : Continue to Add Value to the Community ....... ... .................. ...... ...... 141 Goal 6 : Transi t ion F ederal Grantee Status and Responsibility for Transportation Services to Local Control in Bay County ................... 142 Review of Plns, Leglsltion nd Othe r Reports .......................................... 144 Federal ..................... ... ... .... ......... .............................................. .............. 144 State ... ....................................................................... ............................. 146 Local ...... .. .... ........................ ........ .. ........ ............ ... .... .. .. .... ... ................... 1% CHAPTER foUR: DEMAND ESTIMAllON AND NEEDS/0PPORTUNMES ............ 149 II Introduction . .. ............ .... .. ................... .. ... .... .. ... ............ .... .. .... ..... ...... ..... ..... 149 Current and Future Demnd for Public .. .. ... ... .. .................. ... 149 Demand for Fixed-Route Transit Service (BTT) .... ........ .. .. ... ........................ 150 Ridership Trend Analysi s .......... ........................ .... ........................ 150 Peer Group Comparisons................................................................ 151 Fare and Setvlce Bastidties ....... ... .................... ... ........ .................. 154 Census Tract Malysis... .... .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . 1 56 CQmplementiJry Paratransit Service oemand. ..................... \ ............. 1 57 Demand for Paratransit SeNice ...... ...... ..... ...... ................... ......... .. ........... 159 Population and Trend Analysis......................... .................. .... ......... 159 Interviews, Survey Results and Citizen Input.......... .... .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .... ........ .. 160 Needs a.nd Opporb!nltles ........... .. ......... ... ... ... ..... .. ..... .. .. .... ..... .. ... ..... ... ...... 161 Existing Public Transportation Services .. .... .... ........ .... .. .............. ................ 162 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 5

Route Network ..... ,. ...... .. : 1 1 6 6 2 2 Span ofSetV!ce ........ ....... .. : .... :,. ...... ................. .............. Days of SeNice .... : ........ ; . : : ... . .................. ..... .. .............. 162 Passenger Amenities...................................................................... 163 Improved Coordinat(on Between Fixed-Route and Paratransft Systems 163 Data Collection and Analysis ........... :.............. ................................ 163 Community Outreach..................................................................... 164 Sponsorship of Community Events.... ............................ .............. ... 164 Special Event Transportation Services........... ........................... ..... 16S Community Setvlce.................................. ........ .............................. 165 Source of Local Funding.............................. ................................... 165 CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FIVE YEAR CAPITAL AND OPERAnNG PLA.N..................................................................................................... 167 Introduction.... .... . ...................... .. ...... .... .................. ...... .. ..... .... ..... .. ............. 167 Future Direction for Public Transportation In Bay County ....... ........... ....... 168 Five Year Transit Services P1an.......................................... ........ .. .............. 168 Phased Implementation of Redes/gned Route Network..................... 169 Vehicle Requirements-BCT and BTT ... ..... .. .... ......................................... 176 Recommendations and Strategic Initiatives .. ....... ........................ : .. 177 Paratranslt Services ......................................... : .... .. .............. ......... .. ... .... 177 Axed-Route Services................................................................................ 177 Capital and Operating Plan .... .. ..... .. ...... .......................................... .... ..... ....... 183 APPENDICES AppendiX A: Bay County Census Data Tables ........ ...... ............................................. A1 Appendix B: BIT On-Board Survey Instrument and Interview Discussion Guide .......... B-1 AppendiX C: Bay Coordinated Transportation CUstomer Satisfaction Survey Results .. C-1 Appendix D: Trip Attractors and Generators ........... ... .. ..... ... ... .... ............ ... ................ Dl Appendix E: Inventory of Transportation Providers Serving Bay County .................. .. E-1 Appendix F: List of Definitions (Selected Performance Indicators and Measures, and Peer Transit System Selection Methodology . . . . ... . . ..... .. ...... ... . . .. . F-1 Appendix G: Fixed-Route Trend and Peer Data Tables ...................... .. ...... .. ............ G-1 Appendix H: Transportation Disadvantaged Population Estimation Methodology ........ H-1 Table of Contents tii

PAGE 6

Figure I 1 Figure 1-2 figure I-3 Figure I-4 Figure I 5 Figure Hi Figure I-7 figure 1 8 Figure 1 9 Figure I -10 Figure I-11 Figure I-12 figure I-13 Figure I-14 Figure I-15 Figure 1 -16 Figure 1-17 Figure I-18 Figure I -19 figure I-20 Figure I -21 lisT OF fiGURES Bay County Population (2000 Census) ............. .................................... ........ ... 9 Regional Popul ation 1990-2000, Emerald Coast Counties . ....... ........................ 13 Regional Population Density 1990-2000, Emerald Coast Countles ..... ............... lS Regional City Population. ....................... ............................. ...... .................. 19 Bay County Population Under 18 (2000 Census) ............................................ 23 Bay County Population Over 65 (2000 Census) ........................................ 25 Bay County Households per Square Mile (2000 Census) ..... ... .. .......... ............ 29 Bay Town Trolley, Route 1 Total On ............... ......................... .................... 45 Bay Town Trolley, Route 1 Total Off . ........................... ................................ 47 Bay Town Tro lley Route 2 Total On .............. .. .......................................... 49 .Bay Town Trolley Route 2 Total Off............................................................. 51 Bay Town Trolley Route 4 Total On .......................... .. ...... .. ... ................... 53 Bay Town Trolley Route 4 Total Off ............................................................. 55 Bay Town Trolley Route 4a Total On ...... .......... ............ ............ ....... ....... .... 57 Bay Town Trolley Route 4a Total Off........................................................... 59 Bay Town Trolley Route 5 Total On .......................... ........ ........................... 61 Bay Town Trolley Route 5 Total Off ............................................................. 63 Q2: Where did you come from before you got on the trolley for this trip? ...... 71 QS: Wh.ere are yoo going on this trip? ........................... ...... ....... ..... ............ 71 Q4: How did you get to the trolley stop for this trip? ............................... 72 Q9: When you finish your trolley travel, how will you get to your final destination? . . . . . . ... .......... .. . ... .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 72 figure I-22 Q10: What type of fare do you usually pay when you ride the trolley? .......... 74 figure 1 23 Qll: How often do you ride the trolley ? ...................... ...... .... ................... 74 f igure 1-24 Q12: What is th e most Importa nt reason you ride the trolley? .... ................... 75 Figure 1 25 Ql3: How would you make this trip if not by trolley? ............................... 75 Figure 1-26 Q26A: Overall satisfaction with BTT ..................... .. ............................. ....... 77 figure 1 Q26B: Frequency of Se. rvice .... .. . . . . ................. ........ ...................................... 77 figure 1-28 Q26C: Ability of Riders to Get Where They Want to Go Using the Trolley ...... 77 f igure I-29 Q26D: Number of Transfers to Get Where They Want to Go .... ............ 78 Figure 1 Q26E: Ease of Transferring .......................................... ........... .................... 78 figure I -31 Q26F: How Regularly Trolleys Arrive on lime ........................................... 78 Figure 1 Q26G: Travel Time ..................................................... .......... ..................... 79 Figure 1-33 Q26H: Valu e of Trolley Fare .............. ... .... ........ ... ............ ... ........................ 79 figure I-34 Q261: Ease of Obtaining Trolley Route and Schedule Information ..... ......... 79 Figure I 35 Q26J: User-Friendliness of Trolley Route and Schedule Information ............ 80 F igure I-36 Q26K: lime of Day Earliest Trolleys Run ....... .......... ................................ 80 Flgure 1 -37 Q26l: lime of Day Latest Trolleys Run ........................ .... ......... . ...... ... 80 Flgure 1 -38 Q26M: Oeanliness of Trolleys and Trolley Stops ......... ...................... ............ 81 Flgure I-39 Q26N: 5afety at Trolley Stop ............................................. ........... 8 1 Figure 1 -40 Q260: 5afety While Riding the Trolley ............................ ... .................... 81 Flgure 1-41 Q26P: 5afety After Getting Off the Trolley .............. ........ .................. 82 Flgure I-42 Q26Q: Temperature Inside the Trolleys ........... ........... .... ................... 82 Figure 1 -43 Q26R: Avallablllty of Seats on Trolleys ..... ................. ..... .. .... ..... ...... ....... 82 figure 1 -44 Q26S: Trolley Operator's Ability to Oper ate the Trolley .................. ... ..... ..... 83 iv Bay Cbunty Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 7

Figurei-45 Figure 111 Figure II-2 Figure II-3 Figure U-4 Figure 115 Figure II-6 Figureii-7 Fi gure II8 Q26T: Trolley Operator's C ourtes y ... ....... ... ......... ..... .. .. .... .... ... .. ... ............. 83 F actors Affecting Public Transportation System Performance .. .......... ... ......... 88 Passenger Trips. I I I .......... ': ; , , 1\ ; i ................... .. I .......... .................... . ., . Passenger Miles ....................... : . 1 .......................... .................................... Route Miles ........................... ................ .... ......................... ... .................. Vehicle Miles ..... .................. . ......... . . ..... ; .......... .. ...... .... ..... ............. Revenue Miles ...... ..... ...... ................... ...... . .. .................... ................... .. .. Vehicle Hours .................... ....... ............... ........................... . ..... .. ........ . Revenue Hours ....... .. .... ...... .. ... ...... . ...... .. .... .......... .... .... .. ....... ... .. ........... Figure II9 Total Ol)eratfng Expense ..... ........ ..... ...... .... .. ... ... .... .... .... .. .. .... ... .. ....... ... .. Figure 11-10 Total Maintenance Expense ............ ....... . ..... .. .............. ... .. ... . .. .. .. .......... Figure 11-11 Passenger Fare Revenue ... ...... ....................... ................................... ... .... Figure 11-12 Total Employees (FT'Es) ... ........ ..... .. ... ... ........... .. ... .... .... .. .. . .. .. ..... ... .... .. .... Figure ll-13 Vehides in Maximum SeN iCe ....................... ... ........................... ............... 97 9 7 97 97 97 9 7 97 99 99 99 99 Figure II-14 T otal Gallon s of Fuel Consumed ... ...... .. .... ..... ..... .. ... .... .. ... ....... .... 9 9 Figure II-15 Vehicle Miles and P a ssen g er Trips per Capita .. .... ... .... ...... ... ... . .... 102 Figure II-16 Passenger Trip s per Revenue Mil e ...... ................................ ..... .. ....... 102 Figure II-17 Passenger Trips pe r Rev e nue H o u r ............ .... .............. ....... .. .. .. .. .... 102 Figure II-1 8 Average Age of Reet (years) ..................... .... ...................... .. .. .. ... .. ........ .. Flgure U 1 9 Revenue Miles Between Failures ..... ..... ...... .... ... .... .... .... .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .... .... . Figure II-20 Oper a ting Expense per Capi ta .. .... ......... ... ... ..... .... .... ... .... ... .. .... ... .... ...... Figure U -21 O perat ing Expense per Passenger Tri p ...... ....... .... ...... .. ......... ......... ... .. .. .. Figure II-22 Operating Expense pe r Reven ue Mile .. ....... .. ... ... ........... ... ... .. .. ......... .. ... ... Figure II-23 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ....... ....... ... .... ..... .... ... .. ......... .... .... Figure II-24 Maintenance Expense per Revenue M il e .................................................. .. Figure II-25 Farebox Recover)' Ratio ......... .... ..... ....... .... ... ... .......... ... .. ...... .. ............. .. Figure U-2 6 A verage Fare ......... .. ..... .... ......... ... ......... ... ... .. ... ... ..... ... ........ .. ... .. ... .... .. . .. Figure ll-27 Revenue Hours p er Employee FTE .. ..... ....... .. .... .. .. ...... ... ... ... ... .. .... ... .. .... .. Figure II-28 Passenger T rips per Emp loyee FTE ...... ........... .. .... ....................... .. ... .... .. Figure U -29 Revenue Mil e s pe r Total Ve h ides ............ .. .... .. .. .. ....................... .. .......... .. Figure Il-30 Vehicle Miles per G allon .. .............. ... ...... .... ... .. .. ............. .. .. ................... Figure II-31 Service Area Population ..... .......... .. ........ ..... .. . .. .... ... ...... .. ... ........ ... .. ..... Fig ure II-32 Service Area Pop u l ation Density .. .... ... .............. ... .. ..... .... ............... .. .... .... Figure II-33 Passen ger Trips ............................ ................. ........................................ Figure II-34 Passenger Miles ............ ... ...... ...... ....... .... .... ....... ..... ... ..... .................... .. Figu.re 11-35 Revenue Miles ........... ......... .................. ..... ......................................... Figure U -36 V ehide Miles ......... ........ .. ........ ... ........ ......... .. .. .... . ..... .. ... .. ... .... ......... .. Figure D -37 Reve nue Hours ........................................... ... ....................................... .. F i gure n -38 Vehicle Hours .............. ..................... .......... .................. .. .. .. ... ........ .... .. Figure D-39 Total Ope:rating Expense ..... .......... ........ ... .... ... ... .... .... .... .. ... .... .... ... .... . Fi gure II-40 Maintenanc e Expense ... ... .......... ... : ........... .. ... ... .. .... .... ....... ............. .... .. Figure 11-41 Passenger Fare Revenue ....... . .... ....... .... .... . ... ... .... ... ..... .. ... ... .. .... .. .... ... Figure 11-42 Total Employee FTEs .... .... ...... ...... ....... ............... ..... ... ...................... ..... Figure 11-43 Vehides Available for Maximum Serv ice .... ... .. ... .. ... ..... ...... .. .. .... .. .. .. .... .... .. 11-44 Vehldes Operated in Maximum Service ......... ........... .. ...... .. ....... .. .. .. ........ .. F i gure Il-45 Total Gallons o f Fuel ... ..... .... .... ... .... ........ .. ... . ... .. ..... ... .... .. .. .. ..... ... ... .... Figu re Il-46 Vehicle Miles per Capita .. .... ........ .... ........ ........ ... ... ... ....... ... ......... .. ..... ... Figure II-47 Passen g e r Trips per capita .. ........ ......................... ... ........... .. ... ... .. ......... .. Table of C ontents 102 102 104 104 104 104 104 106 10 6 106 106 107 107 112 112 112 11 2 112 112 112 112 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 115 115 v

PAGE 8

Figure U-48 Passenger T r ips per Revenue Mile .... ... .. ... .. .... ... .... .. ... .... ... .. ..... .. ..... ... 115 Figure U-49 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour. ... .... ... ........ .... .... .... ... .. ..... .. .... .. ... 115 Figure U Average Age of Reet (years) ..... ..... ... .. ... ......... .... .... .... ............... ... 115 Figure U-51 Revenue Miles Between Incidents .. ... .. ... .. .. ........ ... ........ ... ... .. ..... .. ... ... .... 115 Figure 1152 Revenue Miles Between Vehide Failures.. .. ... ... ... .... .. .. ... ... ... .. ..... ........... 115 Figure 11 Operating Expense per Capita .......... ........ ... ..... ..... ....... ..................... ...... 117 Figure U-54 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip .. .. ... .... .... ..... .... .... ................. .... 117 Figure 11 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ........................... ...... ... .. .... ... .... ...... 117 Figure 11 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ............ .. ......... .............................. 118 Figure 11 Maintenance Expense per Revenue Mile ......... .... ... .... .. ... .. .. .. .... ..... ... .... 118 Figure 11-58 Farebox Recovery Ratio ..... ... ..... .... .. ... ...................... .. ... .. ... .. .... .. .... ... .... 118 Figure II-59 Average Fare ... .............. ..................... ... ...... ...... ... ......... ............. ............ 118 Figure 11 Revenue Hours per Employee FTE............................................................. 118 Figure II-61 Passenge r Trips per Employee FTE ............................................................ 118 Figure 11 Revenue M iles per Total Vehicles............. ........ .. ........ .. .. ... ... ... ... .... ......... 118 Figure 11-63 Vehicle Miles pe.r Gallo n ................ .... .. ... ............. ..... ... .. ... ... ... .... .... .. . . 118 Figure II-64 Service Area Popul atio n .. ....... .. ... ... .... ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .... ...... .... ................ .... 127 Figure U-65 Potential TO/TO Popu latio n .. ......... ... .. ... .. ... .... ........................ ..... ... ... .... 127 Figure II-66 Paratransit Passenger Trips .... .. .............. .................. ... ............................ 127 Figure n-67 Vehicle M iles .. ....... .. .... .. ....... .. ... ..... ... .... ...... .. . .. ... .... . . .. ... ................ 127 Figure II-68 Revenue Miles ....... ... ... ... .... ..... ......... ... ................ ........ ... .. .... .. ..... ... ... ... 127 Figure ll-69 Operat i ng Expense .. ... ................... .. .... .. ... .. ............ .. ... .. ... .... ............ .... 127 Figure II-70 Operating Revenue .... .................. .... ..... .... ........ .... .. ........ .. ... .. ..... .. ... ..... 127 Figure ll-71 Vehlde Fleet Size ..................... .. .......... ... .... ... .... .. ........ ... ... .......... ...... 1 27 Figure U -72 Vehicle Miles per TO Capita .............. ........ .... ... ................................ .. .. 128 Figure U 73 Paratransit Trips per TO Capita... .. .... .... .. ... ... ... .... ......... . ... ................. .. 128 Figure U-74 ParatransitTrips per Vehicle Mile .. ... .. ... ... .. ........ ......... .............. ..... .......... 128 Figure 11 Revenue Miles per Paratransit Trip ............. ... .. ............. .. .. ........ ... .. ..... .. ..... 128 Figure 11 Vehic le M iles Between Accidents .......... ... ... .... . .................. .. .................. 128 Figure II 77 Vehicle M iles Between Roadcalls ..... ... .. ... .. . .. ...... .. ... ..... .......................... 128 Figure 11 Operating Expense per Paratransit Trip ....... . ....... ...................... ...... .. .... 129 Figure U-79 Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile .. ... .. ... .... ... ....................... ... .... ..... .... 129 Figure 1180 Operating Expense per TO Capita.... ... .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. ............................... 129 Figure 11 local Government Revenue Ratio .. ......... ... .. ................ .... ...... .... ............ .. 129 Figure 11 Vehide Miles per Vehide .... ................................... ..... ... .. ... .. ... .... .... ... .. .. 129 Figure 1183 Revenue Miles per Vehicle Mile .... .. .... ... ................ .......... ... .................. 129 Figure Vl Bay Tow n Trolley Recommended Route Network (1999 TOP) ........ .. .... .... .. .. 171 vi Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 9

Table 1-1 Table 1-2 Table 1-3 Table I-4 Table I-5 Table I-6 Table I-7 Table I-8 Table I-9 Table 1-10 Table 1-11 Table 1-12 Table D 1 lisT OF TABLES Populatioh -Bay County Con'lmunitles ... .. ............ .... .... .... .. ................... .. ...... 6 General Populations, Growth Rates, and Densities.................................. ..... 11 Population P rojections for Bay County and !'lorida .... .... .... .. ..... .. ........... ..... .... 11 Regional Population Growth 1990-2000, Rorida's Emerald Coast ........ ...... ... 12 City and COP Population Changes 1990-2000 .... .... .................................... 18 Population Age Distribution (2000) ... .. .... .... ......... ... ....... .. ............... ... .......... 21 Median Income and Persons Under Age 18 in Poverty, 1997 Estimates ........... 27 Labor Force Characteristics (2000) ... ..... .. ........ ..... ...... ............. ............ ...... 31 Bay County Labor Force Characteristics (2001) ......................................... .... 31 Rider Demographic Comparisons of the 1998 & 2002 BlT On-Board Surveys .. 69 Rating System Numerical Values .. ... ..... .. ... .... .. ........ .... .... .. ...... .... ........... ... 76 Rider Satisfaction Ratings for 2002 (in descending order) .. ............ ........ ........ 84 Selected Performance Review Indicators and Measures, BTT Fixed-Route Transit 5ervices .................. .. .... ... .... ....................... ..... ... .... ... ........ .... ........ 91 Table D-2 Selected Performance Review Indicators and Measures, BCT Paratransit Table 11-3 Table 11-4 Table 11-5 Table II-6 TableD-7 TableD-8 Table 11-9 Table II-10 Table II-11 Table II-12 Table 11-13 TableU-14 Table II-15 TableD-16 TableD-17 Table II-18 Table 11-19 Table 11-20 TablelV1 Services .. . .. . .. . ... .. .. .. ... .. ... . .. ... . . ... . ... . ... .. ... .. . .. .. . ... . . . . .. . . . .. . 92 SUmmary of Selected Operating Statistics, BlT .............. ..... .... .... .... .......... ... 94 BTT-Ridership, Route Mileage, and Level of Service ............ .... ...... ........ ..... 96 BTI -Expenses and Revenues ..... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ....... .... . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. ... . 98 BTTEmployees, Vehicles, and Fuel Consumption .............................. .... ... 100 BTT-Service Supply and Consumption, and Quality of Service................... 101 BTT-Cost Efficiency .. ........ ......... ................................ ... ............... ... ...... 103 BTT-Farebox Rei:overy, Average Fare, and Labor Productivity................... 105 BTTVehicle Utilization and Energy Utilization .......................................... 107 Peer Systems Operating Between 1 & 9 Vehicles In Maximum Service (2000) 108 Selected General Performance Indicators (FY 2000), 1-to-9 Vehicle Group.... 109 Selected Effectiveness Measures (FY 2000), 1-to Vehicle Group .............. .. 114 Selected Efficiency Measures (FY 2000), 1-to-9 Vehicle Group ..................... 116 BTI Performance Strengths and Areas for Improvement, Fixed-Route Peer Review Anatysis .............................. ... ... .... .... ...... ... .... ..... ................ 119 BTI's Performance Compared to Goals, FY 2000FY 2001.. ..... ..... ..... .......... 122 BCT Trend Analysis-General Performance Indicators.. .............. 124 BCT Paratransit Trend Analysis-Effectiveness Measures........... ...... .... ....... 125 BCT Paratransit Trend Analysis Efficiency Measures .................... ........ .... 126 BCT Paratransit Performance Strengths and Areas for Improvement....... .... 130 Projected Fixed-Route Ridership for BTT (based on existing ridership trends) ....... ........................................................... ..... .......... ........ .. ........ 150 Table IV-2 Fixed-Route Peer Systems Operating Nine or Fewer Vehicles .... ...... .... ......... 151 Table IV-3 Peer Group Comparisons with BTT ........ ............... ..................................... 152 Table IV-4 BTT FixedRoute Demand Estimates Based on the Peer Averages Trips per Capita (FY 2000) ............ ................. ................................. ..... ...... ...... 153 Table IV-5 Impacts of Fare and Service Changes Based on Elasticity Analysis .. ........ ..... 155 Table IV-6 Projected Fixed-Route Ridership for BTT-Base and Enhanced Service (based on existing ridership trends) ...................................... .. .................. 156 Table IV-7 Transit-Dependent Census Tracts:Bay County (from 1999 TOP) ....... .... ..... 157 Table of Contents vii

PAGE 10

T a bleiV-8 Tab l e IV-9 T able V 1 Ta bleV2 TableV3 Tabl eV-4 Tabl e V 5 T ableV6 T ab l e V-7 Table V 8 Ta b l e V 9 Tabl e V 1 0 T a bl eA-1 T ableA-2 T a ble A 3 T a b le C-1 TableC-2 T a b le C 3 T a bl e C-4 Tab le C-5 Table C 6 Table C-7 TableG1 T a bl e G-2 T ableG-3 Tab l e G 4 Tab l e G 5 T ableG-6 Tabl e H 1 T abl e H 2 viii ADA Paratransit Population and Trip Estimates-Bay County ... .... .... 159 Estimated TO Popul ation, TO Demand, and TO Suppl y -Bay County .. . ...... 159 Operational and Cost Characteristics -BTT Route Network, FY 2002...... .... 173 Operational and Cost Characteristics-BTT Route Network, FY 2003... ...... ... 173 Operational and Cost Characteristics-BTT Route Networ k FY 2004 ....... .. 174 Operational and Cost Characteristics -BTT Route Network, FY 2005.. ..... 174 Operational and Cost Characteristics-BTT Route Networ k FY 2006 ...... 175 Operational and Cost Characteri stics-BTT Route Network, FY 2007 ...... 175 Bay County Vehi c l e Inventory. ..... .... ...... .. .. .... ... ... ..... ... . .. .. . . . .. . ... ... 176 B1T Performance Goals, FY 2002 2007 .. ........... ..... . .. ... ... .. 180 Bay County Capital and Operating P lan, FY 2003 2007 ..... .. ..... .... ... 184 Bay County Capital and Operating F inandal Summary ... .. ...... ..... .. .... ... . 186 Population and Population Density -Bay County, 2000 ............. .. .. ... ...... ....... A-3 Age Distr i bution -Bay County, 2000 .... .... .. .... .......... ...... ........ .. .. .. .... .. ....... A-4 Households and Househol d Densi ty -Bay Coun ty, 2000 .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .... ... .. A-5 Overall Rating (BCT Survey) ...... . .. .......... . ...... .......... .. .. .. ... . . .. ... . .. ....... C-4 Service Availability Characteristics (BCT Survey) .. .......... .. .... .. ...... .. ..... .. .. ..... C-4 Service Availability Characteristics (BCT Survey) .......... .. .. .......... .. .. .. .. .... ...... C-5 Cost of Services (BCT Survey) ..... .. ... .... .. .... .. . . .. .... .. . .. .... ... . .. . ... .... ... ... C 5 Vehicle Comfort and Oeanliness (BCT Survey) .... .... ...... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .... C-6 Employee Courteousness (BCT Survey) .. .. ............... .. .... ...... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. C-6 Written Comments (BCT Survey) .. ... ..... . .. ..... .. .... ... . .. . ... .. . ... . ... . ...... . c .. J Bay Town Trolley, Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance Ind i cators .. .... ... G-3 Bay Town T rolley, Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures .. .... ... G-4 Bay Town Trolley, Direct l y -Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures ........... .... G 5 FY 2000 System Total Performance Indicators, 1-9 Motorbus Category .. .... ... G-6 FY 2000 System Total Effect iveness Measures, 1 9 Motorbus Category ........ .. G-7 FY 2000 System Total Efficiency Measures, 1-9 Motorbus Category .... .. ..... .. .. G 8 Potential Transportation Disadvantaged Population Projections ...... ............ ... H-4 Transportation D isadvantaged (TO) Population Projections ............ .. .... .. ....... H-5 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 11

PREFACE > : The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has produced a five-year Transit Development Plan (TOP) for the Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Each transit property in Rorida that receives State Transit Block Grant funding is required to prepare a TOP. This requirement is intended to ensure that the provision of public transportation service is consistent with the travel needs and mobility goals of the community. In establishing a strategic context for transit p lanning, the TOP can serve as a guide In the future development of the transit system. Five chapters were developed for this TOP. Chapter One explores the demographic and economic conditi ons within Bay County and also includes information gathered from an on board customer survey, an MPO Citizens Advisory Committee workshop, and interviews with several key local officials and community l eaders. Chapter Two provides a performance review of Bay Town Trolley (BTT) fiXed-route service, induding a trend analysis and a peer comparison. The second chapter also contains a trend analysis of Bay Coordinated Transportation's (BCT) paratransit service. Chapter Three outlines goals and in itiat ives for public transportation in Bay County and demonstrates their connection with goals specified In other planning documents. Chapter Four presents ridership and demand projections for public transportation service (tixedroute and paratransit) in Bay County for the five-year period, and an assessment of mobility needs and opportunities for the system. Finally, Chapter Five proposes recommended strategic initiatives for public transportation in Bay County and provides a five-year capital and operating plan. Table of Contents IX

PAGE 12

X Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2fJ03 2007

PAGE 13

CHAPTER ONE: : . . ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY AND CUSTOMER TRANSIT NEEDS INTRODUCTION With an average water temperature of 72 degrees and average air temperature of approximately 77 degrees, Panama City and Bay County, Florida have become a year-round vacation destination. The 27 miles of Bay County beaches, espedally Panama City Beach, are considered among the best in the country. Recently, the Travel Channel named Panama City Beach as the fourth-best in America and, in 2000, the Surfrider Foundation, an International non-profit organization dedicated to the protection of the world's oceans and beaches, ranked Panama City Beach the third-best urban beach in the nation. In addition, three state parks are ranked among the nation's top 20 beaches. With more than 20,000 hotel, motel and condominium units, as well as campgrounds and RV parks, the tourism Industry Is well developed. However, Bay County also contains diverse industries that create an economy based not only on tourism, but on government (military), retail and wholesale trade, service and manufacturing. Other smaller Industries such as commerdal fishing and agriculture also help comprise the economic base and employment opportunities for the county. Tyndall Air Force base creates a majority of the employment opportunities in the area. Located on a 2g,ooo acre reservation in southeastern Bay County, the base houses the 325"' Fighter Wing, Headquarters 1st Air Force, Southeast Air Defense Sector, 475"' Weapons Evaluation Group, and United States Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency. Approximately 6,666 mllltary and civilian personnel are employed at Tyndall. The base also serves approximately 8,500 military retirees in Bay County. The Navy's COastal Systems Station (CSS), located on 648 acres along St. Andrew Bay, is a major research and development facility In support of naval operations that take place primarily in coastal regions, such as amph i bious missions, swimmer operations, diving and salvage, and mine countermeasures The Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center is headquartered at CSS. Today, this multimillion-dollar base employs 2,449 dvilian and military personnel. Other major employers In the county are planning significant expansions in the near future. Trane, which opened a facility in Lynn Haven in 1995 for the production of air handling Chapter One

PAGE 14

components, is planning on adding 500 new jobs. Nexte l the tel ecommunications company, will add 600 new jobs. Allied Signal Braking System Is also planning on adding new employees In addition, Pier Park, which broke ground in March 2002, Is a multi-phase project with a master p lan that indudes an 80 acre city park, with 25 acres of beach frontage, 50 acres of retail outlet shopping and restaurants, and 70 acres of commercial retail parcels. With all of the growth antidpated in the coming years, there is a need to p l an for the continued development, i mprovement, and expansion of a public transportation system. This is espec i a ll y true since the county has only one primary corridor that connects Panama City with Interstate 10. T ourist and other industries will not continue to grow if transportation systems become further constrained by increased traffic congestion T o accomplish the planning of future transportation services, it is necessary to understand the social, political, and economic environments with i n which the transit system operates. Chapter One examines the demographic and economic conditions of Bay County and its population, utilizing 1990 U.S. Census Bureau data, 2000 Census data, and other recent data available from other sources. In addition, information was collected from interviews with key local elected officials and other community leaders, as well as from an on-board passenger survey of the Bay Town Trolley. Also, information has been provided by the West F l orida Regional Planning Cound l the Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Plan ning Organization (MPO), and other municipalities in Bay County. History of Public Transportation in Bay County Bay County has a long history of public transportation including fixed-route transit and paratransit. Fixed-route transit was operated by the City of Panama City within its city l i mits from after Wor1d War II until May 1982. The service was discontinued partia lly due to a continuing decline in public participation and a trend of decreasing ridership. In the final full fiscal year (1980/1981) the system provided 94,008 passenger trips. The majority of the regular riders were domestic help, as well as senior citizens and lower income residents. The Bay Town Trolley, a new fixed-route system in the urbanized area of Bay County, began operations In December 1995. Fixed-route trolley service Is operated by the Bay County Coundl on Aging. The MPO initially approved a three-year tria l period beg i nning I n December 1995 and service has continued to the present. Operation of the Trolley service continues to expand today, as the system I s becoming more established in Bay County. 2 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 15

Paratransit setVice has been coordinated by the Bay County Council on Aging, Inc., since 1983 when it was selected as the Community Coordinator (CTC) for Bay county In 1998, the MPO contracted with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) to prepare a five-year transit development plan that included several recommendations for both the Bay Town Trolley and Bay Coordinated Transportation. Since that time there has been progress made on the Implementation of that TOP, as discussed below. While progress has been achieved in addressing several specific recommendations, others have not been addressed, primarily due to time and budgetary constraints. Progress Toward Meeting Goals and Initiatives from the Last Major TDP Update (1999-2004) The last major TOP update In 1998 presented a series of six broad goals and accompanying initiatives for the system to work toward over the next five years. Three years Into that five year period, it is time for another major update and to revisit those goals and Initiatives. The six goals were as follows: GOal 1: Strengthen the Coordinated System Goal2: Make fixed-route transit service viable and usable Goal3: COmmunicate the role of transit in Bay COunty Goat 4: Fows on customer service and achieve greater customer satisfaction Goat 5: Add value to the community beyond the core mission Goal 6: Change the organizational culture of the Bay Town Trolley It Is clear that the system has made significant progress in many areas, while time and funding constraints have resulted In less progress in other areas. Some of these accomplishments include: Goal 2: Make the fixed-route transit service viable and useful o Initiative A: Redesign the route netwolf< of the Bay Town Trolley. The system has been somewhat constrained by equipment resources in this process, but Route 1 has been implemented, the West route has been revised, and the east side service area changes are scheduled to be implemented in Summer 2002 (Routes 2 and 3 from the 1998 TOP update). Chapter One 3

PAGE 16

4 o Initiative 8: Acquire additional capil:ill resources for the provision of service. The system has obtained two additional cutaways, and four new trolleys. In addition, three of the older trolleys have been retired. Bay Town Trolley is operating four vehicles in 2002, and will be operating five vehicles by the end of 2002. o Initiative C: Establish market-driven approaches to increase ridership. With a market consisting primari l y of high school students, college students, seniors, and tourists, Bay Town Trolley has worked on increasing ridership. In 1998, ridership was 50,794 and in 2001 ridership increased to 75,737 By the end of this year, the system will p r ovide approximately 90,000 passenger trips o Initiative 0: Reffne the product approach to transit services. This has been ongoing with the trolley theme of the system. o Initiative E: Focus on partnerships to fund transit service improvements. Bay Town Trolley has been working with hotels on the beach regarding beach services, the Airman's Advisory Council, Bay High School, and the City of Panama City. Accomplishments include the joint use agreement with the School Board and inclusion in the Community Coll ege Student Orientation. Goal 3: Communicate the Role of Transit in Bay County o Initiative 8: ESI:i1blish a Community Relations and Outreach Program. Bay Town Trolley staff has spent significant time in the community and has receiVed good press coverage over the past three years This has been recognized, as evidenced by the community leader Interview results summarized In this document. There have been numerous speaking engagements, and special events such as Winter Resident Appreciation Day o Initiative C: Esl:ilblish a Transit Alliance Program with community groups. Bay Town Trolley staff has worked closely with Bay H igh School over the past few years. In addition, the MPO has created a portable d i splay that staff can take to various events. Goa/1: Focus on customer service and ac;hieve greater c ustomer satisfaction o Initiative A: Create indMdual schedules and a new system map for the Bay Town Trolley. The MPO Intends to use the results of a recent CUTR study that examined transit information mater i als from every transit system in Aorida and Bay County Transit Oevelopment Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 17

field-rested their effectiveness with the public The study made spedfic recommendations on hOw tO transit information materials more understandable based on design components that contributed to partldpant success. o Initiative 8: Conduct focus groups. A marketing firm hired by the Bay Town Trolley is involved i n conducting focus groups. o It should also be noted that the Bay Town Trolley staffs commitment to customer satisfaction has not gone unnoticed in the community in recent times. The results of the community l eader interv iews, presented later in this chapter, show that various elected officials and other leaders are pleased with the responsiveness and attentiveness exhibited by the Trolley staff. Chapter One 5

PAGE 18

POPULAllON CHARACTERISTICS Bay County i s a coastal community l ocated In the P anhandle of Florida, bound by Washington and Jackson Counties to the North, cal houn and Gulf Cou nties to the East, Wal t on County to the West, and the Gul f of Mexico to the South. The county encompasses approximately 763.7 square miles of land area. In t he 1990 Census, the county s population was estimated at 126,994 Accor ding to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2000 popu l ation for Bay County is 148 217 which represents a n increase of 16.7 per cent from 1990 The most recent d ata availabl e show that, for 2001, Bay Coun ty's popu l ation i s approximate l y 150,287, a n i n c rease of 1. 4 pe r cent. T able I-1 lists the 1990 and 2000 popu l ation and the percent changes for the communities of Bay County The table shows t h at, whi l e Bay County gre w nearly 17 percent betwee n 1990 and 2000, some of its communities grew a t a significantly higher rate, while others grew much more s l owly. While callaway's population increased at about the same rate as the county, Cedar Grove s population more than trip led during the '90s from 1,479 in 1990 to 5,367 In 2000 Th e populat i o n In Panama City Beach nearly doub l ed from 4,051 i n 1 990 to 7,671 i n 2000 an increase of more than 89 percent. The City of Lynn Haven grew more than one-third from 9,298 in 1990 to 12,451 in 2000. Panama City grew approximate l y s i x percent during this tim e (34 396 i n 1990 ; 36 714 In 2000) Area Bay County callaway Cedar Grove Lynn Haven Mexico Beach PanamaOty Panama Oty Beach Parker Springfield UninCXl
PAGE 19

obtained from the 2.000 U.S. Census of Population and Housing databases and, where applicable, from estimates provided by l:t,le BurE!ilu pf Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. All graphic depictions in this section present data at the census tract level in order to provide greater accuracy in examining various demographic and economic characteristics. Appendix A includes tables that denote, in detail, the demographic and economic data examined herein for all census tracts in Bay County. Population, Population Densities, and Population Projections The 2000 population of Bay County is 148,217 persons. According to the Census population estimates, the county's population has increased nearly 17 percent from 126,994 persons in 1990. This represents a slower rate of growth than that experienced during the 1980s, when the population of Bay County increased nearly 30 percent from 97,940 persons in 1980 to 126,994 persons In 1990. While Florida's total population grew by one-third between 1980 and 1990 (9,746,961 in 1980; 12,938,071 in 1990), the state's growth rate also slowed somewhat during the '90s increasing approximately 2.4 percent to 15,982,378 in 2000. Table I-2 summarizes the population changes between 1990 and 2000 for Bay County and the state of Florida as a whole. Population densities were also exam ined, since higher densities are generally more condudve to transit use. Table I-2 shows that Bay County's 2000 population density of approximate l y 194 persons per square mile is somewhat Jess than the state's population density of 257 persons per square mile. However, it should be noted that Bay County's popu l ation density has increased more than eight percent since 1996 data were reported in the previous major TDP update (179.29 in 1996; 194.08 i n 2000). In addition, according to 2.000 Census data, the population density of Bay County is signiflcantiy greater than that of its neighboring counties of Walton (38 persons per square mile), Washington (36 persons per square mile), calhoun (23 persons per square mile), and Gulf (24 persons per square mile). Figure I 1, on page 9, illustrates the population density of Bay County according to 2000 Census data, with the dark blue coloring representing the most dense census tracts that have between 1,400 and 2,600 persons per square mile. The lighter blue/teal color represents areas with between 910 and 1,300 persons per squa r e mile, and the light green color denotes tracts with between 300 and 900 persons per square mile. All other areas have population densities below 300 persons per square mile. Chapter One 7

PAGE 20

8 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 21

watton Figure 1-1 Bay County Population Density 2000 Census washington Soutllport Panlrna CitY .Beach . : .. . .":: ;.; . . .... : .... .. .. . . .... ..... ... . Legend Population Density 022-290 300-900 910 1300 1400-2600 Panama -Mfles Calhoun Gulf .

PAGE 22

this page IS blank

PAGE 23

Tablei-2 General Populations, Growt.tl Rates, and Densities Area 1990 2000 Population Growth 2000 Population Density Population Population (1990 2000) (persons per square mile) Bay County 126,994 148,217 16.7"A. 194.08 Florida 12,938,071 15,982,378 23.5o/o 296.31 . Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 Rortda StaliSti<:al Absttact, BEBR Table I-3 examines population projections provided by BEBR for Bay County and Florida as a whole. BEBR provides low, medium, and h igh population estimates for its projections over time. The projections shown in Table I-3 represent the "me dium" estimates. The table shows that Florida Is expected to grow at a higher rate than Bay County over the next 30 years. Between 2000 and 2010, Bay County i s projected to grow nearly 13 percent to a population of 167,000. During this time, Florida is projected to grow approximately 18 percent. Between 2000 and 2020 Bay County may experience a 38 percent Increase in population, to 204,600. Also, by 2020, Florida may grow nearly 53 percent to a total population of 24,420,700 persons. Table 1 Population Projections for Bay county and Florida Area 2000 Population Projections o/o Change Population 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 20002000-2010 2020 Bay COunty 148,217 157,600 167,000 176,600 186 ,400 204,600 12.7o/o 3S.Oo/o Flonda 15,962,378 17,376,900 1 8 ,776,400 20,2LI,l00 21,683,300 2 4,42 0,700 17.5% 52.8% Source: 2001 Rolida Statlstica1Ab$tract, BEBR Regional Population The Emerald Coast of Florida extends from Escambla County (Pensacola) to Bay County (Panama City) to the east, with Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties in between. As part of this study, an examination of regional population trends is presented In terms of population and population density growth between 1990 and 2000. In addition, changes In city populations are presented for the reg ion for the same period. Table I-4, on the next page, shows the population growth fo r the Emerald Coast reg ion OVerall, the growth r ate for the five-county region was 20 percent and very close to the 23.5 Chapter One 11

PAGE 24

percent growth for Aorlda as a whole. Between 1990 and 2000, the region grew by 128,900 persons from 642,600 to 771,500, with Santa Rosa and Walton Counties experiendng the greatest percentage growth Aru Escambla County Santa Rosa County 04
PAGE 25

Populdon c:Jo-1 000 1.00 1 3.500 II& 3.501 7 .000 7,001 12,000 12.001 -1 7,455 Lllgend Popul.ttlon Q o-1,000 1 ,001-3,500 lUll 3, 501 7/JOO El] 7 ,001. 12,000 1 2 001 17 ,41;5 F i gure 1 2 Regional Populatio n 1990-2000 Emerald Coast Count i es ... . . -... -.. ----......... _, .... --.. ....... 1990 .... ... 2000 .. ''

PAGE 26

this page 0 IS blank

PAGE 27

Legend Figure 1-3 Regional Population Density 1990-2000 Emera l d Coast Counties Persons Per Square Mile 00-1,000 IB1 .001 2,ooo llill2,001 -2,956 2,957 5,000 5,001 6,000 Logtnd Population Density Persons Per Sqaure MUe 0 0.000 lim 1,001 2,000 lilli!il2 .00 1 3,000 3 001 5 ,000 -5.001 -6,000

PAGE 28

this page IS blank

PAGE 29

Regional City Population The U.S. Census Bureau recognizes incorporated dties and towns and, in some cases, urbanized areas that are identifiable by name but not within an Incorporated place. These areas are called Census Designated Places (COPs}. In the region, there are 25 cities and towns and 22 COPs. The City of Pensacola's population dedlned three percent between 1990 and 2000; however, the contiguous urban area Increased nearly six percent from 146,900 to 155,100 during this time. In Santa Rosa County, Milton declined approXimately two percent, while Pace increased nearly 18 percent. Gulf Breeze experienced a modest 2.4 percent population growth between 1990 and 2000. Ft. Walton Beach, in Okaloosa County, declined nearly seven percent while Destin, Niceville, Valparaiso, and Crestview all experienced significant population Increases during the 1990s. In Walton County, between 1990 and 2000, Defuniak Springs experienced a slight decline while Miramar Beach increased; although, the actual number of persons remains low (less than 3,000 in both cases). In Bay County, Panama City experienced a modest increase in population between 1990 and 2000 while the population of Panama City Beach nearly doubled during this time. As mentioned previously, Lynn Haven and Callaway also experienced significant population growth during this period of time. Table I-5, on the following page, displays the population growth for major cities and COPs over this time period while Figure 1-4 (on page 19) depicts changes in population between 1990 and 2000. Chapter One 17

PAGE 30

County ESQmb l., S..nta Rosa OklllooA Wilton Bay 18 Table IS City and Census Designated Place (COP) Population Changes 1990-2000 City/COP 1990 2000 Popu l ation Pensacola 58,165 56,255 Contiguous Pensacola Urbanized 146 ,891 155,108 IWa (includes West Gonzalez Ensley, Feny Pass l!rent, Belle>iew, MyiUe Grove and Wanington) Milton 7,216 7,045 Pace 6,2n 7,393 Gulf Breeze 5,530 5,665 Rc Walton Beach 21,471 19,973 Mary EsU>er 4 139 4 ,055 Destin 8,080 11,119 Nioevme 10,507 11,684 Valparaiso 4,672 6,408 Crestview 9,886 14,766 Defuniak Springs 5 120 5,089 Freeport 843 1,190 Miramar Beach 1,644 2,435 Panama City 34,378 36,417 Panama City Beach 4,051 7,671 lynn H .3% +1 7.8% +2.4% -6.9% 2 .0'*> +37.6% +11.2% +37.1o/o +49 .4% -o .6'*> + 41 .1'*> +48.1% +5.9% +89.3% +33.9% +1.0'*> +16. 1 % +0. 5% 36.1% Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2()()J 2007

PAGE 31

Figure I-4 Ree:ional Citv Pooulation 1990-2000 Oo I ,.Jl Oo 1990 .. Legend POPULATION c:J 3000 o r (;;::,,; J 31l01 8800 lli!ll!!l8801 1 4. 800 fRkfa 1 4,801 2 1 900 21,901 58.31l0 1 .: ; r ... . .: . ._ . I ;, JJ -->>' Legend POP2000 t=}3000 or I C$$ 3001 8800 Em 8801 14,800 fBI 14 80 1 21,900 2UI01 58.300

PAGE 32

th i s page IS blank

PAGE 33

Bay County Demographics To Investigate the transportation needs of a given area, certain distinct segments of the population should be analyzed One step in the development of the TOP requires the examination of segments of the study area population that consist of persons who use transit service as a primary sou rce for their mobility needs. Typical characteristics that are analyzed Include age, Income, household density, vehicle availability and journey-to-work charact eristics. At this lime, not a ll of these data are available at the census tract l evel. Specifically, vehicle avail ability and journey-to-work data for 2000 a re not ava il able as of this TOP and so are not included In this section Age Table 1 shows the percentage distributions for all age groups In Bay County. As mentioned previously, the age groups of primary in terest in the TOP are those that are considered to be potential transit users Specifically, these segments are the age groups that consist of the county's youth and elderly popula tions. Bay County's population Is spread relatively evenly among the age cohorts shown in Table 1 The largest population group In the county consists of persons under the age of 18. Persons older than 65 years comprise more than 13 percent of the county's population, according to 2000 Census data Aa:ordlng to 2000 Census data, the median age In Bay County is 37 .4. This value reflects a nearly 13 percent i ncrease from the 1990 Census, when the med ian age was calculated to be 33.2 years. The aging population within Bay County should be a consideration in the strategic planning and continuing development of public transportation In the region. Table 1 Population Age Distribution (2000) Area Age Group (In yars) G-17 18 30.39 40-<19 50-64 65+ Bay County 24.1% 15.2% 15.3% 15.S% 16.5% 1 3. 4 % SOurce. 2000 U.S. census Data Cll8pter One .ZJ

PAGE 34

llle age groups of under 1 8 a nd over 65 are of particular interest in this TOP. Those under the age o f 18 are either too young to drive or d o not have access to an automob il e Similarly, the elderly ofte n do not have adequate access to automobiles and, due to limitations resulting from their age (poore r eyesight a nd reflexes ), so m etimes are no lo nge r able to drive. Therefo re, p ersons in these two age group s usually rely more on publi c transportation for their mobility. Rgure 1 5, on page 23, illustrates the proportion of p eop l e under the age of 18 in the county The darkest blue color represents those areas with the largest concentrati ons of persons under the age of 18. Rgure 1-6 (on page 25 ) similarly displays the proportion of the popu l ation tha t I s ove r the age of 65 in Bay County with the darkest blue a re as ind i cating the highest level s of persons in this age group. 22 Bay County rransit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 35

Wilton Legend Unde rAge 18 011%-13% 14%-22% 23% 29% 30%-38% Figure 1-5 Bay County Population Under Age 18 2000 Census \!Yashington M iles Gu l f

PAGE 36

this page IS blank

PAGE 37

Wilton 3 .. .. :. . . .. Legend OverAge65 CJo%-10% 11% 15% 16%-20% 21%-30% Figure 1-6 Bay County Population Over Age 65 2000 Census ( ll'ollsh i ngton / .. .... : . .... .:: .. ., .:.: :: : ..... .. = Gul l

PAGE 38

this page IS blank

PAGE 39

Income Like age, income is an i mportant factor in dete rmining the usage of a public transportation system. In general, with little o r no access to an automobile {vehicle availability is dlsrussed later in this section), low-income persons rely more on a public transit system for mobility and access to employment, shopping and entertainment. Typically, households with annual incomes below $15,000 are considered when analyz ing potential population segments for transit use: The Bay County Chamber of Commerce reports a 1999 per-capita income of $22,719 for Bay County. This compares to a 1999 per-capita income of $27 781 for Flolida as a whole. While income data are not yet available from the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau has produced 1997 estimates of median household Income and persons under the age of 18 living in poverty Table 1-7 shows that the median household income for Bay County in 1997 was $32,047, compared to $32,877 for the state of Rorida. In addition, the table indicates that 22.4 percent of Bay County's 1997 estimated population of persons under age 18 was living in poverty, compared to 21.8 percent of Rorida s total population under age 18. These data show that Bay County is slightly poorer than the state of Florida as a whole. Table I-7 Median Income and Persons Under Age 18 in Poverty, 1997 Estimates Area Median Persons Under Age 18 Peroentage of Persons Income In Poverty Under Age 18 in Poverty Bay County $32,047 8,971 22.4% Florida $32,877 77S,812 21.8% So..-oe: u.s. Census Bureau, 2001 Aonda Statistical BCBR Household Density According to 2000 Census data, Bay County has 59,597 households. Figure I-7 illustrates the household density in the county as measured by the number of households per square mile. On the map In the figure, the darkest blue areas depict .the la rgest concentrations of households, with between 580 and 1,000 households per square mile. Chapter One 27

PAGE 40

28 Bay County Tmnsit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 41

Figure 1 7 Bay County Households Per Square Mile 2000 Census Walton . . . . . ' .' L e gend H o useh olds P e r Squ a re M i l e D s 110 -120-340 -350-570 Waehlngton = .. Southpol'l George 580-1000 ----.....

PAGE 42

this page IS blank

PAGE 43

Labor Force Characteristics Information related to labor force participation for Bay County and Flor ida is presented In Table I-8. The total labor force in 2000 for Bay County is 64,938 persons. Of this labor force, 94.2 percent, or 61,153 are employed, as shown in Table I-8. The table also Indicates that Bay County's unemployment rate i s somewhat higher than that for the state of Florida as a whole, and that the unemployment rate In Panama Oty is higher than the rate for the entire county. Table 1-9 summarizes more recent data on Bay County's labor force, as compiled by the Bay County Chamber of Commerce. As of 2001, the table shows that nearly 44 percent of Bay County's population is in the labor force. In addition, the 2001 unemployment rate of 5.5 percent is less than that estimated for 2000 (5.8 percent). Some of the larger employers in Bay County Incl ude Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County School Board, the Coastal Systems Station, and Bay Medical Center. Tablei-8 Labor Force Characteristics {2000} Area Percent of Labor Force Employed Unemployment Rate Panama City 93.0% 7 .0% Bay County 94.2% 5.8% Florida 96.4% 3.6% . . SoUslract, BEBR Tablei-9 Bay County Labor Force Characteristics (2001) Labor force Labor Force as Percent of Unemployment Area County Population Rate Bay County 65,586 43.6 5.5% Source. Bay County Chamb
PAGE 44

INTERVIEWS WITH CoMMUNITY LEADERS One of the most important e lements in the preparation of a TOP is the identification of perceptions, opinions and ideas of local offidals and the general public. Fundamentally, a TOP is a strategic plan that establishes a course for future transit services that reflects the community's will and goals for public transportation. Also, the way In which public transit is viewed in the community can significantly influence the priority that is given to transit and other related transportation issues. In Bay County, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) consists of elected offidals of all jurisdictions in the county. In selecting those to be interviewed, mayors, and other elected officials were chosen as well as city officials, other officials from Bay County, the local business community, and Gulf Coast Community College. A total of 17 interviews were conducted with a total of 21 individuals. Most interviews were conducted during April 2002; however, a few of the interviews were conducted later in the TOP process. While a standard discussion guide formed the basis of the individua l interviews (a list of discussion topics used for the Interviews is induded in Appendix B), each interview evolved in a unique pattern, allowing the subject to offer his or her honest discourse on public transit in the county and the extent to which it affects (or does not affect) those persons or organizations he or she represents The results of these Interviews were similar in many ways to the results of the Interviews conducted for the last major TOP update in 1998 In 1998 while there were positive discussions about the Trolley service and the hope that it would continue to grow, there were negative perceptions stemming from the low level of service provided and the low ridership. At that time, some noted that, while many In the community seemed to be in favor of the Idea of public transit, very few, if any, were willing to pay for it using local dollars. These themes have also been detected in the interviews conducted for this TOP update. The diversity of backgrounds found among the interviewees resulted in a wide range of opinions and perspectives regarding the ro le of public transit in Bay County. However, those interviewed can essentially be divided into two categories: those who are ambivalent about the idea of public transportation and believe that it will never quite work in Bay County, and those who see the slow, yet steady growth of the current Trolley system as a sign of the future and believe the Trolley can truly become part of the identity of Bay County None of the interviewees in either category are particu lar ly optimistic about the securement of any local funding for the system (which i s vital to its future), although some in the latte r category expressed ideas regarding the funding issue. 32 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 45

The interviews for this TOP were loosely fonnatted into three sections, summarized below: Current status of public transportation in Bay County, which focused on transit's role in such oommunity issues as economic development, traffic congestion, land use, and quality of life. Discussions centered on the awareness of the Trolley system and its usage, as well as existing conditions regarding traffic congestion and public parking. Goals for public transportation In Bay County, whereby interviewees were asked to articulate how they believe Bay County will be evolving over the coming years and how public transportation, In any form, fits with that vision. Those Interviewed were asked to place transit into the overall scheme of priorities and indicate conditions for future support. Translation of current status to future vision, which allowed those interviewed to contemplate any improvements and polides that would assist the current transit system in achieving the goals of the community. While one of the major purposes of the TOP Is to identify unfunded transit needs, given that Bay Town Troll ey will need to prioritize any Improvements, the interviewees were also asked to choose one aspect of the existing system that they would like to see improved. Current Status of Public Transportation in Bay County It is certainly true that one's previous exposure to and experience with public transit in other areas flavor one's perceptions and expectations of transit in Bay County. Several of those interviewed Indicated how long they have lived in the county, and what experiences they had with public transportation in places such as South Carolina, Texas, Georgia (Columbus, Atlanta), San Francisco, Washington D.C., and other areas of Florida, including St. Augustine (trolleys), Orlando, and Miami. In addition, some who have lived in the county for a longer period of time remember the previous bus system that existed in Panama Oty until 1982. As such, perceptions of the Bay Town Trolley range from "an idea whose time has not come" to a "Godsend" that fills an Important void for its users and has a distinct value to the community, despite having lower ridership than some would like to see. A perception dearly exists that the ridership is low and the Trolley is underutilized. Some view this as an indication that the service has a value for only a very small portion of the population and that no additional benefits are accrued by the general public; therefore, these Individuals Chapter One 33

PAGE 46

have reservations about the expenditure of public money from any l evel of government on such an endeavor. Questions arose regarding whether the government or individual families a r e respons i ble for the provision of transportat ion and whether there might be less expensive means, other than fixed-route services, to p r ovide mobility in the county for those who need it. Taking this notion of the value of the existing service a step further, some believe that, although a small part of the population seems to be benefit i ng from the transit service, it should be regarded as a necessary public service and provided without question. However, when asked what funds should be used to provide service, answers we r e quite varied, as discussed In the next section. The consensus among th i s group of interviewees seemed to be that, since no business woul d provide the service because it is not a money-maker, the government must do so, whether they particular l y like the idea or not. A different group of interviewees held this same perception that the Trolley is underutilized However, these ind i viduals tended to see a value to the community as a whole, not just to those who actually ride the service. The re l ationship that exists between low funding levels, low service levels, and low ridership is recognized by many i nterviewees. They see the steady increase in ridership each year, and see more riders on the Troll eys. They see the Trolley taking people to work and to school, as we ll as being used for other trips, and they acknowledge that this provision of transportation can contribute to the economic deve l opment of the county in the future i f the system Is allowed cont i nued growth and maturity. It was this group of interviewees who, though small in number, were most hopeful that a local source of funding for the Trolley cou l d be secured. Perceptions of the level of awareness about the Trolley varied among those interviewed. Most see a system that has limited routes and scheduling, with l ow, but inc r easing, current ridership Some believe that they are more aware than the gene r a l publ i c about the service because of their responsibilities In government or their jobs. Overall, the perception exists that the general public sees the Trolleys, but does not know much about them unless they need to use the serv ice. Many still see a stigma attached to the very notion of public transportation that cou l d be keeping potential riders and supporters at a distance. Others are seeing nice, dean, trolley vehicles that are an "added touch" In the beach areas and are superior to the concept of a regular, full-size transit bus. Some believe that the Trol l ey is used primarily for work trips, while others perceive that it is not used for work trips at all due to the limited service span and lack of weekend service. It Is true that more peo p le with l ower wage, service-or i ented jobs could use the service if later evening and weekend service were avail able. Others would consider it for the work trip, as well, as 34 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 47

indicated by one dty employee who lives.near downtown and would take It If it operated a little later In the evening. Because of the hours and days, many employers provide their own vehicles, usually vans, to transport their employees. Many, but not all, of these employers are hotels, restaurants, and even fast-food establishments located on the beach. Other users of the Trolley, according to those Interviewed, are senior dtizens who are unable to drive, and others who are considered "transit-dependent As expressed by one Interviewee, It Is hoped that as the Trolley grows In the future, a larger percentage of seniors will be more willing to stop driving and tum to the Trolley for their transportation needs. Tourists are also seen as users and potential users of the system. While there does not currently seem to be a high number of inquiries about transit services from visitors to the area (most are driVing their own cars from Georgia, Alabama, and other parts of Rorlda), some are noticing that an increasing number of visitors are using the service along the beaches. Several representatives from the munidpalities in the county would be interested in knowing how many people in their communities are using the Trolley and for what trips The Trolley Is seen as quite an economical choioe for Its riders with a full fare of $0.50 and a discount fare of $0.25. However, some view the low fares as an indication of low revenues and further lament that the system will never pay for itself by charging such fares. Most, however, are well aware that public transit systems are subsidized and do not come very close at all to paying for themselves with fare revenues alone. If usage of the Bay Town Trolley is not as high as it could be, what are the reasons? In addition to the obvious reasons of limited routes and schedules, the question arises about whether potential riders know how to acoess Information about the system. Onoe again, there was disparity among the interview responses. One group believes that one must know where to look for such information. People may see the signs, but still not understand how to use the system. In addition, several of the Interviewees, upon referring to a Bay Town Trolley Ride Guide during other parts of the interview, admitted that, while it looked appealing, they had no idea how to read the schedules and found the route map and schedules confusing. Overall, most agree that the promotion and marketing of the Trolley, while improving, could be better still. They also noted that this Is not just the responsibility of the Trolley staff but also of the local chambers of commeroe and local offidals to make certain that the system Is promoted and that current, accurate information is available in visitor's guides, hotels, and other city and county buildings, as well as on the internet. Ch8pter0ne 35

PAGE 48

Perceptions of the Trolley system seem to be getting more posi tive over tim e The Trolley staff has done much to increase awareness in the community through media coverage, public service spots, newspaper advertising, and offering transportation for various special events. One of those Interviewed recalled a recent groundbreaking event for which a trolley was used to transport a group of V!Ps who came away from the experience with a positive Image of the clean, attractive vehicle. several of those interviewed mentioned the special event services provided on occasion by Bay Town Trolley and how such service helps increase the awareness and enhance the image of the system as a part of the community. Indeed, the special event services and its consdentious effort"' to make the public aware of the Trolley were considered two of the major strengths of Bay Town Trolley. Another major strength mentioned by near1y all the Interview participants was the Trolley staffs responsiveness to the community's needs, especially given Its limited funding, and its willingness to "go above and beyond" to adjust its routes and schedules according to need. The system Is considered to be very attentive, With 'its "ear to the ground." Other strengths include its flexibi l ity, good advertising, friendly drivers, and effic iendes reaped due to merged operations with Bay Coordinated Transportation, which was also praised during the interviews, although it is perceived as a less flexible system due to the need for 24-hour advance reservations. Finally, among many, there is the perception that those who operate the system are "genuinely concerned about doing what's right" for the community and that they are not simply "spending grant money." Also, of those Interviewed who believed they knew enough about the system to speak about Its efficiency, all stated that they believe the Trolley staff do an excellent job of providing the service With their very limited resources. Those Interviewed were a l so queried as to any current i .ssues with traffic congestion or parking. Congestion Is a lways a problem around the Hathaway Bridge, where one acddent can back traffic up for more than one hour. This congestion is worsened during Spring Break and the summer season, when Front Beach Road experiences "horrendous stop-and-go" traffic conditions. At times, the congestion filters to Middle Beach Road when queuing cars b lock Intersections. The peak seasons include Spring Break during March, weekends from April to June, and then continuously through the first part of August. Many believe there is not enough publi c parking on the beaches; however, one official who was interviewed indicated that while lack of parking is an issue, there are times when residents have taken down or altered par10ng signs. Parking is also perceived to be a problem in the Downtown Panama Oty area, a lthough It was remarked that most current Trolley riders do not have cars and therefore are not easing any parking problems nor are they using the Trolley to avoid parking. Whether parking is actually a problem is l argely relative since, as proposed by one interviewee, some peopl e 36 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 49

believe a par1<1ng shortage exists when they cannot park their vehicle directly in front of their destination. Given these issues, many hopeful that, In the future, the Trolley will be more utilized in Downtown Panama City. Goals for Public Transportation in Bay County While the previous section addressed the current status of the Bay Town Trolley and existing levels of traffic congestion and parking hassles, this section addresses what is to come In the future Interview participants were asked to identify the level and type of development and growth that is occurring or i s expected to occur over the next five years and beyond. It is clear that much will be happening in Bay County over the next five to ten years and beyond. Many of those Interviewed mentioned the county's sector management plan, which is focusing on planned-unit developments. Approximately 1,000 new homes are antidpated in the southeast and south-central parts of the county, and approximately 2,000 new residential units are planned for the north and northwest parts of the county. In addition, there Is a trend toward high-rise condominiums and apartments on the beaches. Some are against this trend, believing it will lead to traffic gridlock and reduced beach access and views. Others believe the construction of high -rises on the beach is inevitable and will preserve beach views and access due to requirements for parking and beach access, not to mention the needed increase in tax revenues such development brings. Also on the beach, officials recently broke ground for the Pier Park project, which will contain an 80-acre dty park, retail outlet shopping, dining, and other commercial retail fadlities. Pier Park Is anticipated to create 500 new jobs. Many of those interviewed believe that the Trolley can eventually serve as a major factor in bringing workers to the relatively low-pay service jobs that are plentiful on the beaches. One Individual noted that, on any given day, there are between 1 ,000 and 2,000 available jobs that need to be filled, and a lack of transportation may be one reason why It can be difficult to fill those jobs. Several employers in the area are adding jobs, including Trane, which has quadrupled In size over the past three years and will be adding 500 new jobs. Nextel is adding 600 jobs, and Allied is also expanding. Tyndall Air Force Base Is expecting to add personnel when F-22s arrive in 2003. Also, a new courthouse is opening In Panama Oty In 2003. There was discussion of the new airport, which is envisioned to open beyond the five-year time frame of this TOP, yet still provides evidence of the growth the county is experiendng. A significant amount of roadway improvements are planned, including the construction of the new Hathaway Bridge. Chapter One 37

PAGE 50

Accord ing to one of those interviewed, Bay County is evolving; i t i s "sh edding its skin. Some envision the County as a prem ier family tourist destination offering not only beautifu l beaches, but other entertainment options There is a desire among some to "upg rade" the image of the beach from a "party place" to a "show place" like Biloxi, Mississippi. As the beach grows and Its Image changes, the area could see a steadier stream of visitors year-round, not just In Spring and Summer. With all the changes occurring in Bay County, those interviewed were asked how public transportation, speci fically the Bay Town Trolley, would fi t In wtth the vi sion of Bay County's future. They were asked what the goals of a publ ic transportation system in Bay County should be, and what it should be trying to achieve over the coming years. As expected, results were varied but induded some common themes. Whlle some believe that public tran sportation should strive to reduce traffic congest ion in the future, others believe it should focus on providing mobility for those who need it most. As expressed by one of those Interviewed, the goals for public transportation I n Bay County w ill be different than those in other, larger areas. Most expect the Bay Town Trolley to continue to increase ridership and to slowly expand services as funding becomes available, so that a ll com m unities can be well-covered by the route network. Goals should also indude continuing to meet the needs of the public, "stay ahead of th e curve" by paying attention to where new development is occurring, increase awareness and marketing of the system, and to continue to monitor ridership numbers closely. As for which segments of the population to target, several suggested that the Trolley focus on senior citizens, who will need a means of transportation after they are no longer ab le to drive, and on those who need transportation to and from lower-wage service industry jobs The goal of providing transportation for jobs was an item that was discussed often In the Intervi ews. The area has a relatively high unemployment rate yet there are a number of service jobs always available on the beaches. Many believe that the Trolley can act as an economic stimulus to connect people with those jobs, In particular, bringing workers from Panama City to the beaches. The Trolley in its current form makes this difficult with its limited schedule and lack of service on the weekends. However, those Interviewed believe that the system should strive to provide the service needed so people can use it for the i r jobs. Another goal stated by some is to secure a level of local funding. Severa l of the Inte rview participants were unaware that no local funding is supporting the Bay Town Trolley The Trolley operates with Federal and State money through the MPO. At l east one of the interviewees was openly surprised at this fact. This person believes that the Trolley should be funded through a joint effort among the county and cities served by the system, a nd that 38 &ly County Tnlnslt Development Pli1n, 21)()j 2007

PAGE 51

dedslon-makers should realize that the Trolley is "a necessity for Bay County's future." Conversely, others would be surprised if lecill funds were ever directed toward the Trolley. These individuals indicated that the Trolley Is not a priority and that "the quality of life in Bay County would not deteriorate" If the Trolley did not exist. One mentioned that, ideally, the State should make the grants process more competitive. This person would prefer to see fewer areas receive larger grants so they can "really do something," rather than everyone get a smaller amount and only provide marginal services. In the "classic struggle between roadways and transit," as explained by one interview participant, people would rather see a road they use daily be improved than see additional Trolleys on the roads. It Is always difficult to get people interested in paying for something that they may never use themselves. While the Idea of an improved, attractive Trolley service sounds most would prefer that the funding situation, absent local funds, continue indefinitely. When told that Is I t quite unlikely that the current funding situation will continue Indefinitely, some offered suggestions for local funding sources. A few of the elected officials indicated that they would be willing to "look more closely at the operation" before agreeing to support paying for the service with local dollars. Others indicated that new county funds might begin to be available as increased tax revenues result from lan d being converted from agricultural to residential and commerdal land uses by developers such as St. Joe/Arv ida. In addition, new high-rise properties on the beaches will bring higher taxes In the coming years. Currently, Bay County has the second-lowest taxing district in Florida, and they are currently looking for ways to tum low-tax properties into higher-tax properties. Many of the municipalities in the county are relatively poor. While one city representative believes that a few of the municipalities might agree to a small assessment based on their population and lev el of Trolley service within their city limits, other dty representatives say there is "too much in the frying pan" for transit to be a priority for them. One small dty representative noted that, in effect, "Our whole city is run on grant money." Many of the municipalities believe that a county-wide transit system should be funded by the county alone (for the local portion). The Trolley system will need to look for other sources of revenue, according to some. One of those interviewed mentioned the "tastefully done" advertisements on the trolleys, which are one source of revenue. Others hope to see shelters in the future that could also have discr eet advertising, which would be another source of revenue. One individual suggested that the county attempt to "extract some type of transportation impact fee" from the large-scale developers that are building thousands of new homes i n the county over the next several years. Chapter One 39

PAGE 52

Representatives of businesses on the beaches were optimistic that, if promoted properly, some businesses would be interested in contributing a small amount to Trolley operations if it could help pay for higher-frequency service on the beach seven days per week One interviewee ind ica ted that businesses would offer some funds if they would see a "measurable change" in the frequency and hours of operation of the system, and if they could see that the Trolley is a "value-added service" to the community and to their bus i nesses. Another interviewee noted that businesses on the beach have diffirulty attracting employees, and would be Interested In supporting a service that could be relied upon to bring them workers on-time and In a dependable manner. Translation of Current Status to Future Vision It became clear that a few of those interviewed for this TOP are ambivalent about the existence of the Trolley and do not believe that it, or any form of fixed-route public transportation, fits into Bay County's future over the next five years. However, many others were more optimistic about the Trolley and hoped that local offidals would "step up to the plate" and secure the system's growth in the future. Those who stated goals for the Trolley that included the system's continued expansion and to become a definite part of Bay County's future were asked to discuss what steps should be taken so that the system in its current form can achieve those goals. The necessary steps for the future were typically shared in the form of Improvements that could be made to attract riders and give the system more support among the public and local offic ials The most commonly suggested improvem ents are to: increase service frequency; increase service hours; and provide weekend service. For example, those involved in the Court system and those representing Workforce Development would like nothing more than to provide transportation options to people While it's "not the Court's concern" if someone who broke the law or people who are suing each other have no transportation to get to Court or to where they need t9 be (community service, for example), the State Attorney's office often pays taxl fare to transport victims to Court. In addition, the Workforce Development Agency often pays for gas or pays for r epairs on personal vehicles so that clients can have transportation. Other suggested service improvements include an "attraction-oriented" beach service with park and-rides at various locations along Middle Beach and Back Beach Roads. In keeping with this 40 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 53

suggestion, another IndiVIdual would like to see some type of small storage space on the trolleys for shopping bags or beach gear. Also regarding the service on the beach, some suggested having alternate, later evening services on the beach only, which would encourage greater use by service work ers and visitors. Other Ideas included the provision of services to civic organizations, the Uon's Club, and churches, the continued focus on spedal event services, and the creation of additional marke ting promotions and incentives such as a "Transit Day" (or "Trolley Day, perhaps) when people could learn more about the system. Others suggested the implementation of passenger amenities such as bus shelters to protect passengers from hot and rainy weather. Some mentioned that the system should simply focus on being efficient; and, in that regard, one suggested that perhaps the system should not provide fixed-route services, but should be demand-responsive, or a deviated fixed-route service ("can we satisfy the need at less cost?"). Anally, a few interview participants believe that the Trolley can be an integra l part of the revitalization of Downtown Panama City and should provide more frequent service to the dty center. It would obviously require a significant increase in funds for the Bay Town Trolley to Imp lement all of the recommended i mprovements discussed above. Given that new sources of funds are likely to come in relatively small increments, and that the system will need to prioritize Improvements, i nterview participants were asked to indicate the one improvement they would like to see, i.e., if funding allowed, what would be the first thing the Trolley should do to Improve its service? Increased service frequency and later evening service were the most common responses to this inquiry. Some of those In terv iewed were more specific In their suggestions and added tha t service improvements should be added to the beach services first, or simply to the routes with the highest usage. Others recommended that these Improve d services be seasonal in nature, at least in the beginning. For example, one mentioned that it would be to see 10 minute frequencies on the beach during the peak season. Others suggested i ncrea sing the fares on the beach routes. As one Interviewee noted, "there's a lot that can be done on the beach during the season that might" get a better return, and the added return could "help subsidize the extra vehlcle{s) during the slower months of the year. Concerned with transporting low-Income service workers to and from jobs, evening service systemwide is the priority for many. Later evening service would ensure that workers would have a way to get home after their shifts ended, and would therefore enable mor e of these Individuals to use the economical service. Actually providing more convenient transportation for workers in the service industry was a key factor for several of the intervi ew participants. Chapter One 41

PAGE 54

Convenience and dependability are also key in attracting rid ership but these traits would be ensured with an increase in service hours and, eventually, weekend services. CrnzENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKSHOP CUTR staff attended the regularly scheduled meeting of the MPO's Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on April 24, 2002. The purpose was to provide the CAC with an update of the TOP process to that point, as well as to fadlitate an informal workshop with the members in attendance to discuss the Bay T own Trolley. The guide used to conduct this workshop is included in Appendix B. Attending members of the CAC were invited to share their views regarding the current Trolley system's viability, how well the system is doing In meeting the need s of the community, and how well the system is operating. In addition, the members provided their opinions concerning what the system's focus should be in the future. Overall, the participants view the Trolley system as a limited service, being currently used only by those with no other options. Nonetheless, there was a general consensus that the awareness of the system is increasing with time, and that the system's performance is improving as the system is slowly growing It was noted that the system staff appear to be doing quite well in allocating the resources they have to provide the service. However, the participants believe that, for ridership to continue to grow and for new riders to be attracted to the system, certain improvements should be made Suggested imp rove ments to the Trolley system l ndude increased service frequency and Increased serv ice hours, as well as the provision of passenger amenities at Trolley stops including shelters and benches. BAY TOWN TROLLEY RlDECHECK I n the community leader interviews, Interviewees mentioned the need for Bay Town Trolley to provide services effectively and efficiently. To assist BTT staff in making routing modifications for the TOP update, CUTR conducted a ridecheck of all Bay Town Trolley routes. A ridecheck consists of placing an individual on board to count passenger ons and offs by stop throughout for each bus trip. By taking such a count, boardings and alightings by stop can provide useful data to show productive versus unproductive segments of a route. A ridecheck can also help BTT target locations for passenger amenities at trolley stops. 42 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 55

As part of the on-board survey discussed below, a ridecheck was done for every route for the entire service day with the exception of Route 4A, was sampled for half of its service day. The maps on the following pages provide an aggregation of an entire service day with counts of boardings and alightings by stop for each route in the system. Below Is a discussion of each route, and Figures I-8 through I-17 illustrate the results graphically. Route 1-Lvon Haven to Downtown Panama OtyThe most productive segments of this route for boardings ( ons) and allghtlngs ( offs) are along Highway 77 in Lynn Haven, Target at and Martin Luther King, and the stop at Harrison and Government in Downtown Panama Oty. The deviation from Highway 77 east on Mosley, south on Palo Alto and west on Baldwin did generate a few boardings and no alightings. Route 2 -East Route -This route has a productive boardlngs and alightings along Martin Luther King from Target to 11"' Street, but shows no activity south of 11"' Street. Activity along 11"' Street to Cedar Grove is minimal with some activity south of Tyndall Parkway. The extreme southern portion of the route, along Bertha and Boat Race, is also generating minimal ridership. Due to the circuitous routing of this route, there Is some sporadic activity along the route. This route will be eliminated and segments incorporated Into two new routes scheduled for implementation in Summer 2002. Route 4 West/Downtown -This route generated significant ons and offs in the Downtown Panama City area along Harrison Street and along U.S. 98 (15"' Street), and Gulf Coast Community College. Less activity is found on 11"' Street. Route 4a WestThis route was only surveyed for half of a service day, but the majority of boardlngs are at Target and a majority of alightings are along 18"' Street west of Michigan Avenue and at Gulf Coast Community College. Route 5-Beaches-As expected, Route 5 has a majority of Its on/off activity at Target and along Front Beach Road. There was also, to a lesser degree, activity at Gulf Coast Community College. Chapter One 43

PAGE 56

Bay County Transit Development Pf
PAGE 57

': Legend Total On 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 .. ----------------...t,WEiehSt r VlhhSI Figure 1-8 ..... ., w ... St Bay Town Trolley f Route 1 Total On s.il Cfr ...... 8t$dle)' Cl r w 3n. Sl w 2tltl St .....

PAGE 58

this page 0 IS blank

PAGE 59

' Legend 0 0 0 1 2 3-4 5-6 Figure 1-9 Bay Town Trolley Route 1 Total Off VllltbSl ....... ..,...Rd """""'"" l H p IOM!tf\ol e"'

PAGE 60

this page 0 IS blank

PAGE 61

0 I --(l ..,., } """"'""'' "" ..., ... w ... ...,. .. r, .... JWttlrt...., a ..,..,.,..,! T"""""""' ..., .. $ i W I ... 1't .> v JM.VII'IIIIlii!M. ...,W' 11'f'I; .... MYtiiiW MWIUJ s.r,sota.A w ; ......... .......... li ............... ... 0 l .. - J 'f#/A'I. Ql :< >! w 6 "'V"" w w .., .... ... ll 0 0 t e e w t' ... --eo. ... / -Ill .... """"'" ;: 6 (l I A "' i Colee\' J & 1: : '5 \ c c 0 0 ' .. .. N ' -Htl> & 4 0 .... ooeee

PAGE 62

this page IS blank

PAGE 63

.l! o 41! i5 i h..,,.. i '"""' ,., 23r d P I Courtr 38$ e S t W 1W'1St E l!llh& f ...-1>' < .. 1/11511! S! l W 141t1.$t Wt4!hS t ..... _., Total Off 1(1111$( l l'l E f l ........ .z rt t I ,i1_S!'.Sl j!;l, ... ,, t ;e t3Cif sa . c a YE1!Jtii Itt' Q, i E 11T$t > t' .f t f. I ll ,. g i "'" ... f ;. I .. 6 f l 111hCt "'"'"'" f > l V S...,SOA t. '"' i \f"' ""Stl \ f f """" 5 1l t l i ...... t II' 1:.< If a ..... -.1: < l CPft'l .. l<'niQht O r i l z .t I .t ll ...... ' !"'! -"'""" St '?.... "'"' t "\. X M .!; f ...... ...,"' .......,,.!i f l . 2ru;tP\ > .. d . / Oftttt Sl :1' o.r.11181 ':. .\ C... Tw '-\ '\. \<>..:.. Ct ., .......... ....... .mJt..ll c:J.ru , , :' :' ...... J. ..._A w .. r I '' ' . .. r.. t;5111St e I -S' N:.;.: I < .. .,.,a r E.CihSt ; i of ........ r S a z z i f .c Hf 1M8 22 IdS i 1-'" f )' 4_., Les1o Ln; H ogen $( }l Loil S t Utys t!! I! .g_ of 1ttct f!.. 8 Pllniltl -i c z lf' z 4 .-....... I ., .. : I .! Pwk QIYd fr2 IS ..... :& tt/ldtllh S t \ '\ .,.,...., .. Is ::: Lln 'l0. Sl "' -, ( :t a:. .. & iU 2 ;')";. > .. S:Mtt+wi30 6J Aster St l i! In !Ill ;: "' i i l,:r w.-ooe Rl$ (/) II) FOtS.yltlo ()( f i Hi !:a II < 1

PAGE 64

this page IS blank

PAGE 65

""""" I! f"iiinQi,, j /""'T I-t I Figure 1-12 Bay Town Trolley Route 4 Tota l On .. fL.owtst I ,,, '* f6 0' ,. wkhct II' ,#" W% ... C t '< S S it [ "'""'"' "' W"!'SI j !f'< W""'S1 i J .f <"'"' 231<1CI .....:: l Ill 1 ..c. .... CI j w .......... li ..... .,._ "' .....,..."' j ill l .. -"'!"" t I J ] "-......,_., I JoyCI< l.ayole Ln 15 \.f\ OIW St Jazz Or .,_ .... -"' IS t E34""S! ... I ._R x -"" J Av.tySt ........ J ._ ... ,. .. w ...... ...,..." """"" H-.y ... ..... ...... u> W2>JICI t _, -.g, -,...a .1'15 w""' St 1 CC!ItOIIIoDr e @ldSf f W2ts\Sl SlephenOr < ---22t'lcJSl t\110 51 t ......... a 200'1& Zkd$1 Jtwy 30A ooca.o. 1 I 'l.l t I wo,! J O .... >"I '< Legend !fc n 201ft& _, l t w tW'I& i3 I,!J I, { l t: 19th St l ll J!l W 1 8thSt J I t t 1>' "" $( J lt """ .. 11 4 f 1 ....... 0 I j U J HSNW liS J 8 l '"" St .., .. H i i IW14th$t Wt4th$t EU!bSl j' j W 1 W 1 3tl'tSt E 1 3thSt: J t < i -""""' """" 8 t m t2U:!Q JJ I E fU"Ct < E Ultl St E tOCh Ct l j """' I ""CI EW!St, f l S ethOI f E8t11St :- 1,;? E71t\CI-; Total On 3CPolnlOI' 5 WOIJ>_St,-f' ..... -J t;,_ 0 0 0 1 2 3"4 5-6 "' 3918 ( 1' ,, .. ., \'\ .. ,,. i k ,, /. i l t r .;o "' / \ f 6thSt J z f -... <( J E41h& l j j ; z E&dS. &dSt ' ..... ct EWPI ...._ e,.., ,..,.,. '-'. . ...... htet -ChtfrySt 00111ittst

PAGE 66

this page IS blank

PAGE 67

f :t o \(') l : ' .. t I ' .. <( #1> lJ: 1 E tMSt l! I I .. < < ,ifdl ann l; H s j ... ., ....... l t i 1 o.n1w1 Club Ot W81t! Sit f t"-C. i W13tMit Ef3thSt J <( .. .. z ;,I t f W""& f21tl Sl -.' Et1111Ct < Ulh$t j E 11!Ct .!!' . ..... t .. r j,l ::: I a e .. a !? Ct E7!tl& f EtlllhSC. Jt.-h& I I : ' z ., Q. '' "'-E 3td S t St E 2n4 ct2nd 0: e'Znd a 2M Pf 2nd PI -. PI, E 2nd St 2nd St ; htCt 1 MCt .... c,..-st

PAGE 68

this page IS blank

PAGE 69

\ 11 .. :. : . :: .... : ...... :. :. f i if r li j j i< i "' : .... .,"' """' -a ""'Ct t g ........... "' IS j ....... I . : :< :::::.\:',}:.:: :i::, :'.: : .. :. :::.:. .. 'i;< ...... .>,......... ,. .. .---r ....,...,. '3 !) VI BtllhWI Rd I 5 .;" '"'' F'"' .... { i l 0 w .. 1 I .:..j AQ ..... Figure 1-14 Bay Town Trolley Route 4a Total On ..limb Ck 0 i JoyC > < < Legend Total On 0 0 0 1 2 3-4 ....... W20(h'Ci : W26iehSt-, ; 6 ; J jJ f : Wl01& 'J /J' w .. j l a .,....., .... ..,. .. ZJtdCC -l B : l ... V 231dPI """"' IJo """' WOOd Til E2?U'ISC MtrySt """'"";;.....,.."' .,oo ""' .,..,.., E26th St E2411\Pit ... 8 ""'"' l .; """'""Ot f ,...,sr IS t 22nd St 'r'" C\ l z!.t\Sl W?1st$ ""'St """"" "' t""'o' 3928 .. < f W201bCt W 1 9th.St : l . .. \ "' \. .. . .. """ c W191h& olf ....... .. E 19!11 St '""'" . W t 8ttl& l t W 1 3v.L 4 f o W&hS1 f 1 6 .-< l !1'7., < I W ... & f 1>' .,.,# e 141h$t E 13thSt E 12th St E11ti!St e 10th&. o e e 91.1\St ,_ .GJ ..... i : f E7thSt ... W 8th St US Hwy tll OV$. E !!ttl st w .... E&hSt E \nil St '"" Sl E '""C '"" Ct z e 1 00\Ct E \OI:tl Slt OhCt ...... &:hCt > E lllhst 6 e 7Ift c t .I 4411 Ot l twn S tlf:' <;} It G 4th $1 Utl'l St .I .. fi .... Ct! .. '' ... l ,..\ z"'' .. .... "\ Ell'dSt 3n1St E 2rod Ct211d Ct E 2nd 01 ...._ 1rx1 PI 21-d PI 'lfO') P E211d',&.: 2ndS1 Eo :' .: ,: .. ; .. :-':. ...

PAGE 70

this page IS blank

PAGE 71

"'"""" .... ... ... ... ... : . .... .. .. . . : ; : .. : .. :. ... ..... .. :. : ... . .... ..... : : .. ::: : : :, ...... : .. . ... .. : ,. ... :.t"}iPt ,> .. :. :. ... . ... .. .. .. :: .. .. .. . : : .. :: ,. ..' .. .:...:. ... .. '. ... :..: . .. ... . .: : .. : :::.::. ......... :;. ;.:. ...... ... : .. :.:.. ... .. :. .: : ::::.:: .. .:. :: ... .: .:.: .. :. . :. . . : .. .. : .. : :.: .: .. .. : .: :.: .. .. .. ....... : .. .... .. : : ... .. .:.::::: ... :.: .. ; .. . : .. : . .. .... .. ... ... . ... ... .. .. .. .. ..... .. : .. ::..: .. : : <.::.: .. .......... .. . ... .. : .... I'-'0 5 c 0 "' <') '"' Cl) C) Cl) _, !!! 0 0 8

PAGE 72

this page lS blank

PAGE 73

Legend T ota l O n 0 0-1 0 2-3 0 4-7 8-13 14-24 I Figure 1-16 Bay Town Trolley Route 5 Total On . .. : ....

PAGE 74

this page lS b\ank

PAGE 75

0 -: .. ...... . . .. ... .: : ............... . ... . "0 c Q) '
PAGE 76

this page IS blank

PAGE 77

BAY TOWN TROLLEY ON-BOARD SURVEY This section summarizes the results of an on-board rider survey of the Bay Town Trolley (BTI) routes oonducted during February 2002. The purpose of this survey was to obtain data about rider demographics, travel behavior, and satisfaction with spedflc aspects of BIT trolley service. The findings are presented In three major categories. These categories are demographics, travel behavior, and user satisfaction. Two on-board surveys of BTT riders have been conducted in the past, with the most recent survey being 1998. When possible, the data obtained during the 2002 on-board survey process Is compared to the results of the 1998 on board survey. System Overview BTT is a rubberized trolley service. At the present time, BTT provides service on five fixed routes. The routes include: Route 1 (Panama City Lynn Haven), Route 2 (East), Route 4A (West), Route 4 (West-Downtown) and Route 5 (Beaches). The routes extend as far north as Lynn Haven, as far west as the Intersection of Front Beach (Alt. 98) and Back Beach (U.S. 98) roads on Panama City Beach, as far east as Star Avenue, and as far south as Downtown Panama aty. The frequency of BIT routes varies depending on the route. Routes 1 and 4 provide hourly service. Routes 2, 4A and 5 provide service every two to three hours. Currently service is provided Monday through Friday, between 6:00 AM and 6:30 PM. There is no service available on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays. The fare structure for BIT service includes a base fare of SO. Discounted fares are offered for students, senior dtizens, and persons with disabilities. Children age five and under ride free. Survey Methodology The 2002 on-board survey was oonducted February 19 21, 2002 Surveying started at the beginning of service and oonduded at the end of service for each of the five fixed routes. Survey distribution was carried out by temporary staffing under the direct supervision of CUTR project staff. For reference, a oopy of the survey instrument is Included In Appendix B. Chapter One 65

PAGE 78

Each surveyor was assigned to a particular trolley that potentially covered more than one route during a particular survey day. Surveys were personally handed to riders as they boarded the trolley or assumed their seats. Riders were encouraged to return complete surveys to the surveyor as they exited the trolley. Due to time constraints (passengers traveling short distances}, some passengers took the surveys with them to fill out and return at a later time. In addition, as time permitted, surveyors walked through tlhe trolley asking for completed surveys and assisting riders to completed the surveys. Riders were asked to complete a questionnaire each time they boarded a trolley. Response Rates The response rate was typical when compared with similar efforts undertaken on this type of service and provides a good information base for analysis. During the month of the survey, average daily ridership was approximately 331; 94 surveys were returned for a response rate of 28.4 percent All responses were subjected to weighting to reflect total patronage by route using February 2002 total monthly ridership data at the route level. A weighting factor for a particular route was calculated by dividing the total number of customers on the route by the total number of returned surveys. Using a hypothetical example, if Route 1 had a total of 100 customers and SO surveys were returned, then each returned survey for Route 1 would be weighted by a factor of 2.0 (100+50) in the reporting of survey results. Survey Analysis The survey analysis is presented in three sections: demographics, travel behavior, and user satisfaction. The responses to each question are provided and compared, when possible, with a similar survey that was completed of BTT ridership in 1998. The survey results are presented In a graphical format, while text is lim ited to introducing subjects and noting or interpreting findings. The reader is encouraged to use the table of contents and lists of tables and figures for easy reference to a particular subject. A description of the data provided in each subsection follows. Demographic information collected in this survey include age, gender, ethnic orig in, household income, and auto ownership. These data enable BTT to develop a demographic profile of its passengers. This kind of knowledge can be used in the design of marketing and information material and the identification of target audiences. This information can also assist in determining the need for rider fadlities such as tlhe improved design and favorable location of trolley stops and facilities for persons with disabilities. 66 Bay QJunty Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 79

Travel-related questions provide information such as trip origins/destinations and modes of access and egress. This Information contributes to effective scheduling, planning and service design, and can influence policy dedsions. Questions related to fare and ridership patterns are also included in this category. User satisfaction is determined through responses to questions rating various aspects of BTT service. These ratings clearly reflect the perceptions o f current riders. Aspects that passengers report being unsatisfied with can potentially be addressed through changes In the system. By distinguishing rider sensitivities toward specific aspects. of the system, BTT Is better able to set priorities for system improvements. System Profile -Demographic Information QueStions related to demographics Include those regarding the rider's age, gender, ethnic origin, annual household Income, and vehicle ownership. Each of these questions is briefly discussed, and the responses are presented in table form. Table I-10 shows the results from the 2002 on-board survey, as well as comparisons of demographic data, when possible, obtained from BTT riders during the 1998 on-board survey. Some questions and answers differed slightly during the two survey periods, and comparisons are made accordingly. Q Forty-five percent of the survey respondents are between the ages 19 and 44, which is considered working age. This result is basically identical to the results of the 1998 survey, which included approximately 46 percent of riders in this age group. Three percent of riders reported to be 18 and under, which is a large decrease from 19 percent, reported during the 1998 survey {however, the 1998 survey was conducted during the month of July when schools are not in session). The percentage of riders aged 55 and above decreased from 23 percent to 20 percent. This is an age group which normally represents a significant segment of the conventional transit market. Gender-Systemwide, more women use BTT service than men. Fifty-three percent of sample respondents are women. This is an anticipated survey result, as most transit systems have a higher percentage of women riders than men. Ettznic Odqjn -Approximately 71 percent of survey respondents are white. The percentage of blacl< survey respondents decreased since 1998 from 37 percent to 22 percent. Seven percent of survey respondents Identified themselves as Hispanic, Native American or "other.N Chapter One 67

PAGE 80

Ann!.!all{KomttApproximately 47 percent of sample respondents report an income lower than $10,000, compared to 60 percent of respondents in the 1998 survey. Additionally, 22 percent report an income between $10,000 and $19,999. However, 21 percent of survey respondents reported having Incomes greater than $30,000. The results found are again typical of most transit systems, where as riders utilizing transit services are usually in the lower-mid dle to low er income brackets. The very low household incomes reported by almost half of all BTT riders suggest that a large share of the ridership is dependent on BTT for mobility and may have few other transportation options. Vehicle QwnwshioWhile over two-thirds of riders indicate that there is at least one licensed driver In their household, 56 percent indicate no worklng vehicles In the household. Additionally, over 80 percent of those surveyed reported not having access to a car or personal vehicle for their trip. These results are similar to those reported during the 1998 project. This is also typical of many conventional bus transit markets, and strongly suggests that a significant proportion of BTT ridership is a traditional market. 68 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 81

Chapter One Table 1-10 Rider Demographic Comparisons of the 1998 and 2002 BTT On-Board Surveys category Year of Survey 1998 I 2002 Gender Male 49% 4 7 % Fema le 51% 53% Auto Ownership None 62% 56.5% One 25% 30.6% Two 7% 6.9% Three or more 6% 6.0% Annual Household Income Less than $10,000 60% 47.4% $10,0 00 IX> $19,999 19% 22.4% $20 ,000 to $29,999 7% 9.5% $30,000 and over 14% 20.8% Ethnic Origin White 63% 71.2% Block 37".1. 21.5% Hispanic 0% 2.5% Asian 0% 0% Native American 0% 2.8% Other 6% 1.9% Age Under 15 0.0% 15 to 18 3.0'% 18 years or under 19% 19 to 24 6% 2.5% 25 to 34 18.7% 25to44 40% 35to44 23.5% 45 to49 20.6% 45 to 54 12% SO to 54 12.2% 55 In 64 8.4% 55 and over 23% 65 and older 11.1% NOTE: Pei'Cl!nts may be slightly greater or less than 100 due to rounding. 69

PAGE 82

System Profi l e -Travel Behavior A number of questions re l ated to travel behavior characteristics of BTT riders were included in the survey. Questions in this category included: Trip origin Trip destination Mode of access Mode of egress Fare category Fare payment method Frequency of use Reasons for using BTT Transportation alternatives As listed above, the survey questions helped to identify passenger ttip origins and destinations as well as modes of access and egress. Other information collected from the riders included fare types, frequency of use, reasons for using BTT, and travel a l ternatives. Figures I-18 through I-25 graphically present the responses to the individual travel behavior questions and compare them to the responses from the 1998 survey It should be noted that the survey Instrument used in 2002 differed slightly from the one used in 1998 due to the inclusion in 2002 of several specific response choices in various questions so that the results of this survey can be compiled with others across the country for inclusion in a study by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). As such, in some of the graphics, the frequency of some responses is shown for either 1998 o r 2002; not both. TriP Origjn!OestinationMost survey respondents reported their trips as home-or work-based, i.e., having home or work as the origin or destination Fo r this survey, many respondents reported that their trip either began (59 percent) or ended (32 percent) at home In the 1998 survey, 47 percent of trips began at home while 30 percent ended at home In the current survey, 14 percent (20 percent in 1998) of respondents noted their trip began at work, while 28 percent (22 percent in 1998) reported their trip ended at work. Twenty six percent reported their destination as shopping/errands. Figures 1-18 and I-19 graph i cally present the findings from these two questions Mode of Access/Egress -The access and egress modes have been grouped into majo r categories: wa l ked, d r opped off/picked up, bicycled, transferred to another route, and drove. These data are summarized in Figures I-20 and I-21 for both the 1998 and 2002 surveys. The most common means (combined average of 73 percent) of access/egress is a short walk (less than 3 blocks) During the 1998 survey, the combined ave r age for these responses was 57 percent This is a significant increase in the percentage of riders requiring a short wa l k to or from the trolley. While the percentage of those walking three or fewer blocks increased greatly 70 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 83

between the 1998 and 2002 surveys, the percentage of riders walking more than three blocks to access the trolley or to get to their final destination decreased between 1998 and 2002, as shown in Figures 1-20 and I-21 (from a ootnbiried aVerage of 23 percent in 1998 to 19 percent in 2002). Figure 1-18 Q2. Where d i d you come from before you got on the trolley for this trip? Home Work School College Doctor/Dentist Shopping/Errands Visiting/Recreation Church Other .,--0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 60.0% 60.0% Figure 1-19 QS. Where are you going on this trip? Home Work School College Doctor/Dentist Shopping/Errands Visiting/Recreation Other 0.0% 10 .0% 20.0'/o 30.0'/o 40.0'/o 50.0'/o Chapter One 1112002 .1998 1112002 71

PAGE 84

7.Z Figure 1-20 Q4: How did you get to the trolley stop for this trip? Wal ked three blocka or less 73.0% Walked more than three blocks Got dropped off Bicycle Transfer Othe r 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 600.4 700/o 80% Agurel-21 .1998 82002 Q9: When you fin ish your trolley trave l how will you get to your fma l destination? Walk three blocks or le s s Walk more than 3 blocks Drove Miles Bicycle Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80 % .1998 .2002 Bav Countv Transit Oevelooment Plan. .2003-.2007

PAGE 85

Fare Category Systemwide, the predominant fare category is the regular base fare (51 percent). Approximately 14 percent of respondents use the student fare and 13 percent use the special fare for disabled riders. These datil are shown Figure 1-22, which also notes a sign i ficant number of riders (12.5 percent) using the trolley pass. Freouency of Use Figure 1-23 Indicates that approximately 57 percent of the current SIT riders are regular users (more than four days per week) This is a sizeable increase from the 1998 SUIVey where 42 percent of riders were considered regular users. This indicates a user group that is growing I n size and relies f requently on public transportation. The figure also compares the 2002 information with the results from the 1998 survey. Reasons for using BT[-Approximately 72 percent of the BTT riders either do drive or do not have a car available to them, as shown in Figure 1. This Is relatively consistent with the previous survey, when 73 percent of the riders Indicated that they did not drive or did not have a car available to them. This finding is also consistent with comments from officials In Bay County about the large proportion of BTT riders that are transit-dependent. Travel Altemagves -Responses to this question by BTT riders further exhibit their transit dependency. Fifty-three percent of the respondents indicated they would rtde with someone else or they would not make the trip If SIT were not available. This is a slight increase from the 49 percent reported in 1998, but overall is consistent with the results of the previous question on the reasons for using SIT (Figure 1). Figure 1-25 shows responses to this question regarding travel alternatives : 24 percent indicated that they would not make the trip if the trolley were not available while, in 1998, 21 percent would not make the trip. For this group of riders, SIT prov i des the only means of mobility. Chapter one 73

PAGE 86

74 Figure 1 Q10: What type of fare do you usually pay when you ride the trolley? Regular Fare ($0.50) Double Fare-Traveling to Beach Route 5 Senior/Disabled ($0.25) Student Fare ($0.25) Monthly Trolley Pass 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%80% Figurel-23 Q11: How often do you ride the trolley? 2 or 3 daye per week 1 day per week 1 times per month 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 1!2002 .1998 iii 2002 Sav Countv Transit Oeve/ooment Plan. 2003 2007

PAGE 87

Figure 1 Q12 : What Is the most Important reason you ride the trolley? I don't drive Car is not avall.abkt Trolley is more economical Trolley is more convenient I don't have a valid driver's license Other 0% 10% 20% 40% 50% 60% Figure 1 Q13: How would you make this trip if not by trolley? Drive Ride with someone Bicycle Walk Taxi Wouldn't make trip 0% Chapter one 20% 40% 60% 1112002 .1998 112002 75

PAGE 88

System Profile User Satisfaction The quality of BTT service was determined through a variety of questions that required riders to rate their perception of specific aspects of BTT service as well as overall service quality. The strengths and weaknesses of the system, as perceived by riders, were identified from a list of discrete responses that ranged from "very satisfied" to very unsatisfied." In addition, an average (mean) score was calculated for each service aspect using the numerical val ues assigned to the rating system Utilizing the numerical value assignments, an average or mean score of five (5.00) or "very satisfied" indicates a h i gher degree of rider satisfact i on than a mean score of one (1.00) or very unsatisfied" The numerical va l ue assignments for determining the averages are shown in Tab l e I -11. Table I -11 Rating System Nu merica l Values Satisfactio n Category Num erica l Val u e Very SatiSfied 5.00 Somewhat Satisfied 4.00 Neutral 3.00 Somewhat Unsatisfied 2.00 Ve.ry Unsatisfied 1.00 BTT's overall service rece ived very favorable ratings, with 83 percent of riders surveyed indicating a combined "very satisfied" and "somewhat satisfied." In addition to the favorable rating of BTT service, riders also reported operator courtesy (87 percent), safety while on trolley (90 percent), cleanl i ness of trolleys and trolley stops (92 percent), and value of fare (92 percent) a combined "very satisfied" and "somewhat satisfied." These favorable ratings indicate that the vast majority of BTT riders feel very positive about the overall quality of BTT service However, the perfo r mance aspects "ease of transferring" and "frequency of service received the highest combined percent of 'very unsatisfied" and "somewhat unsatisfied" ratings from respondents with unfavorable ratings of 56 and 33 percent, respectively Figures 1-26 through I-45 show the results fo r user satisfaction questions from the Febnuary 2002 on-board survey. Because user satisfaction responses used during the 1998 survey were different (very good, good, fair, poo r very poor) than those used during the 2002 survey (very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neutral, somewhat unsatisfied, very unsatisfied), compa ri sons between the two surveys are not shown graphically 76 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 89

Figure 1-26 Survey Q26A: Overall satisfact ion with BTT Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Unsatisfied Very Unsatisf10d 0.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutra l Somewhat Unsatisfied Figure 1-27 Survey Q26B: Frequency of O"A. 10% 20"!. 30"/o 40% 50% 60% 70% 80"A. Rgure Survey Q26C: Ahinty of Riders to Get Where They Want to Go Using the TroHey Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral }li!ill.lllllllili$11 Somewhat Unsatisfoed Chapter One Very Unsatlsfled 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 60% 70% 80% 1/

PAGE 90

78 Figu re 1 -29 Survey Q260: Number of Transfers to W here They Want To Go Vary Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neu t ra l Somewhat Unsatisfied Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Figure 1-30 Survey Q26E: Ease of Transferring Somewhat Unsatisfied 0% 10 20% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% Figure 1-31 Survey Q26F : How Regularly Trolleys Arrive On Time Vary Satiafied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Umatiafled 39.8% Very Unoatiafled 0.3% 0 % 1 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 6004 70% 80 % Bav CounlY Transit Development P/iJn. 200J 2007

PAGE 91

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied figure 1-32 Surwy Q26G: Travel Time Neutral ,. ........ *8.6% Somewha t Un&aUsfied Very Unsatisfied 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Fi g ure 1-33 Survey Q26H: Value of Trolley Fare Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Very Unsatisfied 10% 30% 40".1. 50% 60% 70% 80% Figure 1 .. 34 Survey Q261: Ease of Obtaining TroUey Routa and Schedule Information Very Satisfied Somewhat Satloflod Neutral Very UnsaUsfied O'lo 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Chapter One 7S

PAGE 92

80 Rgure 1-35 Survey Q26J: User A'iendliness of Trolley Route and Schedule Information Very Satisfied Satlsfoed Neutral Somewhat Unsatisfied Very Unsatisfied 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Figure 1-36 Survey Q26K: Time of Day Earliest Trolleys Run Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Unsatisfied 60% 70% 80% Very Unsatisfied 0% 10% 20% 30% 50% Figure 1-37 Survey Q26L: T ime of Day Latest Trolleys Run Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Unsatisfied 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 60% 70% 80% 60% 70% 80% Bav County Transit OevefofJment Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 93

Agurel-38 Survey Q26M: Cleanliness of Trolleys and Trolley Stops Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Very Unsatisfied 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutra l Rgurel-39 Survey Q26N: Safety at Trolley Stop 60.2% Somewhat Unoatiof"'d 0% 1 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Agure 1-40 Survey Q260: Safety While Riding the Trolley Very Satisfied ---76.3'!. Somewhat Satisfied jlll!lli.l Neutral Somewhat Unsatisfied 0.9% Very Unsatisfied 0.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Chapter One 81

PAGE 94

Figure 1""'1 Sur vey Q26P : Safety After Getting Off the Trolley Very Sati5tied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral 0 % 10% 30% 40% 60'/o 7()% 80% Figure 1-42 Survey Q26Q; Temperature Insid e the Tro ueys 1.1% Very Ulsatlsfied 1 8 % 0% 10% 20% 30'Yo 50% 60 4 7()% 80% Figure 1-43 Survey Q26R: Availability of Seats on the Trolleys Very Satisfied Somewhat Satislled Neutral Very Unsatislied 1.1% OYt 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80'4 82 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 95

Rgure 1-44 Survey Q26S: T rolley Operator's AbiQty to Operate the Trolley Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral 0% 10% 20% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Unsatisfiejl Very Unsatisfied Chdpter One Rgure 1-45 Survey Q26T: Trolley Courtesy 0% 10% 20% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 83

PAGE 96

Summary of Performance Aspects User satisfaction ratings were calculated for each of the 20 l i sted system performance characteristics and overall BTT service by applying a numerical value to each possib l e patron response An average or mean score was calculated utilizing the numerica l va l ues assigned to the performance characteristics. The numerical values used in calcu l ating the means are shown prior in Tab l e 1-12. 84 Overall, BTT riders are satisfied with the transit services since the mean scores range from a low of 3.20 for the performance aspect "frequency of service" to a high of 4 66 for the performance aspect "value of fare." Given the very high overall average m ean scor e of 4.16 for all performance aspects, this is an indication that curren t riders are fairly satisfied with the overall quality of BTT service. The mean scores for all of the performance aspects are shown in descending order i n Table 1-12. Tablel-12 Rider Satisfaction Ratings for 2002 (in descending order) Performance Aspect Mean Score Value of Fare 4.66 Safety / Sealrity on Trolley 4.64 Driver's Ability to Operate T r(){ley 4.53 Oeanliness of Trolleys and Stops 4 52 Driver's Courtesy 4 48 Ease of obtaining trolley infonnation 4.46 Availability of Seats 4.42 Ease of using trolley information 4.40 Safety after getting off trolley 4.36 Safety/seaJrity at the trolley stop 4.31 Overall satisfaction with BTT 4.29 Temperature inside trolleys 4 25 Earliest trolley run 4.14 Ability to get where want to go 4.06 TroQeys arrive on time 4 01 Trolley travel time 3.77 Ease of transfer 3 75 Number of transfers needed to travel 3 64 latest trolley run 3.39 Frequency of service 3.20 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2(}(}3 -2(}(}7

PAGE 97

BTT Survey Condusions The typical BIT riders continue to consist primarily of traditional transit markets, meaning those who fall within low-income and zero-vehicle availability categories. Also, the fact that more than one-half of the respondents indicated that they would either ride with someone else or not make the trip at all further illustrates the transit-dependency of these riders. A majority of trips are made for work and shopping purposes, with an under-representation of school and medical trip purposes. This suggests that strengthening service could attract riders for other trip purposes. BAY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY BCT conducted a mail-in postcard survey of its riders to be used In the CTC evaluation as well as the update to the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP). Appendix C provides a detailed summary of the results. The survey was conducted April 3 -4, 2002, and generated 61 responses. The results of this survey can form a basis for BCT to make decisions for future improvements to the system. Areas rated included the following: Dependability Waiting time Runs when needed (time of operation) COSt of trip Easy to arrange trips (scheduling) Employee courtesy Comfort and cleanliness Overall rating Key findings are outlined below. In 2001, 91 percent of respondents rated overall service as "good" or "very good." In 2002, this rating declined to 85 percent. 88 percent rated dependability of services as "good" or "very good." 96 percent rated the hours of operation as "good" or "very good." 87 percent rated the ease of arranging a trip as "good" or "very good." The waiting time for a trip was rated "good" or ''very good" by 83 percent of respondents. 83 percent consider the cost of a BCT trip to be "good" or ''very good." 97 percent rated the comfort and cleanliness of BCT vehicles as "good" or "very good." Employee courtesy was rated "good" or "very good" by 95 percent of respondents. Chapter One 85

PAGE 98

Bay County Transit Development Plan, ZOOJ Z007

PAGE 99

CHAPTER TWO: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SERVICES INTRODUCTION This chapter contains two main sections. The first section Is a performance evaluation of the Bay Town Trolley (BIT) and Bay Coordinated Transportation (BCT}, the transportation provider for the Bay County Council on Aging (BCCOA), Bay County's Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC). The second section of this chapter consists of demand estimations for the Bay Town Trolley (BIT) and Bay Coordinated Transportation (BCT} as well as an assessment of public transportation needs and opportunities. Chapter Two summarizes the results of these efforts and leads into the final tasks of the TOP, which will identify and evaluate public transportation goals and recommended initiatives. Analysis of Existing Services As briefly mentioned above, the first part of this section includes a trend analysis for the fixed route and demand-response modes as well as a peer review analysis for BTT. The second part focuses on the performance of the demand-response mode, BCT. For the Bay Town Trolley, the trend analysis was accomplished using data from the last five fiscal years starting with the system's first full year of operations (FYs 1997 -2001). In addition, a peer review of small systems from within Florida and from the southeastern United States was conducted. For BCT, temporal trends in performance data were analyzed. Appendix D includes a list of major trip generators and attractors in Bay County, aod Appendix E contains an inventory of public transportation providers In the county. The Purpose of Performance Review The following sections outline the performance evaluation methodology. Items discussed include the purpose of a performance review as It related to the TOP process, the origin of the data used In the analyses, and the general performance Indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures used to gauge the performance of BTT and BCT operations. It is important to note that, since this type of performance evaluation is only one method of evaluating the performance of a given public transportation system and is limited to only those Ch8pterTwo 87

PAGE 100

aspects included in the analysis; therefore, the reader s ho uld exercise caution In interp reting the results. These analyses are particularly strong in reviewing cost effectiveness and effidency; however, they do not relay the extent to which other objectives of the public transportation system are being achieved. For example, this performance evaluation does not direct l y measure several relevant considerations such as passenger satisfaction with regard to levels of service, taxpayer and public attitudes toward the agency, employee morale, success in attaining m i nority hiring or contracting goals, q uality of planning contributions to community economic development, air quality imp rovem ents or other goals that may be Important to the public transportation system and the community. In addition, several aspects of quality of service are not measured in a performance evaluation. These include vehicle cleanliness and comfort, operator courtesy, on-time performance, quality of marketing and passenger information sup port, and l evel of satisfaction with hours of operations, frequency of service, and geographic coverage of the service. Many of the above-mentioned Issues, however, are addressed in Chapter One of this TOP through the results of the on-board survey of BTT, interviews with local officials and community leaders, and other forms of public involvement. In addition to understanding the limits of this analysis, the reader should take care in interpreting the meaning of the various performance measunes. The evaluation does not necessarily provide information concerning which aspects of performance are within control of the agency and which are not. Figure Il-l denotes the major factors that ultimately affect a given agency's performance. Performance review s are a useful and important tool In monitoring and improving public transportation system performance. However, It must be recognized that the results of trend and peer analyses are only a starting point for gaining a complete understanding of the performance of transit systems. The Issues identified as a result of this evaluation provide the basis for a series of questions that can lead to an enhanced u nderstanding of the "hows" and "whys" of system performance. 88 RgureU-1 Factors Affecting Public Transportation System Performance ... -........ -----'--------"""""'"'-=lldllo IC)" Bay County TfiJnsit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 101

Perfo r mance Rev iew Database-Bay Town T rolley To receive federal funds, transit agencies are required to report a variety of data in a standardized format, resulting in what is known as a National Transit Database (NTD) report. These documents provide standardized measures of reporting that enable a more accurate comparison of information among properties Since 1979, when this reporting requirement was instituted, additional refinements in data collection and reporting have increased the accuracy and comparability of the data. The data are for the fiscal year used by each transit system. For most Florida properties, including BCCOA, the fiscal year runs from October 1" through September 30th. For non-Florida properties, the fiscal year may be different. Data Reliability -All NTD data submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are subject to considerable review and validation through manual and automated methods. Each report is thoroughly examined to identify errors, questions, and inconsistencies. FTA spedfies problems and requires each reporting agency to respond to these problems before the fina l report is accepted. For this study, data were taken from BCCOA's final NTD reports for fiscal years 1997 through 2000 and the preliminary FY 2001 NTD report, as well as Individual NTD reports provided by the transit agencies selected as peers. Another tool used to compile data is the Aorida Transit Informat i on System (ms), a use r -friendly softwa r e produced by FOOT In conjunction with Florida International University (FlU) that, in part, contains NTD data through FY 2000 for all U.S. transit systems that report to FTA. With the exception of the inflation rate, all information was provided by ms or the transit systems. BCCOA's monthly operating reports were a l so utilized CUTR did not collect any original data or conduct any audits or on site analyses of the data or data collection procedures. Data Definit i ons To fully understand the data presented In NTD reports, It is important to understand the definitions of the terms used In many Instances, these definitions differ from Initial perceptions and may be subject to interpretation. Appendix F contains a detailed lis t of definitions for selected terms used by FTA. The data collection procedures further specify exactly what is meant by a given term For example, a "passenger trip refers to an individua l boarding a transit vehicle A person riding a bus from the corner to the office takes one passenger trip to work and a second passenger trip to return home. likewise, a person transferring from one bus to another is considered to make two. passenger trips to get to his or he r destination Despite these definitions and continued refinements in data collection p r ocedures, the r e remain some discrepancies among systems as to how terms a r e defined and how information is collected. Accor dingly, caution should be used In interpreting findings, especially for those variables that are more likely to be subject to variations in definition One Chapter Two

PAGE 102

example includes how employees are categorized among administrative, operating, and maintenance tasks within different agencies. Another example is how revenue service interruptions and incidents are defined by different agencies. Other discrepancies can result from differences in the organizational structure of the agency and the allocation of responsibilities among the various governmental entities within the service area. Legal services, computer services, engineering and design support, administrative support, and other costs are often shared costs that may or may not be accurately allocated between the transit system and a parent government body. The national inflation rate, as defined by the percentage change In the Consumer Price I ndex (CPI) for all Items (including commodities and services) from year to year, was used to deflate cost indicators from 1998 through 2001 so that they could be presented in real terms (1997 dollars). Over the past several years, service and la bor costs tended to increase at a faster rate then did commodity prices. Therefore, transit operating expenses, which are predominantly comprised of service and l abor costs, can be expected to increase somewhat faster than inflation even if the amount of service provided does not increase. Performance Indicators and Measures The evaluation measures used throughout the performance review are divided into three categories: general performance Indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures. General performance Ind icators report absolute data In the selected categories that are requ i red by NTD reporting. These tend to be key Indicators of overall transit system performance. Effectiveness measures typically refine the data further and Indicate the extent to which various service-related goals are being attained. For example, the number of passenger trips per capita Is an Indicator of the effectiveness of the agency in meeting transportation needs. Efficiency measures involve reviewing the leve l of resources (labor and other costs) required to ach iev e a given level of output, or service. It is possible to have very effident service that is not effective or to have highly effective service that is not efficient. The substantial amount of data available through NTD reporting provides an opportunity to develop a large number of measures. Sets of general performance Indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures that are believed to provide a good representation of overall fixed-route transit system performance have been selected for this analysis. Table 11-llists the selected indicators and measures provided in this report for BTT's fixed-route transit services and also provides subcategories, where appropriate. 90 Bay Ccunty Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 103

TableJI-1 Selected Performance Review Indicators and Measures BTT Axed-Route Transit Services General Performance Indicators Effectiveness Measures Efftciency Measures Service Area Poj)
PAGE 104

measures, and efficiency measures. General perfonnance indicators report absolute data in the selected categories of the AOR. These tend to be key indicators of overall public transportation system performance. Effectiveness measures, as discussed previously, refine the data further and Indicate the extent to which various service-related goal s are being achieved. For example, passenger trips per capita is an indicator of the effectiveness of the agency in meeting transportation needs. Efficiency measures involve reviewing the level o f resources (labor or cost) required to achieve a given level of output. As mentioned previously, Appendix F provides definitions for all the indicators and measures utilized In this section. Table Il-2 outlines the selected indicators and measures used in BCT's performance evaluation. The number of indi c ators and measures analyzed fo r 6CT operations Is comparatively smaller than that for BlT's fixed route evaluation due to the unavailability and relative inaccuracy of some data collected from various transportation providers. Tableii2 Sel ected Perfo r mance Review Indicators and Measures BCT Paratransit Services General Performance Indi cators I Effectiveness Measures Efficiency Measures SeNice Area Population Service Supply Cost Efficiency Potentia l TO Popul ation Vehicle Miles Per TO Capita Operating Expense Per TO Capita TO Population Revenue Miles Per Paratransit Trip Operating Expense Per Paratransit Trip Paratransit Passenger Trips Service Consumption Operati ng Expense Per Vehicle Mile Paratransi t T rips Per 1D capita Vehicle Miles Trips Per Vehicle Mil e Ope r ating Ratio Revenue M i les local Government Revenue Ratio Operating Expense Quality of Service Vehicl e MHes Between Accidents Vehicle Utilization Vehicle MUes Between Roadcalls Vehicle Miles Per Vehicle Operating Revenue Revenue Per Vehicle Mile Vehide Fleet Size SOURCE. Ronda CO
PAGE 105

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF EXISTING BTT SERVICE This evaluation is useful in determining the strengths of BTT as well as areas that require additional attention and Improvement. This Is accomplished through two major analyses which are described herein. First, a trend analysis presents BTT's performance since its first full fiscal year of operations (FY 19g7). Second, a peer review analysis compares the performance of BTT with that of other selected small Florida and non-Rorida transit systems. Spedfically, BTT is compared with its peer group of systems operating between one and nine vehicles in maximum service, which was established by CUTR and FOOT and Is used In FOOT's most recent Annual Performance Eval uation Study. A summary of the results the trend and peer analyses Is found at the end of this section. In that summary, relative strengths and areas for improvement are discussed, as well as BTT's performance as compared to particular performance goals outlined in the last major TDP update. Appendix G contains complete data tables for the trend analysis and peer review analysis. Overview of BTT In December 1995, the Bay Town Trolley began operating service on five routes (Downtown, East, West, Beach, and North) with three vehicles. As of FY 2001, the system operates four rubberized trolleys on five routes. BTT is operated by the Bay County Council on Aging and the MPO serves as the transit authority As of FY 2001, the route network extended as far north as lynn Haven, as far west as the intersection of Front Beach (Alt. 98) and Back Beach (U.S. 98) Roads on Panama City Beach, as far east as Star Avenue, and south to Downtown Panama City. The routes' frequency ranges from one hour (Routes 1 and 4) to approximately every two to three hours (Routes 2, 4a, and 5). Service is provided Monday through Friday (there is no service on weekends or holidays), with a service span from 6:00a.m. to 6:30 p.m BTT has a base fare of $0.50, and discounted fares are offered to students, senior citizens, and the disabled. Children age five and under ride free. To present a general overview of the fixed-route transit system, se[ect general performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures are reported in Table II-3. The source of the data is BCCOA's NTD reports for FYs 1997 through 2001 (Most FY 2001 data are considered to be preliminary as of this TDP). Chapter7Wo 93

PAGE 106

TableD-3 Summary of Selected Operating Statistics, BTT General Performance lndicators FY1997 FY 1991 FY 1999 FY lOCO FYlOOl o/oChang (1997. 2001) Trips 38,0Sl 48,694 61,<479 66,482 74 787 96.5% 117,936 1)4,034 153.571 166,205 1 91,979 62.8% VeNdeMlleS 155,988 1Sl,863 163,.691 165,773 190,180 21.9% Revenue MileS 1SVS2 1 5 1 ,353 153,571 158,158 l ?S,S31 Velic:le HoiJ"S 8,56$ 9,287 9,867 9,432 11,565 3S.O% Revenue Hours 8,3 16 9,036 9,361 9,036 10,537 26 .7% Route Miles 1 06.0 106 0 106.0 106.0 118.0 11.3% Total Operating Expense $203,259 $131,522 $206,09) $225,434 $255,8 1 0 25.904 Total Maintenance Expense $ 17,S,855 26,464 26,6W 13.2% Etfed:lveness Measuru Vetlide Mil'es Pet capita 1 27 1.25 J,J) 1.35 l.SS 21.9% Passenger TripS Per C.pita 0.31 0.40 0.50 0.54 0.61 96.$% Passenger Trtps Per Re-.oenue HUe 0.25 0.3 2 0.40 0 .42 0.43 69.6'K. Passenger Trips P.er Revenue Hour 4.58 5.39 6.57 7.36 7.10 SS.l% Average AQe of Aeet (years) 2.00 3.80 2.50 3.50 4.50 125.0% Revenue Mile$ Bet"Neen Vehfdo F res 2 ,483 16,817 25,595 11,297 10,325 315.9% Efficiency Musuros Operating Expense Per Capita $ 1 .6S $1.88 $1.68 $1.83 $2.08 25.9% OperaCing Expense Per Passet19et Trip $5.34 $4 75 $3.35 $). 39 $3.42 36.0% OperaOng Expense Per Re'YetWe Mile $ 1 34 $ 1.53 $1.34 $1.43 $1.46 9.0% Operating E:xpense Per Reveooe Hour $24.44 $25.62 $.22.02 $.24.95 $24 .28 .() 7% MW\tenance Expense Per Revenue Mile $0.13 $0.12 $0 1 3 $0.21 $0.10 -16.8% Farebox Recovery RatiO 7.7% 7.2% 10.0% 9.1% 10.3% 33.0% Average Fare $0.41 $0.34 $0.3< $0.31 $0.35 14.3% Per Employee F1'E 1,124 1,238 l,S3S 1,4<8 1,207 7.4% Passenger Tr1ps Pet FIE 5,142 6,610 10,079 10,654 8,567 66.6% Revenue Hiles Per Total Vehi reports for FYs 1997 through 2001. 94 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 -2007

PAGE 107

BTT Trend Analysis .. A fixed-route trend analysis for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 was conducted to follow the performance of BIT over the five-year period since its first full fiscal year of operations. Data used in this analysis are from BCCOA's NTO reports. The selected general performance indicators and measures are grouped into categories and presented in tabular form (Tables II-4 through II -10), along with brief discussions of the data. The percent change over the five-year time frame for each indicator and measure is also shown in the tables, as well as the percent change from FY 2000 to FY 2001. The trends are also illustrated graphically in Figures n-2 through II-30. As noted previously, detailed trend data tables can be found in Appendix G. Chapter Two '95

PAGE 108

General Perfonnance Indicators Ridershjp, Route Mileage. and Level of Service Table 11-4 shows how the Bay Town Trolley has grown since its first full year of operations (fiscal year 1997). Ridership on BTT nearly doubled between 1997 and 2001 as the service began to mature and awareness of the system began to increase among those in the community. During its fifth full fiscal year of operation, BITs ridership continued to increase with the numbe r of passenger trips growing 13 percent over the previous year The trend for passenger miles is similar, exhibiting an average trip length (passenger miles per passenger trip) that has stabilized at approximately 2.5 miles. Table 11-4 also shows how vehicle and revenue miles as well as vehicle and revenue hours have grown between 1997 and 2001. Rgures 11-2 through 11 on the following page graphically illustrate these trends. Table 11 BTT Ridership, Route Mileage, and Level of Setvlce, Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Fiscal Year Passenger Papenger Route Vehicle Revenue Vehicle Revenue Trips Miles Miles Miles Miles Hours Hours 1997 38,052 11 7,936 106.0 155,988 151,452 8,568 8,316 1998 48,694 134,034 106.0 153,863 151,353 9,287 9,036 1999 61,479 153,571 106 0 163,691 153,571 9,867 9,361 2000 66,482 166,205 106.0 165,773 158,158 9,432 9,036 2001 74,787 191,979 118.0 190,180 175,531 11,565 10,537 %Change 96.5% 62.8% 11.3% 21.9% 15.9% 35.0% 26.7% 1997 0<1> Change 12.5% 15.5% 11.3% 14.7% 11.0% 22.6% 16.6% 20002001 SOURO:. BCCOA s NTD report$ 96 Bay COunty Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 109

BlT F iXed -Route Trend Gen era l Perf ormance Indicato rs F i gure 11-2 Pa5841nger Tri p s ao,ooo r-----------, ... F i g u re 11-3 Passenger Miles 70,000 +-------::: 60,000 +-----, 50,000 +---: 200,000 +-----------,::J 40,000 ,30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1997 200 160 120 80 40 0 1997 150,000 1 00,000 50,000 0 1997 Ch
PAGE 110

t=xpenses and Total operating expense for BTI's fixed-route motorbus service increased nearly 26 percent in nominal terms between 1997 and 2001 as shown In Table II-5. However, when these figures are adjusted to real terms, the increase Is 14 percent (in 1997 dollars), reflecting the low rate of Inflation during this time period. Figure 11-9 shows the change in operating expense in both nominal and real values. Total maintenance expense Is a subset of total operating expense. The table below and Figure II-10 show that maintenance expense In nominal terms, dedined at a rate of 3.6 percent (13 percent when adjusted for inflation) over the trend period. Furthermore, between 2000 and 2001, maintenance expense dedined approximately 46 percent. Lastly, Table 11-5 shows how BTI's fare revenue has grown since the system's first full year of operations In FY 1997. The trend for passenger fare revenue is also exhibited in Figure II-11. 98 Tableii-5 BlT Expenses and Revenues, Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Total Total Total Total Passenger Operating Maintenance Fiscal Year Operating Expense Maintenance Expense Fare Expense (1997 $)1 Expense (1997 $)1 Revenue 1997 $203,259 $203,2S9 $18,995 $18,995 $15,708 1998 $231,522 $227,818 $17,508 $17,228 $16,6522 1999 $206,093 $198,334 $19,830 $19,083 $20,586 2000 $225,131 $209,571 $33, 766 $31,390 $20,516 2001 $255,810 $231,151 $18,316 $16,550 $26,292 %Change 25.9% 13.7"1o -3.6% -12.9% 67.4% 1997 %Change 13.5% 10.3% -45.8% -47.3% 28.0% 2000 Inflation rate mformaUon Is from llle Bureau of E Researdl (BE8R). of FY 1998 fare revenue is BlT's operating re!XIrts; data for December 1997 are mlSSing. SOURCE: BCCOA'IfTl) Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 111

BTT FixedR oute Trend Anal ysis General Performance Indicators Flgurell-9 Total Operating Expense $300,000,.------------, $250,000 +------------,:: $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 1997 1998 1999 2000 Figure 11 Passenger Fa re Revenue 2001 $30,000,.-----------, $25,000 +------------:: $20.000 +-----= $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 1997 1998 1999 2000 Figure 11-13 Vehicles In Maximum S.rvlee 7 8 6 4 3 2 1 0 2001 1996 1991 1198 1Ht 2000 2001 Figure 11-10 Total MalntenanJ:e Expense $40,000,.-----------, $3S,OOO t-----------,.-----i $30,000 +--------: $26,000 +-----, $20,000 $15 ,000 $10.000 $3,000 $0 1997 1998 1999 Figure 11-12 2000 Total Employees (FTEs) 1991 1998 1999 2000 Figure 11 Total Gallons of Fuel Consumed 2001 20Q-1 35,000..-----------, 30,000 +-----:: 26,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5t000 0 1117 1998 1999 2000 2001 99

PAGE 112

Emplovees. Veh ldes. and Fuel Coosumptjon The total number of employees used for BTI service is represented by full-time equivalents (FTEs) which are derived from the labor hours listed on Form 404 i n the NTD report. Table 11-6 indicates that total employee FTEs increased 18 percent from 7.4 in 1997 to 8.7 in 2001. While no hours for maintenance were listed in the NTD report for fiscal year 1997, maintenance FTEs ranged from 0.3 in FY 1998 to 1.14 in FY 2001. Overall, however, total employee FTEs increased by 2.5 between 2000 and 2001, which was primarily the result of an increase in transportation operating FTEs between these two years. Figure 11-12 illustrates the trend graphically. The number of trolley vehicles operated in maximum service increased from three to four over the trend period, while the number of vehicles available for maximum service increased from four in 1997 to six in 2001, providing a spare ratio of 50 percent in FY 2001. Figure II13 shows this trend Finally, the total gallons of fuel utilized for each year in the trend period are also presented in the table below The table and Figure 11-14 indicate that fuel consumption increased between 199 7 and 2001 by approximately 13 percent. This 13 percent increase is less than the vehicle mile increase of 22 percent and vehicle hour Increase of 35 percent, also experienced during the same time period. This suggests that BTI is becoming more efficient in terms of energy consumption. Tablell-6 BTT-Employees Vehldes, and Fuel Consumption, Fixed-Route Trend Analysis .,-ISCIII Year Total Employees Vehicles Available Vehldes Operated in Total Gallons of (FJEs) for Max. Service Max. Service Fuel Consumed 1997 7 .4 4 3 23,569 1998 7 .3 3 3 26,136 1999 6.1 3 3 30,855 2000 6.2 6 3 26,464 2001 8.7 6 4 26,690 %Change 18.0% 50.0% 33.3% 13.2% 1997-2001 %Change 39.9% 0.0% 33.3% 0.9% 200G-2001 SOURCE. 8CCOAs NTO reports 100 BiJy County Transit Development Plan, 2003 -2007

PAGE 113

Effectiveness Measures Service Supply, Servlce Consumotlon. and Quality of Servlce Vehicle miles per cap ita is one measure of servlce supply. over this time period, this measure grew nearly 22 percent, as shown in Table II-7 and Figure II-15. An additional per-capita effectiveness measure is also shown in Figure II-15: passenger trips per capita, which is a measure of service consumption. Between 1997 and 2001, this measure grew approximately 97 percent. Additional measures of service consumption are passenger trips per revenue mile and per r evenue hour, which grew over the trend period Table II-7 and Figures II-16 and II-17 exhibit growing t rends for these measures. Table II-7 and 11-18 present the trend for the average fleet age Understandably, the fleet age has been increasing since the implementation of BTI servlces. Because BTI did not have any reportable incidents during this trend period, the measu re of revenue miles between incidents is not reported. Lastly, the significant growth in the measure of revenue miles between revenue veh icle failures (Figure II-19) reflects the sharp decline in failures since FY 1997 (61 in 1997; 17 In 2001). This decrease is exceptionally important given the growth in service during this time. Table 11 7 BTT -Service Supply and Consumption, and Quality of Service, Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Vehicle Passenger Passenger Passenger Average Revenue Miles Per Trips Per Trips Per Trips Per Age of Fleet Miles Fiscal Year Revenue Revenue Between C. pita C. pita Mile Hour (years) Failures 1997 1.27 0.31 0.25 4.58 2.00 2,483 1998 1 .25 0.40 0 .32 5.39 3.80 16,817 1999 1.33 0.50 0.40 6.57 2.50 25, 595 2000 1.35 0 54 0.42 7 .36 3.50 11,297 2001 1.55 0.61 0.43 7.10 4.50 10,325 o/o Change 21.90fo 1997 96.50/o 70.0o/ o 55.10fo 125.00fo 315.90fo o/o Cltange 2000-2001 14.70fo 12.5o/o 1.4o/o -3.50fo 28.6o/o -8.6o/o SOURCE. BCCOAs ffl'O reports. Chapter TWo 101

PAGE 114

BTT F ixedRoute T rend Analysis-Effectiveness M easures Figure 1115 Vehicle Miles and Pass enger Trips 1 8 u+--1. 4 +-------=== 1 2 1.0 0 .8 0 6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1H7 1998 1191 Figure 11-17 2000 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour 2001 F igure 1116 Passenger Trips per Rev enue M ile 0 6 0 2 0 1 1997 1998 1199 2 000 Figure 11 18 Average Age of Fleet (yeare ) 2001 1.0 7.0 8.0 6.0 4 0 3. 0 2. 0 1.0 o o 1117 1198 1191 102 2000 2001 Figure 11-19 3 0 2.0 1 0 1117 Revenue Miles F ailures 18,000 +---14 ,000 +-10, 000 8,000 2,000 1998 1997 1199 2000 2001 1999 2000 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007 2001

PAGE 115

Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency Four operating expense ratios, listed in Table Il-8, are each shown in nominal values and help to measure BTT's overall cost effidency. The first measure, operating expense per capita, rose by 26 percent from 1997 to 2001, but only increased by 14 percent between 2000 and 2001. The increase in this first measure is primarll y due to a stable service population. The trend for this measure is displayed in Rgure Il-20. Operating expense per is the second measure that was selected to a id i n developing Initial performance goals for BTT's young operations. Both the table below and Rgure II-21 show that B1T's value for this measure decreased significantly over the trend period, yet remained r e l atively stabl e between 2000 and 2001. Trends for operating expense per revenue mile and per revenue h our are also shown in Table Il-8 as well as in Figures II-22 and II-23. Operating expense per revenue mile increased nine percent between 1997 and 2001. Since 2000, this measure remained relatively stable. Operating expense per revenue hour decreased slightly during the entire trend period, and declined nearl y three percent between 2000 and 2001. Rnally, the tabl e below and Rgure II-24 Indicate that maintenance expense per revenue mile declined 17 percent between 1g97 and 2001, and more than 50 percent between 2000 and 2001. The significant decrease in this measure between 2000 and 2001 is att ributable to a spike in maintenance expenses in FY 2000. Tableii-8 B1T-Cost Efficiency, f'tXed-Route Trend Analysis Operating Operating Operating Operati ng Malntenai!Qe Fiscal Year Expense Per Expense Per Expense Per Expense Per Expense Per capita Passenger Trip Revenue Mile Revenue Hour Revenue Mile 1997 $1.65 $5.34 $1.34 $24.44 $0.13 1998 $1.88 $4.75 $1.53 $25.62 $0.12 1999 $1.68 $3.35 $1.34 $22.02 $0.13 2000 $1.83 $3.39 $1.43 $24.95 $0.21 2001 $2. 08 $3.42 $1.46 "$24.28 $0.10 0/o Olange 25.9% -36.0> 9.0o/o -0.7% -16.8% 1997-2001 %Change 1 3 .5% 0 .9% 2.2% -2.7% -51.1% 200G-2001 SOURCE. BCCOAs NTD reports OlapterTwo 103

PAGE 116

BTl' Fixed-Route Trend Analysis-Efficiency Measures Figure 110 Operating Expense per Capita Figure 11 Operating Expense per $2.50,------------, $6. 00 $2.00 +----------::: $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 1997 1998 1999 Figure 1122 Operating Expense per 2000 200 1 Revenu e 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Revenue Mile $1 .80 "===:;==:::':======1 $1 .60 + Figure 11 23 Operating Expense per Hour $30. 00 $25.00 $20.00 $15. 00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 104 $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1997 1998 Figure 11 Maintenance Expense per Revenue Mile $0.25 .----===-""""----, $0.20 +--------: $0.15 +--------, $0.10 $0.05 $0.00 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 Bay Coonty Transit Development PliJn, 2003-2007 2001

PAGE 117

Earebox Recovery. Average Fare. and Labor Productivity . The farebox recovery ratio, which represents the amount of operating expenses covered by fare revenue, fluctuated during the trend period with an overall growth rate of 33 percent, as noted In Table II-9. Figure 11-25 also illustrates this trend. BTT's low farebox recovery is due in part to a relatively low current base fare of $0.50. The trend for the average fare per passenger trip is shown in the table, as well as in Figure 11-26. BTT's average fare fell from $0.41 in 1997 to $0.35 in 2001, although it increased between 2000 and 2001. The trends for BTT's labor productivity, as measured by the numbers of revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee, are displayed In the table below and in Figures II-27 and 11-28. It is important to note that the number of employees are represented by full-time equivalents (FTEs), which are computed using the number of labor hours from the NTD report. The measure of revenue hours per employee Increased between 1997 and 1999 and then declined between 1999 and 2001, amounting to an overall increase of seven percent during the entire trend period. Lastly, BIT is proving to be labor-effi dent in terms of service consumption as measured by passenger trips per employee, which more than doubled between 1997 and 2000. Although this measured declined by approximately 20 percent between 2000 and 2001, BIT's performance during the entire trend period Still exhibited an overall growth rate of 67 percent. Tableii-9 BTT-Farebox ReClOvery, Average Fare, and Labor Productivity, Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Fiscal Year Farebox Recovery Average Fare 1997 7.7% $0.41 1998 7.2%1 $0.341 1999 10.0% $0.34 2000 9.1% $0.31 2001 10.3% $0.35 %Change 33.001o -14.8% 1997-2001 %Change 12.8% 13.8"1o 2000-2001 For FY 1998, fare rewnue data are missing fur December 1997. SOURCE: SCCOA's NTO reports. Chapter Two Revenue Hours Passenger Trips Per Employee FTE Per Employee FTE 1,124 5,142 1,238 6,670 1,535 10,079 1,448 10,654 1,207 8,567 7A% 66.6% -16.6 -19.6% 105

PAGE 118

BTT Fixed-Route Trend AnalysisEfficiency Measures Figure 11 Farebox Recovery Ratio .,------------....., 10%-l------8% 6'1 4'4 0% 1997 1998 1999 Figure 11-27 2000 Revenue Hours per Employee FTE 2001 1,800 ..--------------, 1,600 +------=------1 1,400 +----, 1,200 1.000 800 600 400 200 0 1997 106 1 998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 11-26 Average Fare $0.50,-------------, $0 .40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 1997 1998 1999 Figure 11-28 2000 2001 Passenger Trips per Employee FTE 12,000.------------, 4,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Bay County Transit Oevelopment Plan, 2003 -2007

PAGE 119

Vehicle Utilization and Eneray Utilization One measure of vehicle utilization is the number of revenue miles per total vehicles (utilizing vehicles available for maximum service). Table Il-10 shows that the number of revenue miles per total vehicles decreased approximately 23 percent over the trend period. Figure 1! graphically displays this trend. Finally, the fuel efficiency of BTT's trolley fleet can be measured by the number of vehicle miles per gallon. As can be seen from Table II-10, this measure Increased approximately eight percent over the examined time period, and Increased nearly 14 percent between 2000 and 2001 This trend Is also represented In Figure 11-30. Tableii-10 BTT Vehicle Utilization and Energy Utilization, Fixed-Route Trend Analysis Fiscal Year Revenue Miles Per Total Vehicles 1997 37,863 1998 50,451 1999 51,190 2000 26,360 2001 29,255 %0!ange -22.7% 1997-2001 %Change 11.0% 200G-2001 SOURCE. BCCOAs mt> reports. Figure 11 Revenue Miles per Total Vehicles Vehicle Miles Per Gallon 6.62 5.89 5.31 6.26 7.13 7.7% 13.8% Figure 11-30 Vehicle Miles per Gallon 60,000,.---,-----------, 8.0..-----------, so.ooo +---: 40.000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1997 C11apter Two 1998 1999 2000 2001 7.0 +----------= 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1 0 0 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 107

PAGE 120

Fixed-Ro ute Peer Review Ana l ysis In addition to the trend analysis, a peer review analysis was conducted to compare the performance of the Bay Town Trolley with similar systems in Florida and throughout the s o utheastern United States. This section c ontains a c ompariso n to an exist i ng peer group containing systems that operate between one and n ine buses i n peak fixedroute service. OJTR conducts an Annual Performance Eval uation Study for FOOT that, until 2000, included trend and peer review analyses as its main components. The peer analysis categorized Florida's fixed route transit systems (those receivi ng State B lock Grant funds) into four groups based on the s ize of the peak vehlde fleet: 1 to 9 vehicles, 10 to 49 vehides, 50 to 200 vehicles, and more than 200 vehides. Peers from outside Florida are car efully selected and a lso p laced into these categories (the peer selection methodo logy for the Annual Performance Evaluation Study is included in Appendix F) The analysis allows Florida properties to be compared with each other as well as among their out o fstate peers. Since the outofstate peers were examined closely and accepted by CUTR, as we ll as FOOT, to be appropr i ate peers for Florida systems as recent l y as 2000, they were used in this analysis to show how BTT fits i n with Its existing 1-to-9 peer group. The l argest system in the group induded in this anal ysis operates eight vehldes in p eak service It should be noted that, Pasco County Public Transportation, whi l e part of the original 1-to-9 group from FY 1999, was not inc luded here since, as of FY 2000, it operated 11 peak vehides. In addition, Winte r Haven A r ea Transit, which operates seven peak vehicles, was excluded due to some data inconsistencies All data are from the systems' NTD reports for FY 2000, which represent the most recent vali d ated Information available for all the peers. Anothe r data source is the FOOT Florida Transit Information System (FnS) software. Peer systems are l isted in Table ll-11 Ta bl eJJ-11 Peer Systems Operatin g Between 1 and 9 Vehldes in M aximum Service (FY 2000 ) Fl orida P .,.,rs N o n -Florida Peers SunTran-Ocala/Ma rion MPO Terrebonne Parish Consolldated Government (Houma, LA) I ndian River CO\Jnty Community Coach Oty o f San Angel o (TX) Key West Department of T ransportation Tuscaloosa County Parking & Transit Autl>ority (AL) Bay Tow n Trolley Johnson City Transit System (TN) Port Arthur Transit (TX) SOURCE. 10QO Petfonnance EVi31uation of TriJIIS/t Systems, Pad D Fixed-Route Peer Rewew Anof)'SIS, FY 1999. P
PAGE 121

Tables 1112 through 11-14 as well as Rgures Il-31 through II-63 summarize selected general performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and effidency measures by disp layi ng the peer groups averages as well as the averages of a subset of the peer group. This peer subset contains only the four Aorida systems: SunTran (Ocala/Marion MPO), Indian River's Community Coach, Key West Department of Transportation, and the Bay Town Trolley. The percentage by which BTT deviates from the peer average i s also shown. Complete data tables including each peer system are found In Appendix G. TableU-12 Selected General Periormance Indicators (FY 2000), 1-to-9 Vehicle Group Fixed-Route Pee Review Analysis Peer Peer BTT: 0/o BTT: Indicator BIT subset" "'ofrom Mean Mean from Mean Subset' Mean Service Area PoP
PAGE 122

Among the peers chosen for this anal ysi s, BlT has a serv i ce area popu l ation that is more than 50 percent above average, and a population density that i s 25 percent greater than that of the other systems, as shown in Table 11-12 and Rgures II-31 and II-32. These differences do not vary greatly when focusing on the Florida systems In this group, with BITs population being 52 percent above average and its density 32 percent above Its Florida peers When analyzing populations and densities across transit system service areas, it is important to note that many systems measur e their service area populations differently These disparities are especially evident between Aorida and non-Aorida properties, as many Florida systems report entire county populations as service area popu l ations, mainly due to the fact that many also provide demand-response service In their entire counties. These variations affect the per-capita measures discussed later In thi s section. Using the FTIS software, i t was detenmined that, according to 2000 Census popu l ation data, BTT's service a rea popu lati on within lf.l-mile of its fixed-route network is 69,261, which represents only 47 percent of Its 2000 county popu l ation of 148,217, and 56 percent of the service area populat i on reported in the NTD. This i nfonmat ion was not readily available for the out -ofstate peer systems. Regarding ridership (in terms of passenger tri ps and passenger miles) and level of service (as measured by vehicle miles, revenue miles, vehic l e ho urs, and revenue hours), Table 11-12 shows that BTT ranks below its peers This is primarily due the fact that, in FY 2000, BlT was the smallest of the systems In the group, in tenms of the number of peak vehicles operated. Rgu res 11-33 through II-38 show BTT's ranking in these variab les graphica ll y In tenms of o p erating expense, maintenance expense, and passenger fare revenue, BlT is also significantly under the averages, again due to the fact that it is the smallest (as well as a relatively young) system in the group The same is true for the number of total employee FTEs and fuel consumed, as shown In Table II-12 and Fig ures 11-39 through 11-42 and Rgu r e 11-45). The table, as well as Rgures II-43 and II-44 indicate again that BlT has the fewest number of vehicles available for and operated in maximum s e rvice. While analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency measures on the following pages will resu l t In a more meaningful analysis of BITs place among its peers, a short discussion on local r evenues is included here. While not Included in Table II-12, it must be noted that each of the nine frxed-route pee r systems, except BlT and Key West, rece i ve General Revenue funds from their local govemments. Key West, while not a redpient of Genera l Revenues, does receive other local funds The average amount of annual Gener a l Revenue funding received by BTT's peers in FY 2000 is $171,224. Overall, BTT is the only one of its peers that does not receive any local assistance for fixed-route services. The average amount of total local assistance received by the peers in FY 2000 is $252,460 As of FY 2001, out of 26 Florida transit systems receiving 110 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 123

State Block Grants, 18 received local general revenues and BTT was the only system that received no local assistance at all. It is clear that, with local funds, BTT would be able to provide higher levels of service and subsequently attract more ridership, thus enabling the system to be more comparable with Its peers. Chapter7Wo 111

PAGE 124

1-to-9 Motorbus Vehlde categoryGeneral Performance Indicators, FY 2000 0 0 0 0 112 50 100 150 100 200 Figure 11 Revenue Miles 100 200 Figure 11-37 Revenue Hours (000) 5 10 15 300 300 20 200 400 400 tndln JoMMnCicy .... IIMAan Rlvtf' 8ty Ccx.ny Tw.ea!OOM SunTr.n Jollfl.ott Cll)' T$WIAngfiO .... -.,w ... Figure 11 Service Area Population Density 0 0 0 500 1,000 1 ,500 500 1 ,000 Figure 11-36 Vehicle Miles (00 <0) 100 200 Figure 11 Vehicl e Hours (000) 300 2,000 1,500 400 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Bay County Trilnsit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 125

1-t:o-9 Motorbus Vehide category-General Performance Indicators, FY 2000 .... ... $0 $300 $6(10 $900 $1,200 $1,500 Figure 11-41 Patssengjlf Fare Revenue (OOG) $0 sso $100 $16(1 Figure 11-43 Veh icles Available for Max. Service 0 5 10 $200 15 Indian Figure 11-40 Maintena n ce $30 $106 $16(1 .... 5:an AIIIJO'O Port Antlur ..,COuMy F i gure 11-42 Total FTEs $256 __ _J ____ _L __ __ J ... ,,.,, 0 s 10 16 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 F igure 11-45 Total Gallons of Fuel (000) Indian 0 20 40 100 Chapterl'Wo 113

PAGE 126

Table 11-13 Selected Effectiveness Measures (FY 2000), 1-to-9 Vehicle Group Fixed -Route Peer Review Analysis I Peer Peer an:% Effectiveness Measure an M811n s..bsetl from Mean Mean Vehicle Miles Per Copita 1.35 4.25 4.36 .2% Passenger Trips Per capita 0.54 3.47 3.84 84.4% Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile 0.42 0.76 0.79 -44.6% Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour 7.36 11.43 11 .74 -35.6% Average Aeet Age (years) 3 50 5.35 3.48 -34.5% Revenue Miles 8e\ween lnddents nfa 121,826 109,058 nJa Revenue Miles 8e\ween Failures 11,297 6,159 6,130 83.4% an: %from Subset' Mean -69.1% .9% -47 .0% -37 .3% 0.7% n/a 84.3% The Peer 5ub6et Cllfltaons the Aorida systems m thos group lndoan River Coll'lty Counal on Agong (Community Coadl), Kev Department of Transportation, SunTran (ocala/Marion MPO), and IJTT. SOURCE: Systems' indMdual FY 2000 tml reports and the Aorida Transit Information System (FnS) software. Table II-13 shows the effectiveness measures chosen for this review. Analysis of the measures of vehide miles per capita and passenger trips per capita reveals that BTT falls near the bottom of the peer group In this area {this is further illustrated in Rgures II-46 and II-47). BTT's low values for these measures are partially due to its comparatively high service area population. As discussed previously, BCCOA reports a larger service area in the NTD due to Its paratranslt services; the fixed-route service area is smaller. Passenger trips per r evenue mile and per revenue hour were two of the measures to be used as a benchmark for BTT's progress over its past five years of operation. Table II-13, and Figures II-48 and II-49, show that, in FY 2000, BTT was 45 percent and 36 percent, respectively, below the averages for these measures. Table 11-13 and Figure II-50 indicate that, compared to the entire group, BTT has a relatively young fleet. When compared only to the Rorida systems BTT's fleet age Is about average. The last two effectiveness measures shown in Tab le 11-13 deal with safety and re liability. In FY 2000, BTT had no reportable incidents; thus, the measure of revenue miles between incidents is not applicable to BTT. However, the table and Figure II-51 show this measure for the peer systems. In FY 2000, in the entire group, the number of inddents ranged from none to seven. Rgure 11-52 shows BTT with a high number of revenue miles between vehicle failures (83 percent above the peer group average, according to the data In Table II-13), which translates to a re latively low number of failures for FY 2000. In fact, the Trolley system experienced the fewest number of revenue vehicle failures among all of its peers during fiscal year 2000. 114 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 127

1-to-9 Motorbus Vehicle CategoiyEffectiveness Measures, FY 2000 Figure 11-46 Vehicle Mlles capltl Jo7111GOII Cf:ty TenWOnt .... PortAIOiur &.111Tn111 $an Angelo o.o 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 o.o 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 o.o 3.0 Figure 11-49 1.5 2.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Figure 11-51 Rev. MI. Between Incidents (000) 6.0 9.0 0 Figure 11-52 Rev. Miles Between Veh. Failures nr.o.Joosa 50 SUnTtn tii'IAngolo PottAitflur Koyweet tnCiitn Rh'er 0 51000 10,000 15,000 100 160 200 25.0 250 Chapter Two 115

PAGE 128

TableD-14 Selected Emdency Mea$Ures (FY 2000), 1-to-9 Vehide Group Fixed-Route Peer Review Analysis Peer Peer BTT:% Efficiency Measure BTT Mean Suboet' from Mean Mun Operating Expense Per capita $1.83 $12.83 $14 .0ol -85.7% Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $3 .39 $3.82 $ 3 75 -11.2% Operating Expense Per Revenue M ile $1.43 $2.84 $ 2.89 -49.8% Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour $24.95 $42.83 $42. 91 -41.8% Maintenance Expense Per Revenue M ile $0 .21 $0.56 $0.40 -61.6% Farebox Recovery RaUo 9.1% 13 .5% 9.7% .5% Average fare $0 .31 $0.51 $0.37 .7% Revenue Hoors Per Emi>lo'lee FTE 1,448 1,234 1,380 17.3% Passenger Trips FT 10, 654 12,164 10, 4 73 .4% Revenue Maes Per Total Vehicles 26,360 28 439 2 7 2 4 5 .3% Vehicle Miles Per Gallon 6.23 5.9 0 7.00 6.2% BTT : %from su-t M ean -86 9 % -9.5'111 -50.7'111 -41 9 % -46 .6% 5 7".11 17 1% 4.9% 1..7'111 2 % 5% . The Peer Sub
PAGE 129

a base fare of $0.75 and the rest have base fares of $1.00. It shoul d be noted that, as of January 2003, Em' will raise its base fare to $i.Ob BIT's two measures of labor productivity as compared to the peers are shown in Tabl e II-14 as well as Figures II-60 and II-61. B1T is above average for both measures In comparison to its Florida peers, as of FY 2000. When compared to the entire 1-to-9 peer group, Em' performs above the average in terms of revenue hours per employee FTE, yet below the average of the group In terms of the measure of passenger trips per employee FTE. Data for a vehicle utilization measure, revenue miles per tota l vehicles, are shown in Table II-14 and Figure II-62 and indicate that B1T is performing slightly below average in comparison to Its peers. Compared to the entir e group B1T is seven percent below average for this measure, while compared to the Florida subset the system is only three percent below average. In addition, the table and Figure II-63 show information relating to the fuel efficiency o f the systems' fleets. Em' has an above-average value for vehicle miles per gallon when compared to the whole group; however, the system Is below average when compared to Its Florida peers. $0.00 $15.00 Chapter Two $30.00 $45.00 Figure 11-65 Pol1 ArU'I\11' San Angel o ..... $0.00 $1. 00 $2. 00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $0. 00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 117

PAGE 130

1-tD 9 Motorbus Vehicle categoryEffi cie n cy Measures FY 2000 Figure 11-56 Operating Expense per Rev. Hour so.oo $ 20.00 $o40.00 $ 10.00 $10.00 $100.00 JoMeot'l City .... .._. Figure ll-58 Farebox .... .._.'"i== ..,,_T --...,_ ..,_ 0 % 6% 10o/ o 15% 20% 25% 0 1,000 2,000 Figure 11-62 Reve n ue M ilesfTotal Vehicles (000) 16 20 25 30 35 so 118 Figure ll-57 Maintenance K.,-W..1 TelfttiOII ........... _..... ---.... _,_1 ..,.,_ $ 0.00 $020 $0.AO $0.60 $0.8 0 $1.00 $0.00 $0.30 $0 .6 0 $o.90 0 5,000 10,000 16,000 Figure ll-63 V ehicle Miles 3.0 6 0 1 0 12.0 Bay County Transit Development Pian, ZOO:J2007

PAGE 131

Condusions BTT Performance Evaluation A general summary of BTT's performance strengths and areas for improvement based on the peer review analyses conducted in this chapter Is presented below. Because BTT is still considered to be a relatively young fixed-route system, It Is not particularly useful to attempt to ascertain strengths and areas for improvement based on the trend analysis, which covers nearly its entire operating life of five years. Most of the significant changes that occurred over the trend period evidenced the beginnings of system maturation. The intention of this section is not to, based on the peer review of the 1-to-9 vehide group, suggest the extent of a strength or improvement area but to identify those performance areas wherein BTT appears to perform, on average, better or worse than the peer systems defined for this study. The measures of effectiveness and efficiency that were employed in this analysis are used rather than the general performance Indicators, which only report data In absolute terms. Table ll-15 below outlines BTT's apparent strengths and areas for improvement based on the fixed-route peer reView analysis of systems that operate nine or fewer vehides in maximum serVice. For the results of this exercise, an area where BTT is more than 10 percent better than the peer average is considered to be a performance strength, whereas an area that Is more than 10 percent worse than the peer group average Is defined as an area for improvement. Performance areas that are within 10 percent of the peer mean are considered neither strengths nor areas for improvement. TableU-15 BTT Performance strengths and Areas for Improvement, Fixed-Route Peer Review Analysis Performance Strengths Areas for Improvement Quality of Service Service Supply Cost Effldency Service consumption Average Fare per Passenger Trip Farebox Reoovery Ratio Labor Produclivity (revenue hours per employee FTE) Labor Produclivity (passenger trips per employee FTE) As shown in the table above, the peer review analysis nesulted in four performance strengths {quality of service, cost effidency average fare, and revenue hours per FrE employee) and four areas for improvement {service supply service consumption, farebox recovery, and labor Chapter7Wo 119

PAGE 132

productivity as measured by passenger trips per FTE employee). These strengths and areas for improvement are explained below. Among the peer systems selected for the 1-to-9 vehide category, BTT was found to have a measure of revenue miles between revenue vehicle fa ilures that was above the peer mean. BITs revenue miles between failures for FY 2000 was 11.3, while the mean was 6.2. A greater number of revenue miles between vehicle failures is considered to be a strength since it reflects fewer service interruptions (failures) and typically less maintenance costs, thus resulting in more effective service. sn appeared to be relatively weak in terms of service supply and service consumption. BIT's measure of vehicle miles per capita (1.35) was 68 percent below average. Similarly, BTrs 0.54 passenger trips per capita was more than 84 percent below the peer mean. Two additional effectiveness measures of service consumption are passenger trips per revenue mile and per revenue hour. BITs figures for these two were 45 percent and 36 percent below average, respectively. Evidently, this analysis shows that BTT is not providing the service mlles or generating the ridership to be performing at a level equal to the average of its peers. However, BIT's performance In these measures has improved since the previous major TOP update and considering that BTT is still a relatively young system, it might not yet be realistic to assume that BTT would be performing, on average, the same as its peers. When compared to Its peers, BTT was found to be quite cost-efficient, which is an important strength in these times of shrinking budgets. All four expense ratios presented in Table II-14 (operating expense per capita, per passenger trip, per revenue mile, and per revenue hour) were below the average of the peer group, as was the measure of maintenance expense per revenue mile. From the riders' (consumers') point of view, a low average fare Is considered to be a benefit and, as such, it is considered a strength in this analysis. BIT has a comparatively low average fare of $0. 31, which represents the minimum value of the peer group This results from Its low base fare of $0.50, which is the lowest of the peers. However, the converse of the strength In the average fare is the resulting low farebox recovery ratio. BIT's farebox recovery was only 9.1 percent in FY 2000, which was 33 percent below the mean and, subsequently, considered to be an area for Improvement. As noted previously, BTrs base fare will Increase to $1.00 as of January 2003. 120 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 133

Lastly, while one measure of labor productivity, revenue hours per employee FTE, was considered to be a strength, the other mel!sure, passenger trips per employee FTE, was found to be an area for improvement In FY 2000, BTT had 1,448 revenue hours per FTE employee, whidl was 17 percent higher than the peer group mean and had 10,654 trips per FTE, whidl was slightly below (12 percent) the mean of 12,164 trips per FTE. Because BTT's measures of vehicle utilization (revenue miles per total vehicles) and energy utilization (vehicle miles per gallon) were within 10 percent of the means, they are not considered to be neither strengths nor areas for improvement. BTT's value of 28,439 revenue miles per total vehicles is approximately seven percent below the peer average, and the system's value of 6.26 vehicle miles per gallon is approximately six percent above average. In the 1999 TOP, performance goals were specifically set in terms of service consumption and cost efficiency. In this analysis, Table 11-15 showed service consumption to be an area for improvement when compared to the peer systems and cost effidency to be a strength. Table II-16 below shows how well BTT has done in achieving the bendlmarks identified in the 1999 TOP, which were based on peer data. It should be noted that the peer group has changed somewhat since 1999. Manatee and Pasco Counties were eliminated from the peer review in this TOP since they now operate more than nine peak vehicles. In addition, SunTran (Ocala/Marion MPO) was added as a new fixed-route system. As for out-of-state peers, Danville, Virginia, Spartanburg, South Carolina, and aarksville, Tennessee were eliminated in 2000 during the rEKelection process for the FOOT Annual Performance Evaluation Study. The system in Houma, Louisiana (Terrebonne) was added at that time. The performance goals were set with the assumption that all recommended route changes from the 1999 TOP would be implemented by FY 2000. Although not all changes have occurred, Table ll-16 (on the following page) indicates that, in FY 2000, BTT exceeded each of the goals by approximately one-third. In FY 2001, BTT exceeded the goals set for trips per revenue hour and expense per trip by 9 percent and 29 percent, respectively. In 2001, BTT was only four percent below the set goal for passenger trips per revenue mile. Revised goals are addressed in Chapter Ave of this TOP. Chilpter Two 121

PAGE 134

TableU-16 BTT's Perfonnance Compared to Goals, FY 2000 FY 2001 M easures Pauenger Trips Per Passenger Trips Per Operating EJq>enoe Revenue Hour Revenue Mile Per Passenger Trip Goal, f'( 20001 5.39 0 .32 $4.81 m, FY zooo Actual 7.36 0.42 $3.39 m % fn:>m Goal, FY 2000 +36.5% +3 1.3% .5% Goal, FY 200 I 2 6 50 0.45 $4.81 m, FY 2001 Actual 7.10 0 .43 $3. 4 2 m % fn:>m Goal, FY 2001 +9.2% -'1.4% 28.9% 1The perfonnance goals for FY 2000 were based on m's FY 1998 varues for the measures of trtps pet revenue hour and revenue mile, and fC< the 1999 TOP peer group ._.ge to r operaijng expense per IJip. 'me perfonnance goals for FY 2001 - bllsed on SD per
PAGE 135

system. Many system goals and objectives cannot be measured with this mechanism and require additional information or a more subjective evaluation. Nonetheless, the results of the trend and peer review analyses provide a useful introduction to a full understanding of the performance of BTI and complement the other components of this TOP, most notably the development of goals and initiatives. REVIEW OF EXI5nNG BCT PARA TRANSIT SERVICES A historical trend analysis for FYs 1996 through 2001 for Bay Coordinated Transportation (BCT) was conducted using data from BCCOA's Annual Operating Reports (AORs) and from Annual Operating Reports compiled by the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. BCT Trend Analysis The trend analysis was conducted to recount BCCOA's temporal performance over the time period from FY 1996 to FY 2001 for its paratransit services. The tables provided throughout this analysis present only the general performance indicators and measures of effectiveness and efficiency that are available from BCCOA's AORs. Results from the trend analysis are provided in the following paragraphs. General Performance Indicators As shown In Table II-17, BCCOA ridership (paratransit passenger trips) rose by 35 percent in the period from 1996 to 2001. During this time period, the number of paratransit passenger trips increased continuously, with the exception of 1997 when a slight decline of three percent occurred. The level of service as measured by vehicle miles increased steadily from 1996 to 2001, with an overall increase of nearly 43 percent The only exception to this trend tool< place in 2000 when vehicle miles decreased by approximately one percent. Revenue miles Increased at a slightly lower rate of 38 percent from 1996 to 2001. Thus, service provision increased at a faster rate than ridership over the six-year period. \ Without taking into account inflation, both total operating expense and revenue Increased by 133 percent from 1996 to 2001. Table II-17 shows the temporal trends for expenses and revenues. ChepterTwo 123

PAGE 136

Also shown in Table II-17, the fleet size of BCr increased by more than four percent from 1996 to 2001, with the net addition of four vehides in 1999, five vehicles in 2000, but with a decrease of three vehicles in 1997 and four vehicles in 2001. Table n-17 BCT Paratransit Trend Analysis General Petformance Indicators 0/o Ch
PAGE 137

Paratransit tnps per vehicle mile, also shown in Table II-18, is a measure that indicates the extent of multi-loading of vehicles by BCT. From 1996 to 2001 this measure decreased by nearly six percent. Revenue miles per paratransit trip is also contained in Table II-18. This measure Is an approximation of BeT's average trip length. From 1996 to 2001 this measure increased by 2.5 percent, indicating that the average trip is getting slightly longer. TableJI-18 BCT Paratranslt Trend Analysis Effectiveness %Change Measures FY 1996 FY 1997 FY1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 (19962001) Vehicle capita 44.61 44.54 45.89 56 .74 54.99 58.88 32.0% Paratransit TripsfTD 9.64 9.16 10.04 11.44 11.50 12.01 24.6% capita Paratranslt Trips/Vehicle 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.21 0 20 .6% Mile Revenue Miles{ 3.83 4.06 4.13 4.78 3.83 3.92 2.5% Paratransit Trip Vehide Miles Between 70,374 322,357 96,611 4 21,030 277,050 100,590 42.9% Accidents Vehicle Between 63,336 11,513 28, 178 40,098 18,069 53,254 .9% Roadcalls SOURCE: BCCOA AORs, fiscal years 1996 and Florida Convnlsslon fOI' the TranspoftotiOn Olsad-d 19992001 Anrn141 Opefflting RtpCI't. The last two effectiveness measures in Table 11-18 measure system safety and reliability. The number of vehicle miles between accidents, as shown in Table JI-24, increased by 43 percent from 1996 to 2001 with a decrease from 1997 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2001. The number of vehicle miles between roadcalls fluctuated from year to year, with a final rate in 2001 of 53,254 vehicle miles between roadcalls. The variability in the number of roadcalls during the trend period is not readily explained. Efficiency Measures Efficiency measures review the leve l of resources required to achieve a given level of output. The first three measures contained in Table II-19 measure cost effidency. All of these cost . effidency measures Increased from 1996 to 2001, as shown in Tab le II-19. Operating expense per paratransit trip increased by approximately 73 percent. In addition, operating expense per vehicle mil e increased 63 percent from 1996 to 2001, and operating expense per TO capita Chapter Two 125

PAGE 138

more than doubled with an Increase of 115 percent. All of these measures, with the exception of operating e xpense per TO capita, decreased in 1999 because of a large increase in bips and vehicle miles for that year. Table II1 9 BCT Paratransit T re n d An a l ysis -Effiden cy Measu res o/o C han g e Measures FY1996 FY1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 ( 19962 0 0 1 ) Operating Expense/ $5.67 $ 7 .67 $8.64 $7.94 $8. 53 $9.79 72.6% Paratransit Trip Operating Expense/ $1.23 $1.58 $ 1. 89 $1 .60 $1. 7 8 $2 00 62.9o/o Vehi c l e Moe Operating Expense/ $54.68 $70.26 $86.73 $90.80 $98.04 $117.60 115 .1% TD capita Local Governmen t 0.84% 20 .82% 24.67% 20.19% I 15 06% 9.54% 1,02 8.9% Revenue Ratio Vehide Miles/Vehi d e 14,075 15,350 16, 102 18,306 16,297 19,262 36.9% Revenue M iles{Vehide 82.69% 83 53% 90,42% 96.25% 80.00% 80.00% -3.3% Mile . SOURCE. BCCOA AORs, fiscal years 1996 1 998 and I!Qrida COmmiSSion fo r the Olsadvantaged 1999 200 1 ArNw4f Operating A lso contained i n Tab l e Il-1 9 are the local government revenue ratios fo r BCCOA. It should be noted th a t the revenue in this ratio is from local purchase of service contracts and is not from local juri.sdictional sup port. OVer the time per iod fro m 1996 to 2001, this ratio fluctuated from a low of 0.84 percent to a high of 24 .6 7 percent Vehicle utilization is measured by the n umber of vehicle miles p er vehicle. As shown in Table 11-19, th i s measure i n c reased by 36. 9 percent from 1996 to 2001. The average annual vehicle miles per vehicle in 2001 was 19,262 vehicle miles. An 11 percent decrease In this measure shows up In 2000; h o weve r all of the remaining years exhibit increases. Revenue miles per vehicle mile, also contained in Tab l e II-19, reflects how much o f the tota l vehicl e operation is in passenger service. This measure decreased slightly from 1996 to 2001. The gener a l performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures used i n this tre n d analysis are a lso presented graphically in Figures II-64 through II-83 on the following pages. 126 Bay Cbunty Transit Development Pfan, 2003-2007

PAGE 139

BCT Paratransit Trend Analysis-" General Perfonnanoe Indicators .. : ..... : 140, 000 Figure 11-64 Service Area Population 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 11-66 Paratransit Passenger Trips 190,000.------------, 11W,OOO 170,000 +-----160,000 +-----150, 000 +-----, 140,000 +----, 130,000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 11-68 Revenue Miles 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 $1,000,000 6500,000 $0 Figure 11-70 Operating Revenue 1996 1997 1999 1999 2000 2001 Chapter 7Wo 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Figure 11-65 Potential TOITD Population 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 11-67 Vehicle Miles 950 ,000,-------------, 900,000 850,000 800,000 100,000 +-----, 650,000 600,000 1996 1991 1996 1999 2000 2001 Figure 11-69 Operating Expense $1,900,000 ,-----------, 51,700,000 $1,500,000 $1 300,000 $1,100,000 +---: $900,000 $700,000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 I Figure 11-71 Vehicle Fleet Size 60 50 40 50 20 10 0 1996 1997 1999 1999 2000 2001 127

PAGE 140

BCT Paratranslt Trend Ana lysis-Effectiveness M easures Figure 11-72 Vehicle M iles pe r TO Capita eo+----------,= :---= eo+------ o 30 20 10 0 1tH 1917 1-1 Itt 2000 2001 Figur e 11-74 Paratranslt Trips per Vehicl e M ile 0 23 0 22 o.u 0 .21 0 .21 0.20 0.20 0 .11 1116 1 997 1993 .... 2000 2001 Figure 11-7 6 V ehicle M iles Between A ecldents 2eo,ooo 50,000 1116 19t7 1tN 1111 2000 2001 128 Figure 11-73 Paratnlnslt Trips per TO Capilli 13 1 2 11 1 0 B 7 5 11H 11t7 199$ 1 999 2000 2001 F i g u re 11-75 Reven ue M iles per Para1ra n alt Trip 5 .00 .so -1------>4.00 uo 3 00 19H 1997 1998 1999 200 0 200 1 Figure 11-77 V ehlele M iles Betwee n R oadcslla 5&,000 4 0,000 24,000 10,000 UN 1997 1993 1991 2000 2001 Bay County Tl3nsit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 141

BCT Paratranslt Trend Ahaly sis""' Effldency Measures Figure 11-78 Operating Expense!Paratranslt Trip $10.00 $9.00 +-------$8 .00+--$7.00 $6 .00 $8.00 1 !198 1 !197 1 998 1899 2000 2001 Figure 11-80 Operating Expense per TO Capita $126.00 $110.0 0 +-------$!15.00 +-------:: sso.oot---$55.00 $50.00 1996 1997 1998 1989 2000 2001 Figure 11-82 Vehicle Miles per Veh i cle 20.000,------------, 1&,000+--14,0 00 10, 000 1998 1997 1 998 1989 2000 2001 Chapter TIKI Figure 11-79 Operating ExpenseNehlcle Mile $2.26 u .oo-1-----------suo $ 1.26 $1.00 1996 1 997 111i8 11l99 2000 2001 Figure 11 Local Government Revenue Ratio 1 996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 11-83 Reve n ue Miles per Vehicle M ile as%+---80% 75% 1898 1tt7 1 998 198t 2000 2001 129

PAGE 142

Conclusio nsBCT P erformance EYilluation This concluding section summarizes the results of the paratransit trend review analysis for BCT. A summary of scrs performance strengths and areas for Improvement based on me trend analysis of effectiveness and efficiency measures is provided In Tabl e 11-20. As with the fixed route analysis, the intent of showing this information Is not to suggest me extent of the strength or area for improvement but to identify those areas where BCCOA's performance has improved or declined from 1996 to 2001. With regard to the trend analysis, a performance strength is defined as any performance area that improved or was maintained over the trend analysis time period and an area for improvement is defined as a trend that declined over the trend analysis time period. Tableii-20 8CT Paratranslt Performance Strengths and Areas for I mprovement, Trend Analy s is Slrefi9Uts PerfOf"''fttlnce Weaknesses Vehicle Miles Between Acdclents Paralr.ln slt Tl1ps peo-Vehicle L.ocal Golll!mment Revenue Ratio Vehicle Miles Between Roadcalls Paratranslt Trips per TO capita Operating Expense per Paratransit Trip Vehicle Miles per TO capita Operating Expense per Vehicle Mile Operating Expense per TO capita Revenue M iles per Vehicle M i les The results from the trend analysis show that vehicle miles and passenger trips per capita have steadily Increased from 1996 to 2001 indicating that Bcrs service supply is increasing. Since th e number of accidents remained stabl e during the trend period, scrs performance In terms of vehicle miles between accidents improved, as well. While the local government revenue ratio Is considered a strength, It should be noted that the revenue in this ratio is from local purchase of service contracts and is not from local jurisdictional support. The level of service consumption (passenger trips per vehicle m il e), found to be an area for improvement, could indicate a reduction in the grouping of trips and/or that the length of passenger trips has increased over the trend-analysis time period. 130 Bay County Tmnslt Development Plan, 2()()3 2007

PAGE 143

The trend analysis also revealed a need for Improvement In operating expense per trip, per TO capita, per vehicle, and per vehicle mile. The increases in these measures can partially be explained by the increased number of passenger trips. per TD capita over the trend-analysis time period, and that the average length of each trip has Increased. These measures could indicate that BCT was in a service growth period for the years of this trend analysis. However, BCCOA should continue to monitor operating expenses to ensure that their growth is not due to an increase in trips that perhaps could be handled by the fixed-route service. While trend analysis can be useful in developing a better understanding of BCT performance and in identifying target areas for additional attention and Improvement, as with the fixed-route mode, these performance evaluation measures do not comprehensively cover all of the objectives of a paratranslt system. Many objectives cannot be measured with this mechanism and require additional information or more subjective evaluation. However, as with BTT, the results of BCT's trend analysis provide a useful starting point for fully and completely understanding the system's performance. 131

PAGE 144

132 Bay Cbunty Tnlns!t Development Plan, 2(}()3 2007

PAGE 145

CHAPTER THREE: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND INITIATIVES IMPLICAnONS OF GOALS AND IN111AnVES FOR TRANSIT IN BAY COUNTY A five-year Transit Development Plan can be regarded as a blueprint for establishing the future of transit services In a community. As a strategic document, it must reflect the community's will and desires as well as implement priorities established by community leaders and the public. The "transit experiment" that began in December 1995 has not lived up to the expectations of some; however, there is also a growing sense among people In the community that transit could be much more viable, meaningful, and contributory to residents and visitors in the county. According to many, the Bay Town Trolley has come quite far, espedally in the past three years since the last major TDP update. Panama Oty MPO and Bay Town Trolley staffs have done their part to realign fixed-route services, Increase ridership (up 54 percent and growing since 1999 when the last TDP was updated), and Increase levels of community awareness and support. All of the above accomplishments and successes must work i n conjunction with each other to maintain the momentum that fixed-route services have achieved over the past three years. However, some common themes from the previous major TOP update persist While the Bay Town Trolley is supported In concept at the MPO level, the fact remains that it is not supported with MPO funds or local funds at the jurisdictional levels, namely the incorporated dties and county government of Bay County. Previously, revenues from Purchase of Service contracts in the coordinated system were used to expand fixed-route servioes by matching federal and state funds. However, Federal (Governor's Apportionment) funds allocated to Bay County niay fluctuate in fub.lre years, which could create a scenario whereby Federal funds used for operating costs would compete with capital acquisition needs such as vehicles. Therefore, this TDP update includes an initiative to develop a model for local jurisdictions to help fund transit in the future. The goals and initiatives listed herein are designed to outline those factors that would make fixed-route transit more viable as well as challenge dtizens and leaders of Bay County to achieve that viability. The initiatives and any associated costs of implementing the m are discussed in further detail in the final chapter of the TOP. Following the goals is a section that reviews other plans and legislatio n related to public transportation. Chapter Three 133

PAGE 146

Goal 1: Continue to Strengthen the Coordinated System 134 Initiatives A. Continue to replace paratransit vehides as necessary and expand based on system growth. Traditionally, Federal and State funds for transportation have been used primarily for capital and operating needs for Bay Coordinated Transportation This TOP does not change that focus. As vehicles are operated throughout their useful life, BCT should continue to replace vehicles and expand based on system growth. 8. Monitor more dosely the number and variability of roadaJ!Is for paratransit service. The number of vehicle miles between roadcalls has varied considerably over the trend period examined in this TOP (FY 1996 FY 2001). Vehicle miles have grown steadily from FY 1996 to FY 2001, and the variation In the measure of vehicle miles between roadcalls is primarily due to annual fluctuations in the number of roadcalls. These variations should be monitored to determine whether the fluctuations are due to maintenance issues or reporting issues C Improve coordination between paratranslt services and fixed-route services. While the number of users of the paratransit system continues to grow, the resources to operate the system have generally been stable. Due to the higher cost per trip associated with paratransit service, it is beneficial to ensure that those users of the paratranslt system who could utilize the fixed-route services do so. Also, improvement in coordination and alignment between the two modes will ensure that they operate in the most complementary and efficient fashion Bay County Trans;t Development Plan, 2003 -2007

PAGE 147

Goal 2: Expand and Enhance Fixed-Route Transit Services Initiatives A. Develop a cost-sharing model for local jurisdictions to partldpate In funding fixed-route seiVIces. Funding support at the local level Is essential for the long-term viability of the Bay Town Trolley. As discussed in other sections of this TOP, it was discovered that, on average, BTT's fixed-route peer systems cover approximately 19 percent of their operating expenses with general revenues from their local governments. OVerall, the peers cover, on average, more than 26 percent of operating expenses with local assistance, including general revenues. These systems were shown in this peer review to outperform B1T in the level of service provided as well as the level of ridership generated. A simple conclusion here is that systems with monetary support from their local governments can afford to provide better services and, therefore, realize higher levels of ridership. Out of 26 Florida transit systems that receive State Block Grant funds, 18 receive local general revenues, and B1T is currently the only system that receives no local assistance at all. Possible sources of funding at the local level Include General Revenue from the County, funds from local municipalities that are serVed by BlT, property tax revenue, local-option gas tax revenue, and support from businesses and hotels along the Beach that can fund fixed-route services on the Beach. Several options exist for the development of a cost-sharing model to fund fixed route transit s'ervices. Such a model could be determined on a per capita basis in each jurisdiction, or it could be based on the proportion of transit service hours or transit service coverage within each jurisdiction. B. Continue to implement fixed-route network recommended In the 1999 TDP. Olapter Three OVer the past three years since the 1999 TOP update, BIT has made significant progress in this area. Changes made thus far have been well-received by passengers, and ridership continues to increase considerably in FY 2002. 135

PAGE 148

136 C Improve frequency of transit services. The results of the on-board survey indicate that, out of 20 performance characteristics, current BTT riders are least satisfied with the frequency of service. In addition, during the interview prooess, community leade rs expressed that the low frequency of service is an inhibitor to attracting ridership. The fixed-route network, as designed in the 1999 TOP, is based on a frequency of 60 minutes on each route BTT should continue to work toward implementing 6Q-minute frequenci es on all ro utes as funding allows, and then gradually bring frequencies to 30 minutes. D. Explore the feasibility of an improved span of service for transit services. The BTT on-board survey results also indica te that, out of 20 performance characteristics, the item that causes the second-least leve l of satisfaction is the time that the latest Trolleys run in the evenings. Riders also expressed dissatisfaction with the time that the earliest Trolleys run in the mornings. During the community leader interviews, a common topic was job acoess. Specifically, several discussions centered on how some workers who are able to use the Trolley to ge t to their jobs in the mornings must often make other arrangements to get home after their shifts because the Trolley has stopped running by that time. Based on these findings, as resources allow, BTT should first work toward increasi ng the evening span of servioe, and then increase the morning span. Continue to seek partnerships to make transit improvements. Recently, the Gulf Coast Women's C lub approached BTT regarding the sponsorship of a passenger shelter at Panama City's Qty Hall. Various segments of the community need to be brought together to make this happen. This approach serves as a good model for the formation of partnerships that can be developed to make transit improvements in Bay County. F. Continue to acquire vehfdes for the provision of fixed -route transit service. The peer review for BTT indicates that the Trolley is the smallest of its peers; the next smallest system operates five peak vehicles. To implement all the Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 149

aspects of the route network outlined in the 1999 TOP (last majo r update) and to ensure an adequate spare ratio, the system should work toward fleet expansion BIT sh o uld acqu i re vehicles to expand fixed-route service according to available fund ing from Federal, State, and local sources G. Continue to utilize market-driven approaches to Increase ridership. BIT shou l d continue to work through the contracted marketing firm to make transit services appeal to the transit-dependent, high school and college students, senior citizens, tourists, and lower income working adults. If. Continue to monitor performance of Trolley services according to service standards. In the 1999 TOP, service standards were established for the Trolley system covering FY 2000 to FY 2004. It was shown in Chapter Two of this TOP (Table ll-16 on page 122) that BTT has thus far been meeting or exceeding the set performance goals The performance monitoring should continue, and new performance goa l s should be determined based on the current status of the route network implementation and the most recent peer system data L Position BTT to expand fixed-route services as growth In new residential and commerdal developments occur. Chapter Three Duling the course of the community leader interviews a desire was expressed for BIT to grow as the community grows. BTT should continue to keep Informed of new development in the county, specifically the residential deve l opment planned for the north and northwestern portions of the county, changes along the Beaches, includ ing the trend toward high-rise condominiums and apartments, as well as developments such as Pier Park, which will contain a dty park, 50 acres of retail outlet shopping and dining, and 70 acres of commercia l retail parcels Other major employers are planning significant expans i ons in the near future, Includ i ng Trane, Allied, and Nextel. Finally, BTT should keep informed regarding any plans for a new airport in the county These developments will help to guide service expansions in the coming years. 137

PAGE 150

J. Increase transit fares from a base price of $0.50 to $1.00. The peer review analysis conducted for Chapter Two of this TOP found that BTT has one of the lowest base fares among similar small transit systems. Most of BTT's peers have base fares of $1.00. Because the demand for transit ridership is considered to be relatively inelastic with respect to the fare, an increased fare will result in increased revenues for the system. Goal 3 : Broaden Community SUpport for and Usage of Fixed-Route Transit Services 138 ln&i!tives A. Expand communications program. Transit's image in Bay County, though significantly improved from three years ago, remains uncertain. t>s BTT makes its case for local funding for fixed-route services, communication will take on even greater importance. BTT should strive to make presentations on service initiatives to jurisdictions The system should also communicate proposals for new services and transit's role and benefits to the community. While BTT has made progress in these areas since the 1999 TOP, particularly with regard to its community relations and outreach, the efforts should be continued and enhanced B. Continue to grow tfle Transit Alliance Program With community groups. BTT staff has worked closely with Bay High School over the past three years. In addition, the MPO created a portable display that staff can take to various events. In the past, the League of Women has taken an official position supporting transit. The challenge for BTT staff continues to be to locate other community groups who have an interest in transportation. Natural alliances include the Bicycle/Pedestrian committee of the MPO and the TO Local COOrdinating Board. Potential alliances could include Gulf Coast Community College, the Bay County School Board, and the Tourist Development Council. The program is one way to expand communications for transit by creating advocates and spokespersons for the expansion of the transit system. It also requires the transit system to be responsive to Its allies in meeting and promoting their interests In the community &y County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 151

C Continue marketing efforts. The transit system and MPO shoul d continually build upon their marketing plan as services, service areas, and customer bases emerge. As service improvements, changes, and service types are altered to meet market demand, BTI should be prepared to market those changes to stimulate usage of transit. As Bay County i s making progress toward creating a long-term viable transit system, marketing tools designed to maintai n existing customers and attract new customers will continue to be of critical importance. D. Develop a mission and vision statement. BTI would benefit from developing a mission and/or vision statement that will help the system focus on Its goals, its purpose, and its role in the community. A mission and vision statement, while seemingly simple, can help the system set priorities and guide the system as it gradually grows and expands. The statement should become a part of the system's identity and be included on route maps and schedules, etc., and also assists community leaders in communicating with their constituencies. Establish an Identity for transit services on the Beach. Many fixed-route transit systems In Florida that operate in coastal communities have separate "beach trolley" service that operates In their beach communities, often with different schedules and service spans that are sometimes seasonal in nature. Typically, trolley-like vehicles are used for these services to better fit in with a beach environment and to separate the service from the regular fixed route bus service in the community. BTT is somewhat ahead in this regard since it already operates using trolley-like vehicles on Its ent ire fixed-route network. Transit service on the Beach was discussed In many of the community leader interviews that were conducted as part of this TOP. While increased service frequency, increased hours of operation, and increased days of service are desirable for the entire service, several interview partidpants expressed a desire to see these types of improvements on the Beach exclusively, at least during the peak visitor season. BTI should work with the Tourist Development Council, and the hotels and businesses on the Beach to fund frequency and service span Improvements, at least during peak season, for the transit service that operates Chapter Three 139

PAGE 152

140 on the Beach. FOOT and the MPO have entered into a Joint Partidpation Agreement to fund improvements to services to and on the beaches. Goal 4: Continue to Focus on Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction Initi{ltives A. Create individual schedules and a new system map for the Bay Town Trolley. The concept of user-friendly schedules and system maps is one that has plagued the transit industry to the degree that multiple approaches have been tried and discarded. Typically, a bus schedule looks the same nationwide-it usually contains a map of the route, time-points from the beginning to the end of the line, separate timetables for "outbound" and "inbound" trips, and individual trip times. The current system map/schedule for BlT contains a multitude of time points and variations for each loop. As services are redesigned, the more standard approach should be utilized. In addition, BlT shoul d keep apprised of ongoing research regarding the design of system route maps and information (specifically, a study being conducted by CUTR) and incorporate aoy lessons learned into the design of their maps and schedules. B. Explore the feasibility of creating additional fare media and instruments. Since the 1999 TOP Update, B1T has instituted a monthly Trolley Pass. During this time, the percentage of customers paying the full cash fare declined from 64 percent to 51 percent, according to the on-board survey conducted as part of this TOP. This decline can be attributed exclusively to the implementation of the Pass, as 13 percent of riders Indicated that they paid their fare using the Trolley Pass. However, there are still several other instruments that customers can use to pay for their trips. Fare media also play a role in generating revenues from those agendes who purchase them In bulk as a benefit to their clientele. Finally, in many instances, employers purchase fare media for their employees. Passes should also be developed in weekly increments for both multi-ride (punch passes) and unlimited ride passes. Consideration should be given to discounts for customers who can afford to purchase their transportation in quantity. Bay County Transit Develcpment Pfan, 2003 2007

PAGE 153

C Expand Passenger Amenities Program Since the 1999 TOP update, jurisdictions serving on the MPO agreed to permit and allow the installation of passenger shelters Locations would be major stops and transfer locations including the system transfer point at Target, GCCC, Wai Mart on Tyndall Parkway, and the proposed Downtown Panama City City Hall location. In addition to shelters, passenger amenities should Include Information kiosks at Trolley stops, street furniture, trash cans, lighting, etc. The program has the objective of being flexible enough to I ncorporate different design features based on compatibility with surrounding land uses, customer demand, artistic and creative elements, and community values . Goal 5: Continue to Add Value to tfle Community Initiatives A. As feasible, provide transportation seNices to community events. During the peak tourist season, there may be events out on the beaches that are of Interest to residents and visitors alike. Community event transportation constitutes an opportunity to give residents experience with transit that they might not otherwise have. As the number of trolley vehicles increases, BTT could utilize GCCC as a park-and-ride to provide transportation over the Hathaway Bridge to the beach for weekend events. BTT should look for opportunities to provide community event tranSPortation and then detennine the feasibility of contributing these services on a case-by-case basis, based on available resources, including vehicles and labor. B. Continue to provide community service Ch8pter Three The provision of community service is another way for the transit system to experience increased visibility in the county. BTT should strive to provide community service when opportunities arise. 141

PAGE 154

Goal 6: Transition Federal Grantee Status and Responsibility for Transportation Serv'ices to Local Control in Bay County The institutional relationship established for federal and state grantee status has always been unusual in Bay County. The Panama Oty Urbanized Area MPO is the designated grantee; however, the staff for the MPO Is located In Pensacola. The Bay County Council on Aging cannot be the grantee because it is a private, not-for-profit entity and not a public agency. Grantee status entails a number of responsibilities including grants administration, procurement of all items purchased under a grant, accounts receivable and payab l e for every purchase, grant invoicing, meeting all Federal requirements (DBE plan, EEO plan, Title VI, etc.), administering public hearings for fare and service changes, administering all services under contract to private vendors, and a host of other administrative responsibilities. Responsibility for transportation services includes all service planning, monitoring, short-range plans, vehicle procurement, vehicle maintenance, service quality, facility upgrades, etc. The fact is that the MPO is set up to be a planning agency, not an operating agency. Transportation services have grown significantly to be more successful in Bay County, but the practical applications of having a staff that is located 100 miles away is becoming more unmanageable. Local transit systems should be under local control, and the intent of this goal is to create a mechanism by which status and responsibility are transferred to a local, public, eligible grant redpient. 142 [nitiatives A. Begin discussions with Bay County and the Panama Oty MPO to transfer administrative functions for paratransit and fixed-route systems to a public agency. The primary advantage of this initiative for Bay County is that there is a local, established and longstanding transportation provider in the region that can assume a vast majority of the operational and administrative responsibilities. Therefore, the County would be taking on a program that does have a significant revenue stream including Federal, State, Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, and funds from local sponsors of paratransit service to cover system expenses. The County would also be able to use Federal grants to fund a position to oversee grants administration and transportation services Therefore, the County has significant opportunities to localize the system while Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 155

manag i ng Its financial liability The MPO staff should go to great lengths to explain all of the mechanisms available to Bay County to assume these responsibilities without committing significant ad valorem funds. B. Develop a transition plan for Bay County to assume Federal and State grantee status. Chapter Three In keeping with Its planning responsibility, the MPO should develop a detailed transition plan for the County In order to have the smoothest possible transition with minimal impact on the public. The MPO has the resources to develop such a plan because of the years of experience the staff has in fulfilling all of the responsibilities This plan should address all responsibilities of Federal and state grantee status, ere responsibilities and a 12 month Implementation plan that could be executed at any time. 143

PAGE 156

REVIEW OF PLANS, LEGISLA1ION1 AND OTHER REPORTS Federal Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21" Century In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21" Century, which was a follow-up bill to the previous Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Following is a summary of opportunities for urban areas under 200,000 population. SIP io TEA-21 The STP provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects on any federal-aid highway, induding transit capital projects and public bus terminals and facilities TEA-21 expands and clarifies STP eligibilities, such as programs to fund the modification of sidewalks to meet ADA requirements and infrastructure-based ITS capital improvements. Funding flexibility features established by ISTEA were retained in this Act MPOs have the authority to transfer or set aside STP funds for use by public transit operators. However, the wording is different for Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) than for urbanized areas under 200,000. The following are selections from federal law that establish the process for project selection from an approved MPO TIP: 23 C.F.R Part 450, Subpart C-Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming 144 '1n areas not designated as a Tt7Jnsportation Management Area ... projects to be implemented using Title 23 funds other than Fedet7JIIands projects or Fedet7JI Trans1l Act funds shall be selected by the state and/or transit operator, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Planning Organization from the approved Tt7Jnsportation Improvement Program ... n Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 157

And, In contrast: Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century {TEA-21} 77tle I, Subtitle B, Section 1203 (i)(4)(A) ''All federally funded projects carried out within the boundaries of a TMA under this title or under Chapter 53 of 77tle 49 shalf be selected for implementation . by the MPO for the area In amsultation With the state and any affected public transit operator. u In practice in the State of Florida, this language means that for MPOs with greater than 200,000 population, the FOOT must implement projects at the will of the local MPO whereas in areas under 200,000 population the FOOT must only with the local MPOs and transit operators. UrPaolzed Area Formula Program AuthoriZations totaling $18 billion for the 6-years of TEA-21 are provided for this program. For urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000, funding may be used for either capital or operating costs at the option of the local area and without limitation. For areas over 200,000 in population, there no longer is an operating subsidy available. However, the definition of has been revised to indude preventative maintenance and the provision of non-fixed route paratransit transportation services in accordance with the ADA. The provision for ADA services Is limited to an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the redpient's annual formula apportionment Acoess to Jobs and Reverse Commute Grant Program The Act created a new program for job access. The program is funded for FYs 1999 with $400 million from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and an additional $350 million from the General Fund. The twofold purpose of the program is (1) to develop transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and low-income individuals to and from jobs, and (2) to develop transportation services for residents of urban employment centers and rural and suburban areas to suburban employment opportunities. For areas under 200,000 In population, the state must make application for the funds. In TMAs, the MPOs will make their application for funds directly to the FTA regional office. Chapter Three 145

PAGE 158

Intelligent Tra nsportation Svstems Progrilm TEA-21 provides a total of $1.282 billion in contract authority for FYs 1998-2003 to fund the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program. Of this total, $482 million has been targeted for programs to accelerate the integration and interoperability of ITS technologies in the MPO and rural areas. Projects will be selected through competitiVe solidtation and meet certain detailed criteria. The following fiscal year limitations have been established: (1) not more than $15 million for a single metropolitan area; (2) not more than $2 million for projects in a single rural area; and (3) not more than $35 million for projects in any one State. In metropolitan areas, funding will be used primarily for ITS integration projects. For projects outside of metropolitan areas, funding may also be used for Installation. At least 10 percent of ITS integration program funds must be used in rural areas. State Florida Comprehensive Plan The State's goal for transportation as stated in Section 187.201 of Florida Statutes is: Aorida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highw ay, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes. Local Panama Oey UdJanized Area Transportation Study (2020 Plan Update) This plan update is designed to provide a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive guide to meet the area's transportation needs. Required by the Federal Highway Administration, plans are developed to assist policy makers in decision making. The plan indudes a series of 4 goals and 28 objectives that were approved in September 1999 and relate to the long range transportation network in the region. On the following page is a listing of the goa ls and objectives that relate to this TOP effort. 146 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 159

Goal A; Provide a safe and efficient transportation system to aooommodate current and future land use patterns and to maintain adopted traffic drculation level of service standards. Objective 1: Develop a Long Range Transportation Plan that identifies multimodal and intermodal transportation facilities that will function as an integrated system and address the mobility needs of the area. Objective 5: To maintain consistency with local growth management plans by maintaining coordination between transportation planning activities and local, regiona l, and state comprehensive plans. Goal B; Provide a transportation system In harmony with environmental, sodal, economic, and aesthetic features of the area. Objective 1. To reduce energy consumption by promoting alternative high occupancy vehicle (HOV) modes of transportation, such as ridesharing, transit ridership, vanpooling, etc. Objective 7 : To promote and maintain accessible services for the transportation disadvantaged in the urbanized area through coordination of local social service transportation and enhancement of the system for all citizens. Goal C; To emphasize the need to preserve and Improve the effidency of the existing transportation system. Objective 1: Minimize the need for construction of new highways by making use of the current Congestion Management System and identification of strategies to reduce travel demand, encourage alternate modes of travel, and Implement traffic operations improvements. Goal D: To provide comprehensive transportation planning which will seek alternative funding for intermodal and multlmodal projects. Chapter Three Objective 2: Obtain adequate funding for needed transportation Improvements by encouraging greater state and federal partidpation. 147

PAGE 160

Transportation DiSildvantaged Service Plan In August 2002, the most recent Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan was adopted. The p lan, as prescribed by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, Is an Integrated five year plan and operations plan for the coordinated system in the county. The plan contains 5 goals, 13 objectives, and 28 strategies to implement the service p l an Below are the goals, objectives, and strategies related to fixed-route transit service in Bay County. Goal 1: Goal 2: Ensure availability of transportation services to the Transportation Disadvantaged. Objective 1.1: Increase trips by five percent of the previous year. Strategy B: Continue to expand fixed -rout es. Ensure cost-effective and efficient transportation services. Objective 2.1: Improve cost-effectiveness in service delivery. Strategy B: Maximize use of deviated, fixedroute service provided by Bay Town Trolley (BlT). Local Comprehensive Plans CUTR reviewed the local comprehensive p l ans for the Oties of Panama City, Panama City Beach, Lynn Haven, Parker, cedar Grove, and Springfield. In all cases, there were no policies related to transit and a few dties had po li cies related to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Only Bay County had a policy ment i oning public transit, discussed below. Bay County Objective 4 17: Partidpate in the proVISIOn of public transportation insofar as such transportation can be ridership justified and financially feasible. 148 Policy 4.17.1 The County will participate through the MPO towa rd continuation of the Bay Town Trolley and Bay Coordinated Transportation programs. Performance Measure : Whether or not the County is eligible for and can justify participation in the program. Bay County Transit Develcpment Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 161

I CHAPTER FOUR: DEMAND ESTIMATION ANO INTRODUCTION In developing a five-year TDP for Bay County, two Important steps in the process include the preparation of public transportation ridership demand estimates over the planning period and an assessment of mobility needs In the county. For these tasks, demand for the Bay Town Trolley (BlT) as well as Bay Coordinated Transportation (BCT) was estimated over the five-year planning period. In addition, an assessment of mobility needs was conducted. This chapter summarizes the results of this effort and leads Into the final chapter of the TDP, which identifies and evaluates public transportation alternatives and recommendations. Various methods of estimating demand for both fixed-route transit and paratransit service and assessing mobility needs are presented and discussed herein. These techniques utilize data and findings from all previous tasks as well as operating data collected from BTT staff. The demand estimates are compared to current public transportation service to determine the extent to which transit demand exceeds existing service. The proposed goals and initiatives for the MPO and BCCOA and the existing levels and perceptions of service are also considered in gauging the need for additional and/or Improved public transportation service. A needs assessment is also included which summarizes relevant Information concerning unmet demand, service area and type of service, service span and frequency, and coordination of service with other operators that may contribute to Improved public transportation service and mobility for residents of Bay County. In addition, the Impacts of complying with the ADA are briefly examined; however, because BTT operates as a route deviation system and all its vehicles are accessible to persons with disabilities, the provision of ADA-complementary paratranslt service is not necessary. Possible public transportation alternatives for meeting the county's mobility needs were identified through the on-board survey, interviews with local officials, other forms of public participation, and through OJTR's experience in other areas similar to Bay County. CURRENT FUTURE DEMAND FOR PUBUC TRANSPORTATION There are several different methodologies available to estimate the level of demand for public transportation service in Bay County. Ch8pter Four For example, the demand for fixed-route service may be 149

PAGE 162

estimated through the use of trend analyses, peer review comparisons among similar Florida and non-Florida transit systems, fare and service elasticities, census tract analysis survey resu l ts, and results of interviews and other public involvement Demand estimates for fixed route transit, general public paratransit service, and ADA complementary paratransit service in Bay County through the year 2007 are provided in this section Demand for Fixed-Route Transit Service {BTT) Ridership Trend Analysis BTI began operating service during FY 1996 (December 1995); as such, its ridership total for the year according to National Transit Database (NTD) I nformation, 10,200 trips, was based on 10 months of data In FY 1997, BTT Increased Its ridership to 38,052 trips, as reported in the NTD In FY 2001, NTD data Indicate that ridership grew nearly 97 percent above the FY 1997 level to 74,787 trips. To provide estimates of future annua l ridership levels, exist i ng trends were extrapolated over the study period (FY 2002 -FY 2007) The ridership estimations presented in Table IV-1 below are based on BTT's historic annual operating data and do not account for any changes in the level of service provided, fare levels, or other factors (both endogenous and exogenous to BTT's operations) that may influence the number of annual passenger trips. Several attempts were made to calibrate a regression model to predict ridership that would account for changes in leve l of service or the fare; however, none of the results was found to be statistically significant for predictive purposes (due to the relatively small amount of availab l e data and the fact that BTT, as a very young system, does not yet have well-established trends over time). Ridership Annual Passenger Trips1 TableiV-1 Projected Fixed-Route Ridership for BTT (based on existing ridership trends) FY 2001 FY 20022 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 (actual) 74,787 90,000 99,300 109,100 119,300 FY 2006 130,100 ProjeCtiOnS assume a constant level of serv1ce ewer the Ume perlod (fares and other factofs are also Mid constant). 'FY 2002 ridership estimated USing bolll historiC trends and monthly ridef>hip data for FY 2002 to date. SOURCE: The data used In tills stralghtHne extrapolation wore from I!Trs NTO reports FYs 1997 ttvougll2001 FY2007 141,500 150 Bay County Transit Oevetopment Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 163

Peer Group Comparisons An alternate approach in determining the extent of transit demand is to compare per-capita ridership, service, and spending levels at BIT With those at similar systems in Florida and the southeastern United States. The peer review analysis presented earlier in this chapter summarized a wide array of data for nine transit systems (including BTT) that operate between one and nine buses in maximum fixed-route service. In addition, data was compared among a subset of the 1-to-9 group consisting of only Florida systems. Since BTT's variation from the mean of each group was similar, the entire peer group is used in this demand analysis. By taking the averages of ridership per capita, ridership per revenue mile, vehicle miles per capita, and operating expense per capita and then applying them to BTT's service area population, it is possible to estimate the level of demand for transit service in systems of BITs size, all other things being equal. Fiscal year 2000 data were used in this analysis since FY 2001 data are not yet available from the peer systems. Table N-2 lists the transit systems that, in FY 2000, operated between one and nine vehicles in maximum service, as found in the NTD. TableiV-2 Fixed-Route Peer Systems Operating Nine or Fewer Vehides Florida Peers Non-Florida Peers SunTran-OcalajMarlon MPO Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government (Houma, LA) Indian River County -Community Coach Oty of San Angelo (TX) Key West Department of Transportati on Tuscaloosa COUnty Par1<1ng & Transit Authority {Al) Bay Town Trolley Johnson City Transit System {TN) Port Artllur Transit (TX) SOURCE: 20()0 Petform8nre Eveluatlon Transit 5)&<>'7!$ PJJit U: FIXI!tf.Route Pf1er FY 1999. Prepared tor FDCfT by CUTR, USF Tampa, Dea!rober 2000. Table N-3, on the following page, presents the results of this exercise. In FY 2000, the peer group systems averaged 3.47 passenger trips per capita, while BIT generated 0.54 trips per capita. If BIT were to match the average number of trips per capita for the peer group, BIT ri dership would increase to 426,466 annual trips. Similarly, BIT provides less service, as measured by vehicle miles per capita, than the peer group average. Service levels would have to more than triple to match the peer group. Operating expenses per capita for BIT are already below the average of its peers. However, if BTT were to spend, on average, the same as their peers, the system would have approximately $1.6 million in operating expenses. Chapter Four JSJ

PAGE 164

Table IV-3 Peer Group Comparisons with BTT (Fixed-Route Systems Operating Nine or Fewer Vehldes FY 2000) Measure lilly Town Trolley Peer Group Mean Service Asea Population 122,901 480,808 Maximum Vehicles Operated 3 5 .7 Passenger Trips Per capita 0.54 3. 4 7 Vehicle M iles Per capita 1.35 4.25 Operating Expense Per cap11a $1.83 $12.83 Projected BTT Ridership Based on Peer Average 426,466 181,298 Projected BTT Ve11ide Miles Based on Peer Average 521,961 250,855 Projected BTT Operating Expense Based on Peer Averat;}e $1,576,328 $673,218 SOURCE. lr
PAGE 165

West, which, because of its high density, generates more than 10 trips per capita), which is of 1.14 trips per capita. The following years were calculated utilizing the full value of 1.52 trips per capita. These estimates hold service levels constant and, because BTT is already exceeding these estimates, it will likely experience higher ridership with expanded services TablelV-4 BTT Fixed : Route Demand Estimates' Based on the Peer Average Trips Per capita (FY 2000) Year Population Estimates' Demand Estimates 2002 64,400 73,500 2003 65,200 74,300 2004 66,000 100,300 2005 66,800 10 1 ,500 2006 67,600 102,800 2007 68,400 104,000 'Estimates were cleliwd usi n g 1.14 passenger tnps per capita ror 2002 and 2003 (three-quarters or the Rorida subset peer group mean, exducling Key West), and 1.52 trips per capita ror the remaining years (the FIOI'ida subset peer group mean). The entire Aorida subset peer group Includes Sun'Tran (Qcala/Marion MPO), Indian Rive( s COmmunity COach, Key West Department of Transportation, and STT. 25evice area population estimates are baSed on the 2000 population w i th i n a three quarter-mile buffer around B'TT'S routes (utilizing FTIS software) and Bay county population growth rates provided by BCBR. These represent updates from the previous major TOP updare. An additional method of gauging potential ridership based on peer system data is through the mean number of passenger trips per r evenue mile. Clearly, the level of system ridership is dependent on the level of service provided. For example, B1T generated 0.42 passenger trips per revenue mile of service in FY 2000 The FY 2000 peer group mean for this measure is 0.76 t rips per revenue mile; therefore, based on this figure, as BTT continues to mature it could carry approXimately 120,000 annual passengers at a constant level of service. Demand forecasts based on service levels are somewhat more refined than those based solely on area populations. While peer group analysis is useful for comparing the relative performance levels of similar systems, caution must be used In applying these results to demand estimation and needs assessment The underlying assumption that the propensity to use transit Is constant across urban i z ed areas of similar size and similar transit system characteristics ignores differences among cities such as the political environment, urban development, demographics, and quality of service. Olapter Four 153

PAGE 166

Fare and Service E/astidties Another means of estimating future demand for transit is through the use of fare and service elasticities. An elasticity Is a measure of the sensitivity of a dependent variable, such as passenger trips, to changes in an independent variable, such as fare or level of service. It Is also represented by the percent change in a dependent variable divided by the percent change In an Independent variable (and holding all other factors constant). While considerable variations can occur, especially for changes at the level of individual routes, fare and service elasticities have been shown to remain relat ively consistent across systems of all sizes at the aggregate system level. The American Public Transit Association (APTA) has published a value of -0.43 for the elastidty of ridership with respect to fare (for. systems serving areas with populations of less than one million).' According to an Ecosometrics, Inc., report, the elasticity of ridership with respect to level of service as measured by vehide miles is +0.61.2 The elasticity measures are interpreted as follows: a 10 percent Increase In the transit fare would result in a 4.3 percent decrease in ridership (all else being equal), while a 10 percent increase in the leve l of service would generate a 6.1 percent Increase in ridership (all else being equal). These elasticities show that, generally, transit ride rs are more sensitive to service levels than to the fare. On the next page, Table IV-5 presents the results of two fare pricing scenarios as well as a scenario involving an increase in the level of service. The first scenario predicts how ridership will be affected If the current fare of $0.50 were to increase to $1.00 (an increase of 100 percent). According to the elastidty measure, with a fare of $1.00, the system can expect a decrease in ridership (as measured by the number of passenger trips) of 32,158 trips, all other things being equal. However, since the demand for transit is considered inelastic with respect to fare (indicating a lesser degree of sensitivity to fare changes), the increase In revenue from riders paying the higher fare will more than offset the loss from fewer trips, resulting in an annual net flnandal gain of $5,236 (based on the average fare which, based on BlT's FY 2001 data, is 70 percent of the full fare). As discussed previously in this TOP, BlT plans to increase its base fare to $1.00 beginning in January 2003. 'AmeOOin Public Transit Association, Effet:ts of Fare C11dnges On Bus RldersiJfp (Washington: American P\blie Transit AssodatiOfl, May 1991), 7. 'Eoosometrlcs, I nc., PdtnJMge/mpaa;; of C11dnges In T/"anslt FMeS IH1d report prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation (Washington: Government Printing Office, September 1980), 65. 154 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 167

In the second pridng scenario, the effects of a fare decrease from $0.50 to $0.25 are reported. As evidenced In Table N-5, the 50 peiterit decline in the fare would cause an increase in ridership equal to 16,079 passenger trips, holding all other factors constant. Due to the inelastidty of transit demand with respect tci fares, the increase in riders will not generate enough revenue to counter the loss from the lower fare, and an annual net financial impact of -$9,820 will be realized. TableiV-5 Impacts of Fare and Service C hanges Based on E lasticity Analysis EXIsting Scemlrio1 Sam11rio2 Sceflilrio 3' M easure (FY 2001) 50-cent fare 25-cent fare 100/o Increase Increase decrease in service Fare $0.50 $1.00 $0.25 $0.50 Average Fare $0.35 $0.70 $0.18 $0.35 Vehlde Miles 190,180 190,180 190,180 209,198 Passenger Trips 74,787 42,629 90,866 79,349 Oper.rting Expense $255,810 $255,810 $255,810 $281,391 Olange In Ridership ---32,158 +16,079 +4,562 Olange In Revenue -+$5,236 -$9,820 +$1,597 Change in Operating Expense .. +$25,581 Net Financial Impact -+$5,236 $9 820 -$23,984 . Scenario 3 u1111zes lully a llocated costs per vehicle m 1le to gene
PAGE 168

The results of the elastidty calculations indicate that increasing service levels does not necessarily produce the results one might expect, since the cost involved in service expansion is significant. A 10 percent Increase in vehicle miles would represent a major challenge for any small transit agency. These results Imply that proposed servic e Improvements must be closely scrutinized for impacts on cost as well as ridership. Also important, however, is the fact that all service extensions are not equal; an improvement targeted at a specific corridor or location where there is significant demand can perform much better than aggregate averages. Table IV-6 contains the original fixed-route ridership projections from Table IV-1 as well as estimates assuming that an annual 10 percent increase in service would result in a 6.1 percent increase in ridership. This increase would be in addition to the annual ridership increases predicted by the straight-line extrapolation, which holds all exogenous factors, including service changes, constant. S inc e it may be assumed that a syste m will grow somewhere between zero and 1 0 percent annually, it is likely that, by the fiscal year 2007, BlT can generate approx imately 163,600 passenger trips (an average of the base and enhanced values for FY 2007). Table IV-6 Projected Fixed-Route Ridership for BTT-Base and Enhanced Service (based on existing ridership trends) FY 2001 i FY 2002' Annual Ridership FY 2003 FY 2004 FY2005 FY2006 (ac:tu.l) Base 74,787 90,000 99,300 109,100 119,300 130,100 (no sesvice inaeases)1 Enhhip estimated using boti1 historic !rends and monthly rider>hip data for fY 2002 to date. SOURCE: The data used i n this stra i ghN ine extrapolation were from 8TT-'s NTO reports, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001. Census Tract Analysis Census tract data can be used to compare demographic Information, particularly those characteristics that are highly correlated with a person's or househo l d's need for transit, with the county's existing transit network configuration. This type of analysis is normally useful for determin ing whether census tracts with transit-dependents characteristics are adequately served by the existing transit network. Typically, the demographic characteristics used to indicate transit-dependence indude the distribution of youths (less than 18 years old), elderly persons (65 years or older), low-income househo l ds (less than $15,000 annual household JS6 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 169

income), and zero-vehicle-ownership households. For this TOP, 2000 U.S. Census tract-level data are available for the age distribution characteristics; however, data for household income or vehicle availability have not yet been released at the census tract level. Due to the differences in the available data, the census tract analysis was not conducted for this TOP. Table IV-7, on the following page, presents the results of the census tract analysis that was performed for the 1999 TOP Update. The analysis identified a total of one primary, one secondary, and six tertiary transit-dependent census tracts. Near1y all of the tracts listed in the table are served by the existing transit network, with the exception of Tract 011 in Cedar Grove, which only is served In the southwest portion. TableiV-7 Transit Dependent Census Tracts Bay County (from 1999 TDP) Tract Routes Serving Tract Comments PRIMARY TRACTS (far above average) 020 Panama City West, Downtown routes Adequately served SECONDARY TRACTS {above 016 Panama City All routes Adequately served TERTIARY TRACTS (aVage) 022 Panamaaty West route Adequately served 011 Cedar Grove East route Southwestern portion served 021 Panama City W.S., Downtown routes Adequately sefVed 017 Panama City East route Adequately served 018 PanamaOty East rout e Adequately served 010 Springfield East route Adequately served SOURCE. Bay COUiliY 1999 Major TOP Updale, CIJTR. Complementary Paratransit Service Demand The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires all transit agencies that provide fixed-route bus service to provide complementary paratransit service, as well. Passengers who would be considered eligible for ADA complementary paratransit service are not analogous to the TO Population; ADA eligibility is more narrowly defined (category 1 and 3, as described below). The paratransit service must "shadow" the fixed-route service area and provide a comparable level of service for persons who cannot use the fixed-route service. The paratransit Ch8pter Four 157

PAGE 170

service must be comparable to the fixed r oute service in six service criteria. The service criteria, described in Section 37.31 of the regulations ( 49 CFR Part 37) are: Service area Trip purpose Response time Hours and days of service Fares capacity constraints Th r ee categories define who is eligible for the complementary paratransit servi c e mandated by ADA. The categories are l i sted below. category 1: Persons who are unable to board, ride or disembark from a vehicle even If they are able to get to the stop and even if the vehicle is accessible. Catworv 2: Persons who cannot use vehicles w i thout a lift or othe r accommodations. These persons are eligib l e for paratranslt service If accessible fixed-route vehicles are not available on the route on wh ich they need to travel when they need to travel Category 3; Persons with specific impairment related conditions who cannot trave l to a boarding location or from a disembar k ing location to their final destination Populat i on estimates for categories 1 and 3, based on the methodology presented In the ADA Paratransit Handbook prepared by the U .S. Department of Transportation, are presented in Table ill-8. category 2 was not i ncluded in these estimates because the persons included In this category can not use the fixed route system If the vehicles are not accessible. All fixed route vehicles in Bay County are accessible. The service area Includes all persons (based on 2000 Census data) living within three-quarter miles of the fixed-route system. The service area population was then estimated to grow at the same rate as the county population under estimates from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. The ADA-eligible popu l ations were determined by multiplying the service area population by 1.3 percent for category 1 and Category 3 combined, as described in the ADA Paratransit Handbook. An estimate for annua l trips was then calculated, based on an estimate of 1.2 trips per month per ADA eligib l e pers ons as suggested by the Handbook. As shown in Table IV-8, the estimate of trips that would be made by the category 1 and 3 e li gib l e populations for 2002 Is 12,061 and Is expected to grow to 12,809 by 2007. Although this analysis of the ADA-eligible population and demand is necessary for the TOP, BTI opera t es as a route deviation system Because all of the vehicles are accessible to persons with disabilities, the provision of complementary paratranslt service i s not necessary 158 Bay County Transit Development Phn, 2003 2007

PAGE 171

Ta.bleiV-8 ADA Paratransit Population and Trip Estlmates1 Bay County Population/Trips 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Estimated Selv ice hea Population 64,400 65,200 66,000 66,800 67,600 68,400 Estimate of AOAEIIglble Population 838 847 858 868 879 889 Categories 1 & 3 Estimate of ADA Trip5-12,061 12,197 12,350 12,503 12,656 12,809 categories 1 & 3 Estimates based on the methodology presented 1n the ADA Paralr/JfiSit Handtlookprepar ed by USDOT Demand for Paratransit SeJVIce Population and Trend Analysis Projections of the Potential TO Population and the TO Population for Bay County were developed using the method described in the 1993 report, Methodology Guidelines for Forecasting TD Transportation Demand at the County Level, prepared by Cl!TR for the Rorida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. The model forecasts the TD populations using data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida, and the u.s. Bureau of the census. The forecasts for Potential TO Populat ion and TD Population fo r FY 2002 through FY 2007 are shown i n Table IV-9. This population information is explained in more detail In AppendiX H. TableiV-9 Estimated TD Population, TD Demand, and TD Supply -Bay County Estimates 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Potential TO POpulation 54,591 55,552 56,531 57,527 58 ,719 59,994 TO POpulation 15,646 15,918 16,198 18,480 18,817 17 ,163 Demand for TO Service 372,851 376,579 380,345 384,148 395,788 399,746 Supply ofTD Service 248,036 250,517 253,021 255,552 258,089 260,688 Unmet Demand for TO Selvice 124,815 126,062 127,324 128,596 137 ,699 139,057 0 SOURCE. Estimates oblalned by CUTR ung the methodology described In Metho
PAGE 172

trips and general trips. Program trips are trips made by clients of social service agencies for the purpose of participating in agency programs. Examples of program trips are trips to congregate dining facilities, Head Start, and job training facilities. Generally, these trips are purchased by the agencies for their clients. Members of the Potential TO Population (which includes the TO Population) are eligible for program trips. General trips are trips made by the TO Population to destinations of their choice, not to agency-sponsored programs. Examples of general trips are trips to work or grocery stores. General trips are typically purchased through the TO Trust Fund or local sources. Only persons in the TO Population are eligible for general trips purchased through the TO Trust Fund. INTERVIEWS, SURVEY RESULTS, AND CmzEN INPUT Findings from Interviews with key local officials were discussed in detail in Chapter One. The general opinions of those interv iewed were that there is a demand or potential demand for public transportation. It is believed that latent demand exists that could be realiZed with increased service frequency and an Increased span of service (particularly later evening hours). Current users of the system were noted to be primarily senior citizens and the transit dependent who use the Trolley for work, school, and other errands. Most interview participants are seeing ridership increase as service gradually improves, and take that as an indication that usage will only continue to grow as the system expands service through new routes, increased frequency, and later evening hours. Access to jobs was discussed often in the interviews. Some can use B'TT to get to work, but are unable to use it for the return trip because it does not operate late enough This is especially true for service workers who are employed at the Mall or on the Beach. While Bay County was found to have a relatively high unemployment rate, interv iewees representing Beach businesses noted that, at any given time, there are approximately 1,000 jobs that need to be filled. With more frequent, later evening services that also operated on the weekends, it is believed that the Trolley could play a much greater role i n providing access to work. The results of the on-board Trolley survey conducted for this TOP also indicate that the primary B'TT user is transit-dependent. Nearly 50 percent of the survey respondents have annual household incomes of less than $10,000 Many riders indicate they use the system for work and school, and approximately one-quarter (26 percent) use the system for shopping or other erra n ds In addition, a majority of riders responding to the survey indicated that they use the system five days per week. One-half of B'TT r iders, according to the survey, use the Trolley because there Is no car available to them, and nearly one-quarter (24 percent) would not be able to make their trip if BTT did not exist. Not surprisingly, B'TT riders expressed a high level of 160 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 173

satisfaction with the Trolley services. However, the item that riders are least satisfied with is the service frequency, followed by the time the latest Trolleys run, the number and ease of transfers, and the travel time. If these items were to Improve, the satisfaction of current customers would be enhanced, and the system would also become more attractive to individuals who are less transit-dependent. CUTR attended a meeting of the MPO Citizens Advisory COmmittee (CAC) to gain further insight into public transportation In Bay COunty. Members of the CAC noted that, while ridership Is still low, it has been Increasing steadily, without substantial Increases In service. According to partldpants In the CAC meeting, passenger amenities such as shelters are needed to further spur demand. Also, increases i n service frequency would be needed to attract additional ridership. It was noted that people in the community are beginning to become more familiar with the Trolley and the transit-dependent now rely on it for their basic mobility needs. NEEDS AND 0PPORTUNmES The previous sections of this chapter evaluated the exist ing services and outlined demand estimates for transit and paratransit services In Bay County. In this section, approaches are discussed to continue efforts to make public transit a more meaningful resource to the Bay COunty community. Opportunities exist for the Bay Town Trolley to take a more strategic approach in expanding services, improving its Image and meaning to the community, and expanding Its customer base and community support. T he transit Industry operates in a competitive environment; automobile travel and roadways tend to dominate discussions about transportation. Exclusive focus on the automobile and road expansions, however, result in lost opportunities for those who cannot drive or do not have access to a car and ignore the Inevitable impact of population growth and subsequent traffic congestion In the public sector arena, transit competes with other essential services that are often more popular to a wider audience of taxpayers. For these reasons, transit must position itself i n a competitive marketplace and become more meaningful to the community while at the same tim e becoming a part of community life. It could be said that future survival of the Bay Town Trolley rests on its ability to seize opportunities and increase viability C/uJpter Four 161

PAGE 174

Existing Public Transportation Services Route Network BTT should continue to move toward the full implementation of the six-route network outlined in the 1999 TOP. Because the low servioe frequency was identified during the course of this TOP as bei ng a souroe of dissatisfaction among current riders (the Item with which they were least satisfied) as well as an inhibiting factor to attracting new iidership, new resources should be allocated to ensure that all routes have a frequency no greater than 60 minutes. As new vehides are procured fo r the system, the focus should be on increasing frequency as opposed to expanding service area coverage. Nonethe less, BTT should continue to be attentive to the needs of the community and keep apprised of the growth and development that I s expected to occur over the next ten years, espedally in the north/northwest portions o f the county and a l ong the Beaches. In addit ion, BTT should continue to keep informed of plans for a new airport in the county Span of SeNice Access to jobs was a recurring theme during the Interview process for this TOP. The 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. work shift Is the stap l e of most wo r kers. However, service workers usually work on rotating shifts that do not conform to the standard 8:00 to 5:00 timeframe. Some current riders are able to use the Trolley to get to their jobs, but not to get back home. In addition, some are not able to use it for work at all due to the limited service hours. Seniors are usually more flexib l e in their trave l patterns and schoo l child ren have a set pattern of morning and afternoon trips. As BTT begins to cultiVate new markets for transit service, attention should be given to the needs of those markets with servioe span adjusted accordingly. Service spans could also be applied in a flexible manner based on the nature of the service. For examp le, routes serving hotels on the beaches from Panama City could run earlier to accommodate service workers and dedicated routes on the beaches cou l d run later at night for tourists to extend their nightt ime entertainment activities. There are several t r ansit agencies in the state that operate separate schedules (frequency and service span) on their beach services; sometimes, the enhanced services are seasonal in nature. Days of SeNice Although weekend service is desirable for recreational trips, tourist trips, and service worker commutes, the message from the community continues to be for BTT to focus on the basics 162 &y County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 175

and become better and more efficient at operating the current system. The risk of implementing Sarurday and Sunday service in the short run is that low weekend ridership would only create greater image problems than already exist. However, the implem entation of Saturday, and then Sunday, service will be needed as the service continues to grow and marure, although such implementation would be beyond the timeframe of this TOP. PiiSSenger Amenities Another issue identified through the CAC workshop discussion, community leader Interviews, and the on-board survey was the lack of shelters and benches at Trolley stops. Without proper amenities to allow riders to wait comfortably for the Trolley, sheltered from the heat and rain, it will be difficult to attract potential riders and transfer additional paratransit users to the fixed route system. While obstades to the procurement of shelters exist due to the failure of any contractors to bid on the shelter RFP issued by the MPO, a definite needs exists and 8lT should continue to work with local communities to ensure the Infrastructure around the Trolley stops is adequate to allow access to stops and that amenities are provided at the most frequently used stops and transfer locations. Improved Coordination Between Rxed-Route and Paratranslt Systems While the number of users of the paratransit system (BCT) has been growing, the number of paratransit vehicles and drivers has remained the same, leading to the stretching of resources. Because of the higher cost per trip associated with paratransit service It would be beneficial to ensure that the maximum number of paratransit riders who could be utilizing the Trolley for their trips do so. To fully achieve this, Improvements are needed in the fixed-route system; however, there might be steps that can be taken to better coordinate the two services given existing resources that would ease the burden on the paratranslt system while ridership on the fixed-route system. Oatil Collection and Analysis To continue providing service planning that will make public transportation more attractive and beneficial to current and potential rid ers, it is essential that the in-house collection and analysis of operating data continue to be accurate and consistent. For BTI, the collection of such data is not only necessary for federally-required National Transit Database reporting, but provides the transit operator with a historical database that can aid in allocating scarce resources most effidently. For BCCOA, the collection of information is mandated by the Aorida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Chapter Foor 1 63

PAGE 176

Community Outreach It is clear that awareness o f the Bay Town Trolley has increased significantly over the past three years since the 1999 TOP. As stated i n the previous TOP, one of the most important components of building community sup port is the transit system knowing its oommunity and the community knowing its trans i t system. Potentia l messages to be conveyed include: We want to be a viable resource for the community. Transit is a part of an overall balanced transportation system inc luding cars, pedestrian and bicycle trave l and public transportation. As your transit system, we want to be accomplishing those things that you as a community want us to accomplish. We want to help solve the traffic congestion problems during peak tourist season so our tourist Industry can continue to grow and we can keep Bay County livable. We want to max i mize the ta l ents of all members of our community, even those who cannot afford a car, so we can increase the quality of life for all citizens. When people in the oommunity do not understand the role of transit, it is up to the transit system to communicate that ro l e. This can be accomplished through speaking engagements, school programs, senior centers, chambers of commerce, club gatherings, on the GCCC campus, etc One attitude BTT could take Is that wherever two or mo r e people congregate, BTT will be there to deliver the message about transit. Sponsorship of Community Events Visi bility for transit can be achieved through sponsorships of community events such as arts festivals, beach festiva l s, theater, cha rity events, running and bicycling events, Spring Break, etc. Sponsorships should furthe r the objective of the transit system becoming part of the life of the oommunity such that people become aware of its presence and importance. Companies often use this method to gain corporate exposure and target events wherein potential customers might be present The other advantage of sponsorship i s that It gets the l ogo of the transit system into posters, advertisements, and event t-shirts. However, the exposure comes without draining huge financia l resources for the transit system because BTT woul d not be bearing the full media costs. 164 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 177

Special Event Transportation Services Any time there is an event wherein traffic and parking are an issue, there may be an opportunity for B1T to alleviate the congestion problems by providing specified transportation from park-and-rides to the event. Obviously, the number of vehicles available for such service must be considered, as well as labor costs; however, so long as there is no regular scheduled service on weekends, B1T may be able to devote additional resources for weekend events. One important outcome of Special Event transportation is product sampling, i.e., giving members of the community who might not otherwise have ridden a bus will have an experience on transit, thus increasing exposure and visibility. Community Service Community service enables the transit system to provide one-time special transportation services for a community group as a complimentary service. As with special event transportation, community service can be used as a product sampling opportunity. However, it can also be used to target specific markets that BTT is attempting to expand. Community service is a cost-efficient way to use spare equipment and extra-board l abor when available. Source of LOCi!/ Funding Monetary support from the local community is essential for the long-term viability of the Bay Town Trolley. As discussed in Chapter Two, BTT Is the only one of Its peers (eight transit systems operating between one and nine peak vehicles) that does not receive any local assistance for its fixed-route services. In Florida, as of FY 2001, B1T is the only one, out of 26 systems that currently receive State Block Grant funds, that does not receive any local funding. Sources of funding at the federal level have been declining in recent years, and there is a growing sentiment at the federal level to provide funds to those areas who have made a local commitment to the service. BTT should work toward securing a local source of funding for the Trolley service. Possible sources of local funds indude county general revenues, funds from local municipalities, property tax revenues, local-option gas tax revenues, and contributions from hotels and businesses along the Beach for services provided on the Beach. Chapter Four 165

PAGE 178

166 Bay Ccunty Transit Development Pldn, 200J 2007

PAGE 179

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING PLAN INTRODUCTION At this point In the TOP process the focus shifts from a desaiptive, analytical approach to a future-oriented perspective. The findings presented earlier are now brought together and used to examine alternatives for public transportation in Bay County and to make recommendations for Imp rovements to existing services. To help achieve the public transportation system's proposed goals, the next section develops a series of recommendations and initiatives to be implemented over the next five years. The fina l section estimates the costs assodated with each recommendation. BTT has been operating for nearly seven years, which still dassifies It as a relatively young system. Currently, it is operated by the Bay County Council on Aging (BCCOA), Inc., under the direction of the Panama City Urbanized Area MPO. Tlie current deviated fixed-route network consists of four rubberized trolleys operating on five routes. Ridership began at low levels, but has steadily grown; nearly doubling between FY 1997 and FY 2001, and is poised to reach approximately 90,000 trips for FY 2002, an increase of 20 percent over FY 2001. Grants from the Federal Transit Administration {FTA) and the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOD supported the Trolley during its initial three-year demonstration period, and hav!! continued support to the present time. As discussed in the two previous major TOP updates, it was expected that BTT's operator would begin exploring other funding sources immediately to supplement and/or match state and federal funds i f the Tro lley was deemed successful. Paratransit service has been coordinated by BCCOA since 1983 when it was selected as the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Bay County In FY 1998, BCCOA provided or contracted for 147,960 trips. In FY 2001, the number of paratranslt trips generated was 184,674, an increase of 25 percent from FY 1998. In the 1999 TOP update, the MPO adopted a plan for Bay Town Trolley to redesign Its route network to six routes operated with seven vehide5. The estimated annual cost for the system was $615,000. Since that time, the MPO has made progress toward implementing the route network; however, there is still more to do in completing the effort. Chapter Five 167

PAGE 180

fUTURE DI.REcnON F O R PUBUC TRANSPORTATIO N IN BA Y CoUNTY The remaining questions that must be addressed regarding pub lic transportation In Bay County over th e next five years and beyond concern the future of the existing system. There are myriad Issues to consider In determining this d i rection, most importan t l y how to allocate resources for fixed-route services. Based on all of the information collected in the TOP process to this point, including the analysis of study area base data, interviews with key local offidals and community leaders, surveys of BTT riders, development of system goals and Initiatives, performance evaluations of ex i sting services, estimates of public transportation demand, an assessment of mobility needs and opportun i ties in Bay County, and based on the previous major TOP update, the following tra n sit services plan is included in this TOP. Five Year Transit Services Pla n In the 1999 major TOP update, the recommended alternative involved major changes to the fixedrou t e network. While not all o f the recommended changes have been implemented up to th i s time, it I s clear fro m recent ridership figures that the dhanges were successful and BTT has made significant progress toward the goals and initiatives outlined in the 1999 TOP. Throughout all of the tasks of this TOP process, i t has been dear that the Trolley system has done its part to prove itself as a viable young system, and those In the community are taking notice. As such, this TOP update calls for the MPO to continue the Implementation of th e redesigned route network outlined in the 1999 TOP, moving toward a nine-bus system operating on six routes. The objective of the new route network was to intensify ridership on corridors with the highest ridership, and to implement multiple transfer points with attractive fadlities and timepoints. The redesigned system, fully Implemented, would maximize travel options for those in the community and would minimize the travel time for those choosing to ride the Trolley. This update also fo cuses on loca l commitment to the Trolley system The peer review analysis I n Chapter Two found that, as of FY 2001, BTT is the only agency out of 26 State Block Grant recipients that does not recelve any local funds. It was also discovered that, on average, other small transit systems In Florida and the southeastern United States that are considered to be BITs peers cover approximately 26 pencent of their operating costs with local dollars. Hence, this alternativ e proposes the development of a local cost-sharing model for jurisdictions to p articipate I n funding the fi x ed-ro u te services. 168 Bay County Transit Development Pf8n, 20C3 2007

PAGE 181

An additional facet of local commitment is to have Federal grantee status and responsibility for transportation services under local contro l In Bay County. Currently, the Panama City MPO is the designated grantee; however, MPO staff is in Pensacola. Clearly, local transit systems should be under local control, and this alternative would provide a mechanism by which status and responsibility would be transferred from the MPO to a local eligible grant redpient As designed, the route network has bi-directional travel, a maximum of one-hour headways, and shorter travel times that would attract additional riders. Overall, schedules and user information would be simpler for riders and potential riders to understand. Also, by dedicating a portion of the route network exclusively to the beaches, BTT would b e able to provide significantly improved service to this area and would be well-positioned to attract additional market segments such as tourists, visitors, and service workers. There are advantages to local commitment, as well, including local dollars that can help improve services, as well as a safeguard against any future declines in state and federal dollars. Also, it Is clearly advantageous to have the grant recipient and responsibility in the local area as opposed to MPO staff managing transit from Pensacola. Phased Implementation of Redesigned Route Network (Goal .z Initiative B) Over the past three years, significant progress has been made In achieving the stated goals and initiatives from the 1999 TOP. Route changes that have been made so far have been well received by customers, and ridership continues to steadily grow. Members of the community have noticed the increasing visibility and usage of the system. It is recommended, then, that BTT continue this progress over the next five years. Year One-2002-2003 By the end of FY 2003, the East Route and Route 4A should be eliminated to create Routes 2 and 3 to serve the east side of the urban area, as recommended In the 1999 TOP. Both Routes will be interlined and served with one vehicle. In addition, the Beach route is scheduled for implementation in this year with 6Q-mlnute frequencies and one vehicle. Chapter Five 169

PAGE 182

Year Two2003-2004 In this year, the only major change scheduled is to Route 5, serving Target to Panama Oty Beach. This route should gain one additional vehicle and 11.75 dally revenue hours to increase the frequency from 150 minutes to 75 minutes. Year Three 2004=2005 During this year, Route 4, serving Downtown Panama Oty to Gulf Coast Community College via 1101 and 15"' Streets, should operate with one additional vehicle Also, 12 daily revenue hours should be added to increase the service frequency from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. Year Four 2,005-2006 One additional vehicle should be added to Route 1, operating from Downtown Panama City to Lynn Haven. With 12 additional daily revenue hours the frequency of this route will increase from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. '(ear Ave 2006-2007 No major service changes are scheduled for implementation in this year, according to the recommended alternative. At this time, the system will operate with ni ne vehicles on six routes. Route 5 wlll have a frequency of 75 minutes, Routes 2, 3, and 6 will have service frequencies of 60 minutes, and Routes 1 and 4 will have service frequencies of 30 minutes. Finally, this TOP update calls for frequency improvements to the most successful of the newly designed routes, inclu ding Route 5 (Target to the Beaches), Route 1 (Lynn Haven to Downtown), and Route 4 (Downtown to Gulf Coast Community College). Tables V-1 through V-6 provide an outline of the current status and a detailed five-year plan. Figure V-1 presents a map of the full system route network implementation as shown In the 1999 TOP update. 170 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 183

. . . . .. -t ...... J .. .. ;;. ...... '!>, .. ... .. "'. ' .. _,__ -' .. -.. -. . -/.;--.... ;, 1 . t f.j" _. . .-, _ _ .,.,. ... ---< 3 .... ;I .i '0 < i "' "' "' 0: : -' I <. ] 0 .;;; :r I I I 0 ------

PAGE 184

this page IS blank

PAGE 185

TableV--1 Operational and Cost Charac:teristie& Bay Town T rolley Route Network, FY 2002 We.kday Span Of Service Total Esllmated FY Weekday AnniAI 2002 AnrNal Vetliclt Reve:nue Re\!Hiue Cost Route Name ...... ... ... fteqUIMCY RequhM&nt Hours Hours {U3.041br.) Route 1 Downtown Panama City to Lynn HaYen This toute wa:; thct fnt Wnplcmc:,qtf and hoi; i'l set'o'lcc: for t-..'0 yeal$ 6:00AM &OOPM .. 1 12 3.024 $69,873 EIS1 R.ou'* In FY 2002, th$ Routeancl ttle Route 90 7 .14 t ,'Nig $41,455 4A are ii'Urlined (1 bus Ol)t!tating bath 6:00MI 6:00PM ...... 120 3 72 .. $01 .... Routt 4 Dowtllown Pal\8tna City to GCCC via 1 tth :.nd 1 Ml RoOM Ia n01 &Chedlled fot any setvice ....... c:tliW19eS Uli$ 8.'()0AJA 8:00PM .. 1 12 . ,.. $89,873 RO\Itt 5 Targte to Panama City Rouw tJ $$1\'G& Tal'l)et to City Be3eh as recommended ftom the t 999 .. TDPUII 6:lOOAM 6:00PM "' 1 12 3,024 $72.81'G Rout!! 5 Tugd to PanliiiNI N$ rout& have n o $CNicllt ch:lngt$111 Bach FY2003 6:30/IAI o..4$PIA 100 1 11.75 2.961 $71 ,064 t BN>th Route lhe Beach route ia sehed'u1ed ror i mp!emenlatiOn in FY 2003 6:00AM 6:00PM 1 12 ..... $12 ,576 Totals s 58.61 14,770 $354,473 Olapter Five 173

PAGE 186

Tabt. V-3 and C otrt < -" rTown "' .... ,.. Tot.l w .. JUy An!Wol l 20(1.6 Vof'lkM Rev.nue Rev.nue Coot ...... .... ... ....... ... ... ......... I"''' 6:00 .. 3, 024 IRo..ne 2 City Hal l to Tyn FY2006 6:00 AAI 6:45PM T5 2 23. 5 .... $153,726 Roelle t BNch Rof.lte TN$ tOIAe Ml haYC no MiMce chanoe& In FY2006 8 :00MI &OOPM .. 1 12 3,024 $78,498 Totals 8 9S.S 24,066 $624,715 174 Bay County Transit De v elopment P/;Jn, 2003 2007

PAGE 187

' Table VS O p erational and C oat Characterist icsTown Trolley Ro ute Network, FY 2006 Weel(day Span of Setvlct Toto! E&t lmat.c:IFY Annual 2<10& Annu a l Ve-hlol e Rwenge COS i n EI: OOM I 6:CIOPM Jrt vivcno J 8 :00 P lol 30 241 .... outo 2 City H#n lo Tyn dal e lth:i totl4e w11 hS\Ie no servlee Changes in O OOA/,1 6:!10 "'' IAI.f.latl a n d P.uMr 80 3.02< .oute 3 IThl$routo wil have no setvloe I n &:
PAGE 188

Vehicle Requirements -Bay C oo rdinated Transportat ion and Bay Town Trolley To continue paratransit operations and to implement the five-year transit services plan for fixed-route services, a total of 27 vehides will be replaced and 6 expansion vehicles purchased. A vehide replacement and expansion plan for BCT and BTf (Goal 1, Initiative A; Goal 2, Initiative F) i s outlined in Table V-7 below. Table V 7 hyl 2 002 Numbe r of Model Manufacture r / In v entory Yea r Model Typo Vehicles FY2002 FY FY 2 004 FY FY 20 06 FY2007 tvinibus 2 100A 1, Super Duty Minibus : : : : ,,, IVO U Minibus 0 Minivan 1 1 Supreme M i n ibus 3 3 0 M inivan 4 1 Supreme M inibus ; ; ; ; ; ; M inivan ; Minivan 2 2 2 2 2001 Sedan 1 1 200 1 T r o l ley : : : : : 4 4 Dcrado Minlbus ! Minibus 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ; T rol ley Minibus 1 1 1 1 Minibus 2 2 T rol l e y 2 Minibus 8 Minivan 1 1 1 Minivan 4 : : Minibus M inibus 3 Sedan 1 52 52 56 56 58 56 58 176 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 189

RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIC INmATIVES Paratransit Services 1. Continue to replace paratranslt vehicles as necessary and expand based on system growth (Goal1, Initiative A). In Bay County, Federal and State funds for transportation have been used primarily for capital and operating needs for Bay Coordinated Transportation (BCJ). It is recommended that, as vehicles are operated throughout their useful life BCT should oontinue to replace vehides and expand based on system growth. 2. Monitor more closely the variability and number of roadcalls for paratransit service (Goal 1, Initiative B). The number of vehicle miles between roadcalls has varied considerably over the trend period examined in this TOP (FY 1996 to FY 2001). Vehicle miles have grown steadily from FY 1996 to FY 2001, and the variation in this measure is due primarily to annual fluctuations in the number of roadcalls. These variations should be monitored to determine whether the fluctuations are due to maintenance issues or reporting issues. 3. Improve coordination between paratransit services and fixed-route services (Goal 1, Initiative C). While the number of users of the paratranslt system continues to grow, the resources to operate the system have not grown significantly. Due to the higher oost per trip associated with paratranslt service, it is beneficial to ensure that those users of the paratransit system who oould utilize the fixed -route Trolley service do so. In addition, improved coordination and alignment between the two modes wlli ensure that they operate in the most complementary and efficient manner. Fixed-Route Services 4. Develop a cost-sharing model for local jurisdictions to participate in funding fixed-route services (Goal 2, Initiative A}. Chapter Five 177

PAGE 190

178 Funding support at the local level is essential for the long-term viability of the Bay Town Trolley. As discussed in other sections of this TOP, it was discovered that, on average, BTI's fixed-route peer systems cover approximately 19 percent of their operating expenses with general revenues from their local governments. Overall, the peers cover, on average, more than 26 percent of operating expenses with local assistance, including general revenues. These systems were shown in this peer review to outperform BlT in the level of service provided as well as the level of ridership generated. It can be concluded, then, that systems with monetary support from their local governments can afford to provide better services and, therefore, realize higher leve ls of ridership. Out of 26 Florida transit systems that receive State Block Grant funds, BlT is currently the only system that receives no loca l assistance at all. Possible sources of funding at the local level inc lude General Revenue from the County, funds from local municipalities that are served by BlT, property tax revenue, local-option gas tax revenue, and support from businesses and hotels along the Beach that can fund fixed-route services on the Beach. Several options exist for the development of a cost-sharing model to fund fixed-route transit services. Such a model could be determined on a per capita basis in each jurisdiction, or it could be based on the proportion of transit service hours or transit service coverage within each jurisd iction For example, if Bay County and its juris dictions wanted to help fund the system at a rate on average with its peers, it should strive to cover approximately 20 percent of BITs operating expenses. For FY 2003 this would mean a contribution of approximately $71,000 (based on FY 2003 projected operating expenses of $354,473). I n FY 2007, this contribution would grow to approximately $152,000 (based on FY 2007 operating expenses of $760,595). It should be noted that the 20 percent benchmark Is simply the average of BITs peer transit systems, and local funding could be provided at a rate above or below this level, depending on resource availability. S. Continue to implement ffxed-route network recommended In the 1999 TDP (Goal 4 Initiatives 8 and C; Initiative E). S ince the 1999 TOP update, BTI has been making progress on the implementation of the proposed route network. Changes made thus far have been well-received by passengers, and ridership continues to increase considerably in FY 2002. According to the phased implementation plan discussed previously in this section, changes would be Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 191

made in each of the first four years of this five-year plan. In the fifth year, FY 2007, the Trolley service will operate on six routes with nine vehicles. 6. Continue to acquire vehides for the provision of fixed-route transit seNice, and replace as necessary (Goal2, Initiatives 8, c; and F). According to the fixed-route peer review analysis conducted in Chapter Two, BTT is one of the smallest transit systems currently operating service. To Implement all aspects of the route network outlined in the 1999 TOP, and to ensure an adequate spare ratio, the system should continue to work toward fleet expansion. This expansion should occur based on available funding from Federal, State, and local sources. 7. Establish partnerships with at least one major community resource to fund transit improvements (Goal2, Initiative E). Potential partners include the jurisdictions, the Bay County School Board, and the hospitality industry on the beaches. This initiative is important to building relationships in the community that can make transit more Viable In the long run. The Gulf Coast Women's Club approaching BTT regarding the sponsorship of a passenger shelter at Panama City's City Hall Is an example of this. While various segments of the community need to be brought together to produce the desired result, this approach serves as a good model for the fonnatlon of such partnerships. 8. Continue to monitor Trolley system performance according to service standards (Goa/2, Initiative H). As the fixed-route network continues to undergo changes, it is expected that the performance of the system will a lso change. As designed, the redesigned route network should continue to attract additional riders as well as additional usage from existing riders. Although increased ridership is expected, it is also necessary to continue to allow for the maturation of the new serVices over time. In the 1999 TOP, serVice standards were established for the Trolley system covering FY 2000 to FY 2004. It was shown in Table 11-16 (on page 122) that BTT has thus far been meeting or exceeding these goals. Given the fact that BTT has been meeting or exceeding the service standards, and given the current status of the route network Implementation, the serVice standards were updated based on the most recent peer Chapter Five 179

PAGE 192

system information. Table V-8 outlines the performance measures for the five-year period as well as the most recent fiscal year, FY 2002. Table V-8 BTT Performance Goals, FY 2002-2007 BTT Performance Goals Performance FY 2000 Measure Pee< Mean FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Passenger Trips per 11.43 6.86 8.57 8.57 9.14 11.43 11.43 Revenue Hour Passenger Trips Per 0.76 0.46 0.57 0.57 0.61 0.76 0.76 Reve11ue Mile Op. Expense per $3.82 $3.44 $3.58 $3.72 $3.87 $4.02 $4.18 Passenger Trip NOTE. As n the 1999 TOP, FY 2002 goals are based on 60% of the peer average for trips per revenue hour and revenue mite FO< these two measures, llle goal iS 75% of the peer a"""ge i n FYs 2003 and 2004, 80% ot llle peer average i n FY 2005, and 100% of the peer average in FYs 2006 and 2007. The gool for expense per trip is set at 10% below llle pee r ._ge for FYS 2002 to 2006, and 15% below llle peer average in FY 2007 (this goal also increases four pe
PAGE 193

12. Sponsor at least three community events per year (Goal3, InitiatiVe A). To continue to gain exposure and visibility for transit, B1T should target three community events per year to provide some level of sponsorship, whether through transportation services or paid sponsorship 13. Conduct rider promotions as new Trolley services continue to be implemented {Goal 2, Initiative G; Goal 3, Initiatives A and C). Future rider promotions should be centered around the imple m entation of new T r olley routes as set forth in the impl e mentation section outlined previously. Generating a sense of excitement, free gift: giveaways, and celebrations of new services should be the focus of these promotions. 14. Conduct focus groups with GCCl:' students {Goal3, Initiative A}. Focus groups should continue to be held with GCCC students to determine the current l eve l of appeal of the Trolley system as well as enhancements that wou l d make the system more appealing to college students 15. Conduct promotions for GCCC stlldents at least twice annually {Goal 2, Initiative G; Goal 3, Initiatives A and C). One of these p romotions should focus on the Fall semeste r with incoming freshman and other students. B1T should maintain a presence on campus during the first week of dasses and provide schedules, system maps, and other promotional Items. In the Spring, another promotion should be conducted. 16. Continue to create transit alliances (Goa/3, Initiative 8). B1T staff has worked closely with Bay High School over the past three years. In addition, the MPO created a portable display that staff can take to various events In the past, the League of Women has taken an offidal position supporting t r ansit. The challenge for B1T staff continues to be to locate other community groups who have an interest in transportation. N atura l alliances include the Bicycle/Pedestrian committee of the MPO and the TO Local COor dinating Board. Potential alliances could Include Gulf Chapter Five 181

PAGE 194

Coast Community College, the Bay County SChool Board, and the Tourist Development Council. 17. Develop a mission andjor vision statement Initiative D). BTI would benefit from developing a mission and/or vision statement that will help the system focus on its goals, its purpose, and its role i n the community. A mission and vision statement, while seemingly simple, will help the system set priorities and guide the system as it gradually grows and expands. The statement should become a part of the system's identity and be included on route maps and schedules, etc., and also assists community leaders in commun icating with their constituencies. 18. Create individual schedules and a new system map for the Bay Town Trolfey {Goal 4, Initiative A). As services are redesigned, BTI should create new schedules and a system map. In addition, BTI should keep apprised of ongoing research regarding the design of system route maps and Information (specifically, a study being conducted by CUTR) and incorporate any lessons learned into the design of their maps and schedules. 19. Expand the Passenger Amenities Program {Goal 4, Initiative C). Since the 1999 TOP update, jurisdictions serving on the MPO agreed to permit and allow the installation of passenger shelters. Locations would be major stops and transfer locations Including the system transfer point at Target, GCCC, Wai-Mart on Tyndall Parkway, and the proposed Downtown Panama City City Hall location. In addition to shelters, passenger amenities should include information kiosks at T rolley stops, street furniture, trash cans, lighting, etc. 20. Provide community service to GCCC students, school students, and/or other groups at feast 12 times per year (Goal .5; Initiatives A and 8). BTI should strive to provide community service when opportunities arise. In addition, as resources allow, BTI should provide transportation to community events. 21. Upgrade radio system to Bay County's new 800 MHZ technology (Goal 1, Initiative C; Initiative I; and Goal .5; Initiative 8). 182 Bay County Tl'ilnsit Oeve/opment Plan, 2()()32007

PAGE 195

The radio system currently being operated by BCCOA does not adequately cover the county. There are far reaches of the county wherein the system cannot establish any contact. Bay County recently installed a new 800 MHZ radio system that provides excellent coverage. The County has indicated that there is sufficient space on the system and that BCCOA would be considered approved users. The system has capabilities beyond the basic two-way radio system, and has advantages induding the sharing of information in emergency situations among local county, dty, and law enforcement personnel who are all using this system. 22. Begin discussions with Bay County and the Panama aty MPO to transfer administrative functions for paratranslt and fixed-route services to a public agency (Goal Initiative A). The primary advantage of this initiative for Bay county Is that there Is a local, established and longstanding transportation provider in the region that can assume a vast majority of the operational and administrative responsibilities. Therefore, the County would be taking on a program that does have a significant revenue stream including Federal, State, Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, and funds from local sponsors of paratransit service to cover system expenses. The County would also be able to use Federal grants to fund a position to oversee grants administration and transportation services. 23. Develop a transition plan to Bay County to assume Federal and State grantee status (Goal 6, Initiative B). In keeping with Its planning responsibility, the MPO should develop a detailed transition plan for the County in order to have the smoothest possible transition with minimal impact on the public. This plan should address all responsibilities of Federal and State grantee status, CTC responsibilities, and a 12-month implement ation plan that could be executed at any time. CAPITAL AND OPERATING PLAN Table V-9 on the following pages provides the five-year capital and operating improvement program to implement the fixed-route and paratranslt service plan. Following Table V-9, Table VlO provides a summary of capital and operating expenses and revenues, and shows funded and unfunded projects for the five-year period. ChapterRve 183

PAGE 196

t;'> :::. 1r ii .g-... <> "' PROJECT ITE M 1 2 3 s 6 7 PROJECT OESCRIP110N Oporating Assistance FOOT Corridor Projtct Senri<::e to and on u .s. 98 TroUeys: I Expansion (6) Minibuses: I Replacement (19) Min ivans: I Repi>COfllenl ( 7 ) Sedan: Rei)IOCCmeJll(1) Fbced Route Service Enhancements -1"1)1em&ntati0n or Routes 2. 3 an<:16 -Frequency improwmeots to Roules 5. 1 Ond4 TableV-9 Bay County Capital and Operating Plan FY 2003 -2007 FY 2003 FY"'0 4 ""2005 FY 2006 $401.000 $401.000 $401 .000 $401.000 $329.867 $329 667 $341 .278 $354.284 $1.469,128 $1.527 893 $1.589 .009 $1.652.569 M O; "1'"' 258 1nl
PAGE 197

i PROJECT ITE M C T DESCRI P'IIOII 8 Shortors and P8Henger Amonltloa Total : 9 lliut< otiog ond Co-Tolal: 10 Sehodulot and Sy$t&m Map: D11tg n Total: 1 1 khoduiM ond S)'Stom Mop: Prlnllng Tolal : 12 FocwGroups 1 3 OponttngiMaJntonane e B ase ToCat PD&E $150,000 ,.,.,;., 21 Boy County 800 MHZ Rodio Syatom ToCat ... 3l Table V-9, con t inued Clp ltal and Operating Plan ""2M3 fY2004 FY 2 005 $20,000 $20,00 0 $20 000 $17,500 $87 500 $87,500 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $7.5,000 $ 1,500 $ 150,0 00 $ 1,375,000 FY 2001 s:zo ,ooo $17,500 $ 25,000 $1! 0 000 FIVE-YEAR FUND fY 2007 TOTAL $20,000 $100 ,000 FTASeclion 5307 Toil R evenue Oecil s $87,500 $87, 500 FTASedon$307 Toll Revenue Credits FTA Soelion 5307, T ol l . ns.ooo $ 12 5 ,000 Locol F..-.1& t.ocatfunds $1, 525 ,000 FOOT Candldalo I $150,0 00 FTA Soellon 5307

PAGE 198

Table V lO Bay County Operating and capital Financia l Summary ITEM FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 <>p.rallng expe:nses & Revenues Flx OdRoute Operating Cool' $379 473 $558 708 $649 715 $756 342 $ 785,595 Other ...,.,.. $ 1 ,878, 616 S 1 9$3 781 S 2 031 9 1 2 52.113 ,198 $ 2 1 97,716 Tolal OpotaUng El<-$2,258 089 S2.51 2 ,4M $2 181 627 $2.669 ,530 $2.N3, 311 Revenue a FT A F undlng $401,000 $401 000 $401 000 $401 000 $401,000 FOOT Block Grant $330,759 $329,867 $329,867 $341,278 $354, 284 Fi>c&dRoute Farebo.x Revenue" S40,000 $65,000 $76,000 $83 ,000 $99 ,000 FOOT Corridor $85,000 $165,000 S165,000 $165,000 S165,000 LOc a l Funds (Purchase of Sotviee} $1,469,128 $1,527,8 9 3 $1, 589 ,009 $ 1 652.569 $1,718,672 Total RIVIOUH $2,325,887 $2,488,760 $2.560 ,876 $2 ,642,847 $2, 737,158 Current Unfunded Op41rallng $23 701 $120,751 $226 ,683 $ 245,355 C.pha. l Ex.""""' & RevenUH Expen .. a Tr o lleyo $300,000 S300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 Sedans $0 $0 $0 so $ 2 0,000 M inivans so $35,000 $140,000 $0 $70 ,000 M inibuses so $165,000 $440,000 $275,000 $16 5 ,000 Shetters & Pa$6enger Amenities $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20 000 Mafkeclng and Communication$ Ouueach $87,500 $87 ,50 0 $87,500 $87,500 $87,500 Scrledules and System Map: Design 510,000 s o $0 $0 so Operalk>g aocl t.lo intenance Base $150 ,000 $ 1 ,375,000 so so so Ba y County 800 MHZ Radio Syotem so so so $150,000 so T Olal El
PAGE 199

' APPENDICES

PAGE 200

APPENDIX A Bay County Census Data Tables

PAGE 201

A-2 Bay County Transit Development Pl8n, 20().] -2007

PAGE 202

Table A-1 Population and Population Density Bay County, 2000 Population Tract Population Land Area D e ntity 000 20 0 7829 322 .88 2425 0003 0 0 6988 1 69 28 4128 000400 7134 33.44 213.35 0005(10 3751 1 42 .01 26.4 1 000600 1017 30.92 32.89 000700 2 7 57 1 23 .66 22.30 0008 0 1 7017 5.70 1230.71 000802 8695 7 3 1 1189.29 0009 00 4583 3.89 1179.49 00100 0 2431 2. 1 0 1155 .74 001 100 5087 2.0 1 2527.42 001200 2815 2.66 1 059 .94 0013 0 0 8388 9.44 886 38 001 401 7878 7.63 1006 .92 001402 5572 4.94 1126.9 1 00150 1 3651 4 .80 793 .33 001502 5677 2 .85 1 988.83 001600 3780 2 .29 1641 .19 001700 3067 120 2552.72 001800 1680 1.02 1 648.07 001900 4506 2.4 1 187024 002000 1980 2.17 902 .61 0022 0 0 4098 2.25 1817.37 0 02300 3953 2.09 1 88 7.06 002400 4 395 3.26 1347.25 002500 303 1 4 .92 616.67 002601 1555 5 .37 289.32 0026 02 1 3 393 61. 9 1 216.34 002700 1177 1 73 .34 1 80.51 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007 A-3

PAGE 203

0005()0 000801 002602 0027 00 837 1923 2686 Table A Age Distribution Bay Cou nty, 2 000 640 1236 1899 683 100 711 1099 2209 16 9 7 653 1115 2 302 598 340 4 1 9 2 4 17 1 880 & y County T171nsit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 204

Table A-3 Households and Household Density Bay County 2000 500 1214 14 2 01 801 2802 5.70 1000 930 2 .10 1300 9.44 1501 4 .80 1700 1201 1 .20 2000 856 2.17 2400 1854 3 28 2802 6095 61 91 Bay County Transit DeveJcpment Plan, 2003-2007 8 .66 491.44 342. 1 1 307 03 999.61 394.20 568.33 96,45 73 .88 A-5

PAGE 205

&y G>unty Transit Development Pliln, 2iJ03 2007

PAGE 206

APPENDIXB BTT On-Board Survey Instrument and Interview Discussion Guide )

PAGE 207

8-2 BIJy County Tr.tnsft Development Plan, 200.1-2007

PAGE 208

BAY TOW N TR OL LEY (BTT) CUSTOME R SURVEY s. You will got off this trolley at? DEAR TRO!.LEY CUSTOMER: BTT WQI:I d lllckt or IOM :_Walked than 3 b l ocks _Rode wlh someone v.flo P3fked ,_Bi cyc l e r_Taxi _Got dropped otf _other 5. Whera aro you going on (please .I only your F INAL desHnatJon} 1_Home 2_Work _College '_Visiting/Recreation _:... Oocto r/O e ntist _Chu rch Scl>ool S h opplnOfErrands Other (l)leuo 6. Do you nood to transfer to complete!!:!!! trip? Yes t_No I F Ttansfen1ng TO tro ll ey route 1 2 4 4A 5 7. How many day& per week do Y.OU mako Jl!f: trip? (ploaso .I only ONE) 1 5 days per week : 4 days 3 days per week. 2 days p e r wee k '_ t 3 lim es per month 1 day per week Fir&t tfme ricllng _Visitor/tourist rfdc orty for duration of s.tay 1 Wark 3 b locks o r Jess _Ri do with $0/nGOM who parked Walk more than 3 blocks _Bicycle ., Orlvo miles (please 1 _Taxi _:_Get pJcked up _Other 10. What o f fare do you us.yal!ypaywhen you ride the trolley? '-Regul ar F a re (50) _..:Student F a re ( 2 5} OoubSe Fare-Traveling to Scath Route 5 , _Senior Citi ZCM. PGfSon wl Disab ility (25) _Trolley Pass (monthly) 11 How ofte n do you ride tho troUoy? ./ onl rONE) 5 days per week z 4 days per week 3 days per week 2 cfay$ por weok 1 3 times per rrtOf!l h 1 day per week _Fi rst ttne rfclfng V.silorllourist t ide on l y fof dur a tion o f stay 12.. What Is the moa-t fmoortant rcuon you rfdo tho trolley? (please ,/only O NE) 1 _I don' t drive s Paf.cil'\9 ls difficu l l/oxpens i vo : Car is not available _Troll ey is mote conve n ient _Trolley Is more economical t _TraffiC i s IOO bad t I don't have a valid drivetslloense P refer convenience of partdng garage 13. How Would you make this trip tf not by trolley? (plca:so ,/onl y ONE) ,_onve _Wal k Other :r Rfde YMh someone. _Wouldn't make trip 14. How long have you b een using BTT services? 1 1$ tho first day t,han 1 month 7 to 12 months: ._1102years ,_2 !0 4 years 1 to 6 months -. 1 s. Your 490 I$.., Undor15 t_1Sto18 ) 19to24 25to34 ._35k>44 ._4Sto49 1 _Mom than 4 )'ears 7_501064 ._ssto64 6 5 or older (PLEASE COMPLETE OTHER S lOE OF SURVEY)

PAGE 209

16. Your gender is. .. Male a Female t7. Your tthnlc heritage i s ... (plta.M ./only ONE) Hispanic _NaUYt Arnelk:an ,_wl'lite -- _Asian ._OOhe< --ta. Wh.t wa5 the rangt of )lOUr total hounhqld 1ncomt for 2001? _Less than $10.000 ._$10,()()0-.$19.999 $20,00M29,999 $30,()1)1)...$39,999 $50,000-$58 ,999 19. How many persons. aro In your houNhold? Ono J _Two ,_ Thlee _F01.1r ,_Fi'vo Six or mort $60,000-$79,999 $80,000 or over 20. How many Ucensed driWI'$ aro In your houstbo! d -lkn.d)? N'one One -, _Three 01 more 21. H.ow many wortdng vohJdes (ears. vans. tndlor lfght-duty tNck$) art vaUable ln )IOU' hou.nhokf? --One Two nvee or more 22. oo you have a car or other p&I'$OMI that you could have uHd for nos t_YeJ ._No 23. How many months out of lhe year do you rtlldtln Bay County? 12 monlhs {fuiHime re.slcient) a_ 1().11 months 6 monltls 3 monll\6 o 0 monlhs 2.&. Do you t.hlnk thet BTT shOuld PfOVlde aervlct on tht w .. ktnda? ._vas No I F YES -tWtich-.nddoy(s)"""*' EJIT -? 'Sabrday SunoDy saturclly & SUndoy 2$. What Is tho zJp codo of your rtsldtnco? -----------26 How s.atft.rwtd art you wllh .ach of the following? n..$ drcM 1M n .umbw bnt rentct:t. your opl:nlon a. b Frequonoy ol-(howoftM VOlleys M1) Your abilty to g.t 't\titre you w&nllo go using c. the ttollty d The number of Um11 you to transfer to O*' to where yov want to go o. How easy Ills to tr anafor betwoon trolleys f. How regu l arty ltolltyt a r rive o n time g The time It to mekt a ttlp by lroSiey h Value of ltollty fare (tervlce you get (or what )'OU pay) How oa.sy It I s 10 obtain IIOIIoy tOut& & l nlotmallon HcweosyklsoousoltOIIeyr..,..& sdledule lrllormotion k. Time old.,-......., 1r01tys,.., on wee.kdays L Time of d:ly Illest 1tOityt M'l on weekdays m. How dean lht ttollt)'l.,d tmlley SlopS are n. Safe1y/....,niY 01 1MirOioy loJ> o. Safely while riding 1M lrolley p Safe1y/seourl1y after gonlng off the ttolley q To mp eralu r o ln s ldo lho trolleys r. Availability ot soats on the tro11eys s. The trolley d
PAGE 210

A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 PANAMA CITY TDP INTERVIEW &. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION GUIDE WHERE WEARE How much awareness of and support for transit is there in the community? Have the levels of awareness and support changed I n the laSt two years? How is Bay Town Trolley perceived in the community? What is your perception of transit's role In the community? Is the transit system responsive to community needs? How are those needs communicated to the transit system? Is information on transit readily available In the community? What is your opinion of the transit fare? Is traffic congestion a problem in Bay County? If so, what role can transit play in alleviating this problem? Is there a parking problem In Bay County? If so, how does this affect transit's role In the community? What about the parking situation along the beaches? B. WHERE WE WANT TO GO 8. What goals have the community and elected officials voiced for transit? What do you see as appropriate goals for the transit system? 9. How can Bay Town Trolley better meet community needs? 10. What is happening in Bay County in terms of residential and commercial development? How much? Where? How can transit best respond to these trends? 11. Is the establishment of service guidelines a worthwhile goal for transit? 12. Should Bay Town Trolley be looking at new markets for transit service, or should It concentrate on Its existing markets? Which is more i mportant : geographic coverage or more effective/efficient service? 13. Is there a willingness i n the community to consider additional local fundin g sources for transit? Are you aware of the $0.05 local option gas tax for transportation projects? C. HOW WE GET ll!ERE 14. What Improvements are needed in the transit system to attract more riders and meet community goals? 15. Is there a need for park and ride lots, possibly I n conjunction with express or limited-stop bus service? 16. Are there areas currently not served or underseiVed by transit that should receive a higher priority? 17. Are there other polldes that should be changed to help the transit system reach its goals? D. SUMMARY 18. What are the major strengths and accomplishments of the transit system? 19. How have perceptiOns of the transit system changed over the last two years? 20. If you could pick one thing to change about the transit system, what would It be? Bay County Transit Development Pia"-2003 2007 8-5

PAGE 211

8-6 Bay Cbunty Transit Development Plan, 2003-2(}07

PAGE 212

APPENDIXC Bay Coordinated Transportation (BCT) Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

PAGE 213

c-z &y County rnmsit Development Plan, Z003-Z007

PAGE 214

Bay County Coordinated Transportation (BCT) Customer Satisfaction Sutvey Results April2002 From the West Florida Regional Planning Coundl Background and Methodology This year a mailin response survey was conducted to be used as a portion of the Community Transportation Coordinator's evaluation and the annual update of the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan {TDSP). The survey was conducted on April and 4th with the BCT drivers handing out surveys. A total of 61 survey post cards were returned. Respondents were asked to rate various aspects of BCT's service on this years on-board survey. The results indicate satisfaction levels with each of the particular areas and an overall satisfaction rating for system. Based on these observations, decisions can be made by BCT to direct efforts for future improvements in the system based on the perception of their patrons. &eas Rated The following aspects of BCT's services were rated by respondents to this years survey: Dependability Runs when needed {llme of Operation) Easy to arrange trips (scheduling) Comfort and cleanliness Waiting lime Cost ofTrlp Employee courtesy Overall rating Qverall PerfQrmance Rating In 2001, 90.7% of the respondents rated the service as good' or very good. The 2002 survey resulted in a rate 84.7. This shows a 3.6 percent decrease i n overall satisfaction. Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007 C

PAGE 215

Ratino Ve
PAGE 216

Table C-3 Service Availability Characteristics Easy to Trips Waiting Time Number of Percent of Number of Peroent of Rating Resoonses Resoonses R Resoonses Verv Good 32 55.2 33 56.9 Good 12 20.7 8 13.8 Fair 8 13. 8 9 15.5 Poor 5 8.6 4 6.9 Verv Poor 0 0 4 6.9 Staff, Vehlde and External Factors The remaining three questions addressed the cost of using the system, comfort and cleanliness of BITs vehides, and BCT employee courteousness. On the question of cost of the system, 82.9% of the survey respondents rated the cost as very good or good. The complete breakdown for this category is presented in Table C-4. Ratlna VervGood Good Fai r Poor Verv Poor Table C-4 Cost of Services Number of Percent of Resoonses Resoonses 47 78. 3 7 11.7 4 6.7 1 1.7 1 1.7 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007 c-s

PAGE 217

The data for the comfort and cleanliness of th e vehicles is presented i n Table C-5 while Table C-6 contains the data regar ding employee courteousness. For comp ariso n purposes Tables C-5 a n d C-6 c ontain the d at a for the 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 surveys. F or comfort and cleanliness, 97.4% of the respondents rated BCT's vehicles as very good or good, while 94. 8% I n d icated the same response fo r employee court eousness. It should b e not e d at both these a reas show improvemen t in th i s year's s urvey. Very Good 36 Good 4 6 Fair 11 Poor 6 Very Poor 1 R ating VervGood 64 Good 25 Fair 80 Poor 3 Verv Poor 0 C-6 Table C-5 Vehicle Comfort and Cleanlin ess 1998 Percent of Responses 1998 Per cent of Responses 2000 200 1 Percent of Percent of Responses Responses (Number of Responses) 55.3 7 4.4 (58 ) 28.9 23.0 (18) 1 5 .8 1 .3(1) 0 0 IOl 0 1 3 l1l TableC-6 Emplo yee Courteousness 2000 2001 Percen t o f Percent of Responses Responses (Numbef of R 74.4 80.3_161)_ 12 8 14 5 (11) 7. 7 2.6{2) 2.6 0 {0). 2 6 2.6 (2) 2002 Percent o f Responses (Number of Responses> 73.2 (41) 21.4 (12) 8.9 {5) 0.(0) 0 (0) 2 0 02 Percent of Responses (Numbef of R esponses) 73 2 (41) 1 9.6111\ 5.4 (3) 1 8 (1) 1.8 (1) Bay County T ransit Development Plan, 2003 -2007

PAGE 218

Written comments were received on 37 of the responses. Table C 7 presents a summary of the topics of these comments. Tonic Drivers General Scheduli no Waitina Time Trio lenatll Vehlde Comfort Tab l e C-7 Written Corilmlmts Number of Comments I 0 positive 4 """ative 10 oositive 3 neaatlve 6 neoative I aeneral I neoative Ocomments I nooatlve Hours of Oneration 1 aeneral comment Tables Cl through C 7 indicate user satisfaction responses for each of the above system characteristics. Overall, the majority of BCT passengers rated the service Very Good. Most satisfaction measures received high ratings from the passengers. These ratings are unusually high, thus clearly indicating that existing passengers are very satisfied with BCT's services. Comparison with the Service Plan Goals. Objectives. Strategies and Measures Strategies 1.2g which states Revise, implement and update annual rider surveys to assess program performance, 3.1d which states Use surveys to receive feedback from riders and agendes, and 3 .2c which states Use rider and agency surveys to receive feedback on users perceptions of comfort and safety have all been met with this survey. Measure 1.2g which states Maintain rider survey in rating o f overall system performance at an 85% excellent/good rating was fl9t met as the survey indicated an overall system performance rating of 90.7% Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007 C

PAGE 219

C-8 &y County Tnmsit Oevefcpment Phn_ Z0032007

PAGE 220

APPENDIXD Trip Attractors and Generators

PAGE 221

D-2 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 222

This I nformation appeared In the Bay County TDSP, 2002 prepared by the West Florida Reg ional Plann ing Council Schools D-3 Bay County Transi t Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 223

Schools (Continued) Number Name 26 Rosenwald Middle 1310 E 11th St. Panama Otv. Fl 32401 i:z7 Ruthelford Hloh 29 Ts; Elementary 1835 St. SouthDOrt fl 32409 I 30 Elementary 520 School Ave. Panama atv. fl 32401 31 St Andrews E lementary !:3001 W 15'" St. Panama City, F L 32401 32 S i de M i ddle 300 Nautilus St. Panama Citv Beach FL 32413 33 lrommy Smith Elementary 5044 Tommy_ Smith Or. Panama City, FL 32404 34 II Elementary 7800 Tyndall Pkwy. Tvndall AFB FL 32403 35 Waller Elementary 11332 E. Hwv. 388 YouOQstown FL 32466 36 West Bay Elementary ----------------------------11'11!1_ 3 Schcl9LQ( Panama City Beach, FL 32413 Hospitals and M edk;al Centers Number Name Address ICial Kidnev Center 510 N McArthur Ave. Panama_CftY, Fl 32401 48 Behavioral Center 1940 HarrisOO Ave. Panama atv. FL 32405 40 Bay Medical Center N Bonita Ave. Panama ..Q!y,_ FL 32401 275 Bay Wallc-l n Oink: 2306 Hwv n Panama City, FL 32405 Or. Adhal 2195 Jenks Ave. Panama Cltv. F L 32405 or. Ebied/Or Elzawahrv 2202 State Ave. Panama FL 32405 Dr. corer 211 E. 11th St. Panama Oty, FL 32401 Dr COmbs 412 W 19th St. P a nama Citv. FL 32405 Or. Grantham 340 W. 23rd St. P a n ama Citv. fl32405 Dr. Khan 3808 E. 3rd St. Panama City FL 32401 Or. Kovaleski 1900 Harrison Ave. Panama Citv. FL 32405 Or. M Wal ker 2011 Harrison Ave. Panama City, FL 32405 Dr. McArthur 2_6 W 19th St. Panama Citv. FL 32405 Dr. Mever/Or. Mullis 1600 Jenks Ave. Panama C ity F L 32405 Or. Ob id 951 W 23rd St Panama Otv, FL 32405 D-4 Bay County Transit Deve/cpment Pfan, 200J 2007

PAGE 224

Hospitals and Med ical Centers (Co ntinued) Number Name Address Or. R. Walker 504 N McArthur Ave. Panama City, Fl 32401 Dr. S. Rahman 825 Florida Ave. Lvnn Haven FL 32444 55 Dr. Zawahrv 756 Harrison Ave. Panama Qty, FL 3240 1 257 HCA Gulf Coast k49 W. 23rd st Panama City, FL 32405 276 HealthSouth Emerald Coast Rehab!litation Cenll!t 1847 Florida Ave. Panama Fl32405 277 Northwest Florfda Cenll!t 1767 Alroort Rd. Panama atv. FL 32404 57 all HosDital 134o Maqnolla ar. Tvndall Air Force Base FL Low Income Housin g D-5 Bay COunty Transit Develcpment Plan, 2003

PAGE 225

Low Income Housing (Continued) Number N ame Address 73 Panama atv Housina Aulhorltv !!Q! E. 1Stll St. Panama City, FL 32
PAGE 226

Mobile Home Parks (Co ntinued) Num ber Name Address 97 OrdeJ 607 W. Uti! St Panama Otv. A. 32401 98 Conrads 7118 Resota Ln. Sout!l cort A. 32409 99 Cornerst one 1800 East Ave. Panama Otv Fl. 32405 100 Countrv P ines Estates I 300 E 2 5th St Lvnn Haven FL 32444 101 leountrvside Estates 1128 S. Gay Ave. Callaway, FL 32404 102 Oouqlas 12318 s. Dale Ave. Panama Cltv. FL 32405 103 Gulf Breeze 1532 June Ave. Panama C ltv, FL 32505 104 Isle of View 518 Everitt Ave. Panama Cltv. A. 32401 1 05 lleanettes W. US98 Panama Otv. FL 32401 106 L.andever 6123 Roche ct. Callaway, Fl 32404 107 Legears 511 E. 23rd St. Panama Oty, FL 32405 108 Usenbv Usenbv Ave. and 29th St Panama Otv. Fl 32405 109 Lynn Haven 201 W. 14tll St. Lynn Haven FL 32444 110 Miracle Strip 10510 Front Beach Rd. Panama Cltv Beach FL 32413 111 Mobile Home Gardens 238 1\mdall Pkwy. Panama Otv. Fl 32404 112 Panama Citv Beach KOA 8800 Thomas Or. Beach FL 32408 113 rna ..Q!Y_ Mobile Home Estates 700 Transmitter Rd. FL 32401 114 Pines 250 Nelle Ave. Panama Citv, FL 32404 115 Reid's Court H806 Front Beach Rd. Panama..Q!Y_Seac h FL 32413 116 Sea Gull 14700 Front Beach Rd. Pa!lllma Oty Beach FL 32413 117 St. Soutlloort FL 32409 118 Shady oaks 7505 HwV. 22A Panama Citv. FL 32404 119 Southern Uvinq 286 N. Hwv 22A Panama Cltv. FL 32404 120 Sherman Pines 6513 Say Une Or. Panama Otv FL 32404 121 1709 Chauoer Or. Panama...Q!r,_ FL 32405 122 149 S. Sims Ave. Panama Cltv. FL 32404 ldrops 5000 w. !Btl! St. Panama Otv, Fl32401 123 !willow Wood W illow Wood Rd. SouthPOrt. FL 32409 D-1 Bay County Tr11nsit Dev elopment Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 227

Retirement Homes and Assisted Uvlng Facilities Ubraries Number Name Address 143 BavCountv 2S W. Government S t Panama Citv. FL 32401 144 Lynn Haven 1901 Ohio Ave. Lvnn H aven FL 32444 14S Panama c-.tv Beach 110 s. Arnold Rd. Panama Cltv Beach FL 32413 146 Parker 1001 W. Par1< S t. Par1
PAGE 228

Post Offices Number Name !Address 148 Bavcountv 1336 Shemnan Ave. Panama Cltv Beach FL 32401 149 =t:nt 100 Delwood Beach Rd. Panama Cltv Beach FL 32408 150 GeoiQe Hwv 2301 Cherokee Landino R. 32466 151 !callaway Ins N T r Pkwv. car FL32404 153 Cove Palo Alta Panama Qtv Fl 32401 153 Downtown 421 Jenks Ave. Panama Cltv FL 32401 154 Eastside 5310 E. US Business 98 FL 32401 155 Fountain 12606 Silver Lake Rd. Founta i n FL 32438 156 Holiday Plaza w. FL 32407 158 Lvnn Haven 2319 S. S R 77 Lvnn Haven FL 32444 159 Mexico Beach US 98 and 9th St. Mexico Beach FL 32456 160 Nava l COastal SVstems Center 6703 W US 98 Panama Otv Beach FL 32408 161 Northside 1315 W. 17th St. Panama Otv. FL 32401 162 Beach Churchwell Dr. Panama Citv Beach FL 32407 163 17526 SR 77 SOuthoort. FL 32409 164 3213 E. US 98 S FL 32401 165 stAndrew 1131 Beck Ave. Panama Otv FL 32401 Sunnvslde 21906 Front Beach Rd. Panama Cltv Beach FL 32413 Drive 7900 Thomas Dr Panama atv Beach FL 32408 167 Air Force Base 730 Suwannee Rd. AfB FL 32403 \Nest Beach 19401 Front Bead! Rd. Panama C itv Beach FL 32413 170 West Panama atv Beach 268 S. Hwv 79 Panama Otv Beach FL 32413 169 Younastown 11703 Hwy. 231 Youngstown, FL 32466 D-9 Bay County Transit DeYelopment Plan, 2003 -2007

PAGE 229

Social Service Agendes Number Name Address 1 7 0 Bav Coun tv Healt h Dept 17109 Back Beach Rd. Panama C i tv Beach FL 32413 Bav Countv Health Deot 597 W. 11t h St Panama Citv. FL 32401 281 Bay COUnty Health Dept.Childrens Medical Servioes 1308 F l or ida Ave. Panama Oty, FL 32401 I catholic Social Services 3128 E. 11th St. Sprinqfield FL 32401 i k:ouncll on Aaino 1116 Frankford Ave. Panama Citv. FL 3 2401 DeDt of Children a n d Families 3127 Lisenl>v Ave. Panama City, FL 32405 Dept of Children a n d Families 500 W. 11th St. Panama City. F L 32401 DeDt of Children a n d Families 705 W. 15th St. Panama City, FL 32401 D ivision of Labor a n d En1PI nt 114 E. 9th St. Panama Citv. F L 32401 Division of Labor and Emol nt 705 w 15th St. Panama Cltv. FL 32401 Division of Labor a n d Emolovment -Blin d Servioes 2611 Jenks Ave. Panama Citv. FL 32405 Division of Labor and Empl oyment -Vocational Reh abi l i tation 2939 SR77 Panama City, F L 32405 Division of Jobs and Benefits 1002 W. 23rd St. Panama Citv. FL 32405 282 E l der Affairs 101 W 5th St. Panama Otv. FL 32401 Famll v Service Aaencv 890 w 11th St. Panama Citv, FL 32401 Rescue M ission 6 0 9 Allen Ave. Panama Citv. FL 32401 Salva tio n Anny 1609 Lisenby Ave. Panama Qty, FL 3240S Salvation Annv 1824 w. 15th St. Panama atv. FL 32401 283 Salva tion Anny 700 Jenks Ave. Panama City, FL 32401 D lO Bay County Transit Development Plan/ 2003 2007

PAGE 230

City Hall/ Government Military Number Name Address Coast Guard 1 Naval Center Panama 0tv Beach Fl Naval Coastal SVst ems Center W H wv 98 Pan ama Cltv Beach Fl 32407 II Air Force Base Suwannee Ave. Bldg 1127 Tyndall Air Force Base R. 32403 Transportation 0 11 Bay County Transft Developmen t Plan, 2003 7

PAGE 231

Civic Centers Number Name !Address 203 Kaleldoscooe Theatre 207 E. 24"' St. Lynn Haven FL 32444 201 Marina 8 Harrison Ave. Panama Citv. F L 32401 204 Martin Theatre 409 Harrison Ave. Panama City, FL 32401 Tourist Attractions Number Name Address 287 Grand Maze 9807 Front Beach Rd. Panama Citv Beach FL32407 Gulf World Marine Park 15412 Front Beach Rd. Panama C'ltv Beach FL 32413 Junior Museum of Say County 1731 N. Jenks Ave. Panama City, FL 32405 Miracle Strio Amusement Park 12000 Front Beach Rd. Panama Cltv Beach FL 32407 Museum of Man in the Sea 17314 Sack Beach Rd. Panama Cltv Beach FL 32413 Ocean Oorv Auditorium 8400 Front Beach Rd. Panama City Beach FL 32407 288 St. Andrews State Recreation Area 4607 State Park Lane Panama Cltv Beach FL 32408 Msual Art Center of Northwest Florida 19 E. 4th St. Panama CitY. FL 32401 Zoo World 9008 Front Beach Rd. Panama City Beach FL 32407 0-12 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 232

Shopping Centers D-13 Bay County TraflSit Develcpment Pf.Jn, 2003-2007

PAGE 233

Major Employers Inc. D-14 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 234

Major Employers (Continued) D-15 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2DOJ-2(!()7

PAGE 235

lJ-16 Bay County Transit Development Plan 20032007

PAGE 236

APPENDIX E Inventory of Transportation Providers Serving Bay County

PAGE 237

E 2 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 20032007

PAGE 238

A Airport Transportation Services ADDRESS: PHONE : FAX: 9851 S Thomas Dr. Panama F L 32408 (850)236-4400 SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS GENERAL I NFORMATION: Sufte 103 Type of Service: l imous ine a i rport transfers and l oca l transfers Service Area: Selvice Users: SERVICE HOURS : 24 hrs.lday; 7 days/ week PERSONNEL: Total Employees 12-15 all over, mai nly Bay County General Public FINANCIAL INFORMATION: Budgeted Operaling Expense Budgeted Capita l Expense FARE STRUCTURE : $10 m i n taxis, 3 hr min for limo Comments: aka: affordable limousine OPERATING STATISTICS Nu mber of Vehicles Operated: 10-15 vans, town cars, cadillacs 4door sedans, lincoln limos, ans shutUe buses Average Passenger Trips = "CATEGORIES LEFT BLANK INDICATES THE INFORMATION WAS NOT APPLICABLE OR NOT PROVIDED. Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007 E-3

PAGE 239

BCCOA Bay Coordinated Transportation ADDRESS : PHONE: FAX: 1 116 Frankford Drive Panama City, FL 32401 (850)769-2140 SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS GENERAL INFORMATION: Type of Service : paratransit Service Area : Bay County Service Users: SERVICE HOURS: PERSONNEL : Total Employees 5 1, plus drivers OPERATING STATISTICS N umber of Ve h icles Operated: 47 Average Passenger Trips = Budgeted Operating Expense 2 ,000,000 Budgeted Capita l Expense FARE STRUCTURE : Comments: CATEGORIES LEFT BLANK INDICATES THE INFORMAnON WAS NOT APPLICAIIL E OR NOT PROYlDED Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2()(}7

PAGE 240

Bay Behavior ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: 1940 Harr ison Avenue Panama City, FL' 32405 ( 850)763-0017 SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS GENERAL INFORMATION: Type of Service : Service Area : Service Users : Psychiatric cr i s i s stabilization faci l ily Transporting patients from two local hospitals Bay Counly and surrounding counties as needed Bay Behavior patients. SERVICE HOURS: 24 hrs./day, 7 days/ week. OPERATING STATISTICS Number of Veh icles Operated: 1 PERSONNEL : Total Employees FINANCIAL IN FORMA liON: Budgeted Operating Expense Budgeted Cspnal Expense FARE STRUCTURE: Comments: Average P assenger Trips = CATEGOR IES LEFT BLANK INDICATES THE INFORMATION WAS NOT APPLICABLE OR NOT PROVIDED. Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007 E-5

PAGE 241

Bay County School District ADDRESS: PHONE : FAX: 16 50 June Avenue Panama City FL 32401 (850)872-4100 SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS elementary, m i dd l e and high schoo l s GENERAL INFORMATION: Type of Service: Service Area : Service Users: SERVICE HOURS : Busing. School bus i ng. Bay County K -12 students 5:30 a.m. 5:30 p.m office, 5:45a.m. 4 :45p.m. bus routes PERSONNEL: Total Employees 190 drive rs and substitutes Budgeted Operating Expense Budgeted Cap it al Expense FARE STRUC T URE: n/a Comments: 5,000,000 5 000,000 OPERATING STATISTICS Number of Vehicles Operated : 168 Regular and Handicapped (17) Average Passenger T r ips Daily = 3 'CATEGORIES LEFT BLANK INDICATES THE INFORMATION WAS NOT APPUCABLE OR NOT PROVIDED. E-6 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 242

Bay Medical Center Non-Emergency Transport ADDRESS : PHONE : FAX: 615 N. Bonita Avenue Panama City, F L 3240 1 (850)747-6080 SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS GENERAL INFORMATION : (850)769 Type of Service: Special Medical Needs Service Area: Service Users: SERVICE HOURS: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PERSONNEL: Total Employees 7 Bay County FINANCIAL INFORMAl ION: Operating Expense Budgeted Capital Expense FARE STRUCTURE: Comments: OPERATING STATISTICS Number of Vehicles Operated: 5 Average Passenger Trips = "CATEGORIES LEFT BLANK INDICATES THE INFORMATION WAS NOT APPLICABLE OR NOT PROVIDED. Bay County Tronslt Development Plan, 2003 E

PAGE 243

B ay Town T rolley ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX : 1116 Frankfurt Ave. ?anama C ity, FL 32401 (650)769-QS57 SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS Service agreements wi1h handicappe
PAGE 244

Executive Taxi ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: 2705 Joan Avenue Panama City, FL 32408 (850)784-6611 SERVIC E AGREEM E NTS/CONTRACTS GENERAL INFORMATION: Type of Se
PAGE 245

Greyhound Bus Unes ADDRESS : PHONE : FAX: 91 7 Harrison Ave Panama C i ty, FL 32401 (850)785-7861 SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS GENERAL INFORMATION : Type of Service : Serv ice Area: Service Use rs : SERVICE HOURS : Bus s ervice U.S., Canad a M e xico General publi c M-st 7 am 9 pm; S: 7 a m 2 p m, 5pm 9 pm; dosed on holid ays PERSONNEL: r olal Employees 5 at ttl is location OPERATING STATISTICS Nu mber o l V e hicles O perated : Average P assenger Trips = 3 udgeted O pernt l n g Expense 3udgeted Capital Expense =ARE STRUCTURE: Based on m ilea ge Comments: 'CAlGoRIES LFT BLANK INDICATU THE INfORioi.AnON WAS NOT APPLICABLE OR NOT PROVIDED EJO Bay County Transit Oevelopment P!Jn, 2 003 7

PAGE 246

Happy Day Child Care ADDRESS: PHONE : FAX: 2724 E. 17th Street Panama City, FL 32405 (850)769-5536 SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS GENERAL INFORMATION: Type of Service: Service Area : Service Users : SERVICE HOURS: Cedar Grove Elementary students Cedar Grove, Millville elementary students 6:30a.m. 5:30p.m Mon. Fri. PERSONNEL : Total Employees 15 OPERATING STATISTICS Number of Vehicles Operated: 1 1 5 passenger van Average Passenger Trips = Budgeted Operating Expense Budgeted Capital Expense FARE STRUCTURE: Comments: "CATEGORIES LEFT BLANK INDICATES THE INFORMATION WAS NOT APPLICABLE OR NOT PROVIDED. Bay County Transit Development Pliln, 2003-2007 E-11

PAGE 247

Yellow Checker Cab ADDRESS : PHONE : FAX: 703 w. 13th Street Panama City, FL 32401 (850)763-0211 SERVICE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS GENERAL INFORMATION: Type of Se!vloe : Area: Serv ice Users : SERVICE HOURS : T axl service Bay County Gen eral publi c 24 hours/day 7 days/Week PERSONNEL : r ota l Employees 13 OPERATING STATISTICS Number of Vehicles Operated : 6 Average Passenger Trip s = -----------------3udgeted Operating Expense 3udgeted Capital Expense : ARE STRUCTURE: $1.50 for pick up, $1.25/mile. After 2 people, $0. 50/person Comments: 13 employ ees do no t include drivers who work as Independent contractor s. 'CATEOOftlES LFT BLANK INDICATES TilE IHFORIIATIOH WAS NOT AW\.ICABLE OR NOT PROVIDED. E-12 Bay County Trtmslt Development Plan 2003 2007

PAGE 248

Beach Taxi Taxicab (850)769-8265 703 W. 131h Street Panama City, FL 32401 California Limous i nes (850)872 1796 2915 E Hwy 98 Panama City, FL 32401 Early Childhood Services Child transportation (850)872-7550 450 'Jenks Avenue Panama City, F L 32401 Florida Limousine (850)87 4 -9995 Panama City, F lor ida 32407 J & R Limousine Service (850)871-2828 920 E Par!( St. Parker, FL 32404 Professionally Yours Tours (850)234-3459 9123 Back Beach Road Panama City Beach, FL 32407 aka: Deluxe Coach Taxi Service and Yellow Checker Cab.

PAGE 249

E-14 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 250

APPENDIX F List of Definitions For Selected Performance Indicators and Measures, and Peer Transit System Selection Methodology

PAGE 251

1'-2 Bay Col/nty Transit Oevelopment Plbn, 2003

PAGE 252

GENERAL PERfORMANCE INDICATORS Service Area P o Pulat ion The number of persons residing within the area for which a system provides transit service. According to FTA requirements, this service area is defined according to ADA definitions, I.e., :V..-mlle boundary around all fixed routes. Therefore, all area covered by this %-mile route buffer zone is considered to be a system's service area, and the area's size and population characteristics are reported to FTA for NTD purposes. It should be noted that some systems rely on estimates or proxies (such as county population) to report this particular indicator. Natlonallnftation Rate Used to deflate the operating expense data to constant 1984 dollars. Inflation-adjusted dollars provide a more accurate representation of spending changes resulting from agency decisions by factoring out the general price Inflation. The inflation rate reported Is the peroentage change In the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all Items (Including commodities and services) from year to year. During the 1984 to 1997 period, service and labor costs tended to Increase at a faster rate than did commodity prices. Therefore, transit operating expenses, which are predominantly comprised of service and labor costs, may be expected to have increased somewhat faster than inflation even If the amount of service provided were not increased. h sse naer Trios Annual number of passenger boardings on tlhe transit vehides. A trip Is counted each time a passenger boards a transit vehicle. Thus, if a passenger has to transfer between buses to reach a destination, he/she is counted as making two passenger trips. Passenger Miles Number of annual passenger trips multiplied by the system's average trip length (in miles). This number provides a measure of the total number of passenger miles of transportation service consumed. Vehide MilesTotal distance traveled annual ly by revenue service vehides, induding both revenue miles and deadhead miles. Revenue Miles Number of annual miles of vehicle operation while in active service (available to pick up revenue passengers). This number is smaller than vehicle miles because of the exclusion of deadhead miles such as vehicle miles from th e garage to the start of service, vehicle miles from the end of service to the garage, driver training, and other miscellaneous miles that are not considered to be In direct revenue service. Vehicle H o urs -Total hours of operation by revenue service vehicles including hours oonsumed in passenger service and deadhead travel. Revenue Hours Total hours of operation by revenue service vehldes in active revenue service. &ly County Transit Development Plan, Z(J()J-2007 F-3

PAGE 253

Route Miles -Number of directional route miles as reported in NTD data; defined as t11e mileage that service operates In each direction over routes traveled by public transportation vehicles in revenue service. Total Operating Expense -Reported total spending on operations, including administration, maintenance, and operation of service vehicles. Total Operating Expense (1997 $) Total operating expenses deflated to 1997 dollars for purposes of determining tl1e real change in spending for operating expenses. Total Maintenance Expense Sum of all expenses categorized as maintenance expenses; a subset of total operating expense. Total Maintenance EXDellse (1997 $) -Total maintenance expenses deflated to 1997 dollars for purposes of determining tl1e real change in spending for maintenance purposes. Total capjtal EXPense Dollar amount of spending related to the purchase of tangible property or other items eligible to be capitalized. Property includes tangible assets with an expected life of more t11an one year at t11e time of tl1eir installation, and a unit cost greater tl1an $1,000. Federal Revenue-Financial assistance obtained from tl1e Federal government to assist in paying t11e operating costs of providing transit service. Such assistance is available from tl1e Urbanized Area Formula Programs of 49 U.S.C. (Formerly Section 9), other transportation grant programs administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, as well as other Federal agency programs. State Revenue -Financial assistance obtained from a State government or agency to assist In paying the operating costs of providing transit service. Total Local Bevenue All revenues originating at the local leve l (excluding state and federal assistance). Includes all operating revenue plus any local funds that are provided to the transit agency. Local fi.Jnds are defined as any financial assistance obtained from a local government or agency (below the State level) to assist in paying the operating costs of providing transit service. Operating RevenueAll revenues generated tl1rough the operation of the transit agency. Includes passenger fares, special transit fares, school bus service revenues, freight tariffs, charter service revenues, auxiliary transportation revenues, subsidy from otl1er sectors of operations, and non-transportation revenues. Passenger Fare Revenue -Revenue generated annually from carrying passengers in regularly scheduled service. F-4 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 200:1

PAGE 254

Total Emplovees -Total number of payroll employees of the transit agency in terms of full time equiValents (FTEs). It Is useful to note that the increasing tendency to contract out for services may result in some significant differences in this measure between otheiWise similar properties. It is Important to understand which services are contracted before drawing conclusions based on employee levels. All employees classified as capital are not included in report. TraDSROrtation Operatjng Employees -All employees, In terms of FTEs, classified as operating employees: vehicle drivers, supervisory personnel, direct personnel. Maintenance Employees All employees, in terms of FTEs, classified as maintenance employees who are directly or indirectly responsible for vehicle maintenance. Administrative EmpiO)(ees -All personnel positions, in terms of FTEs, classified as administrative in nature. This report includes all general administration, ticketing/fare collection, and system security employees as classified by FTA In Form 404. \febjdes Available for Maximum Service -Number of vehicles available for use by the transit agency to meet the annual maximum service requirement. Vehicles available for maximum service include spares, out-of-service vehicles, and vehicles in or awaiting maintenance, but exclude vehicles awaiting sale and emergency contingency vehicles. Vehides Operated In Maximum Seaice -Number of revenue vehicles operated to meet the annual maximum service requirement, i.e., the revenue vehicle count during the peak hours of the peak days/weeks of the peak season (typically the rush period). Vehicles operated in maximum service exclude atypical days or one-time special events. Spare Ratio Vehicles operated in maximum service subtracted from vehicles available for maximum service divided by vehicles operated in maximum service. This measure Is an indicator of the number of spare vehicles available for service. A spare ratio of approximately 20 percent is considered appropriate In the Industry. However, this varies depending on the size and age of fleet as well as the condition of equipment. Total Gallons Consumed -Total gallons of fuel consumed by the vehicle fleet. Total Energy Consumed -Kllowatt hours of propulsion power consumed by a transit system (rall and automated guideway). Average Age of Fleet-Traditionally, a standard transit coach Is considered to have a useful life of 12 years. However, longer service lives are not uncommon. The vehicle age and the reliability record of the equipment, the number of miles and hours on the equipment, the sophistication and features (i.e., wheelchair lifts, electronic destination signs, etc.), and operating environment (weather, roadway grades, and passenger abuse) all affect the maintenance needs and depreciation of the bus fleet. Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007 F-5

PAGE 255

Number of IncidentsTotal number of unforeseen occurrences resulting in casualty (injury/fatality), collision, or property damage In excess of $1,000. For an incident to be reportable, It must Involve a transit vehicle or occur on transit property. Revenue Service Interruptions A revenue service interruption during a given reporting period caused by failure of some mechanical element of the revenue vehicle or for other reasons not included as mechanical failures Weekday Span of Service The number of hours that transit service is provided on a representative weekday In the operation of the transit agency. This indicator is determined by comput ing the number of hours between the values reporte d for average weekday time service begins and time service ends on Form 406. For transit agencies with more than one mode, the system total span of service takes into account the hours o f operation for all modes and reports the span of hours that any transit service is provided on a typical weekday. EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Vehicle Miles Per cao!ta Total number of annual vehicle miles divided by the service area's population. This can be characterized as the number of miles of service provided for each man, woman, and child in the service a rea and Is a measure of the extensiveness of service provided in the service area. Passenger Trips Per Capita Average number of transit boardings per person per year. This number is larger in areas where public transportation is emphasized and in areas where there are more transit dependents, and is a measure of th e extent to which the public utilizes transit in a given service area. Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile The ratio of passenger t rips to revenue miles of service; a key indicator of service effectiveness that i s influenced by the levels of demand and the supply of service provided. Passenaer Trips Per Reyenue Hour The ratio of passenger trips to revenue hours of operation; reports on the effectiveness of the service since hours are a better representation of the resources consumed In provid ing service. Average Speed Average speed of vehicles in revenue service operation {i.e., not including travel to and from the garage or any other deadhead) calculated by dividing total revenue miles by total revenue hours. Average Headway Average headway, in minutes, for the system as a whole that is computed utilizing the following performance indicators: directional route miles, revenue miles, revenue hours, and the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. The equation used to determine thi s measure first doubles the directional route mileage to produce an estimate of system size i n terms of total (nond irectional) route miles. The resulting mileage figure Is then F-6 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 2007

PAGE 256

divided by the system's calculated average speed {revenue miles per revenue hour) to produce an estimate of the time it would take, in hours, to traverse all of the system's total route miles. Rnally, this time figure Is divided by the system's nunil:!er of peak vehicles {then multiplied by 60 to convert time in hours to minutes).to determine the number of minutes it takes for a vehide to complete its portion of the total route miles one time. Revenue Miles Between Incidents -Number of revenue miles divided by the number of incidents; reports the average Interval, In miles, between Incidents. Revenue Miles Qetween InterruQtlons -Number of revenue miles divided by the number of revenue service interruptions; an indicato r of the average frequency of delays because of a problem with the equipment. Revenue Miles Per Route Mile Number of revenue miles d ivided by the number of directional route miles of service; an Indicator of the availability of transit service. Route Miles Per SQuare Mile of Service Area Number of directional route miles of service divided by the service area size (In square miles); another indicator of the availability of transit service Within the service area. EFFICIENCY MEASURES Operatina Expense Per Capita -Annual operating budget divided by the service area population; a measure of the resource commitment to transit by the community. Operating Expen5e Per Peak Vehicle Total operating expense per vehicle operated in maximum service {peak vehicle); provides a measure of the resources required per vehicle to have a coach in operation for a year. Operating Expense Per Passenger nip Operating expenditures divided by the total annual ridership; a measure of the efficiency of transporting riders; one of the key indicators of comparative performance of transit properties since it refl ects both the efficiency with which service is delivered and the market demands for the service. Ooeratjng Expense Per Passenger Mile Operating expense divided by the number of passenger miles; takes into account the impact of trip length on performance since some operators provide lengthy trips while others provide short trips. Ooeratlng Expense Per Revenue Mile Operating expense divided by the number of revenue miles of service; a measure of the efficiency with which service is delivered and is another key comparative indicator. Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Operating expense divided by revenue hours of operation; a key comparative measure which differs from operating expense per vehicle mile in Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 F-7

PAGE 257

that the vehicle speed is factored out. This is often important since vehicle speed is strongly influenced by local traffic conditions. Maintenanoe Expense Per Revenue Mile Maintenance cost divided by the revenue miles. Maintenance Exoense Per Operating Exoense -Calculated by dividing maintenance expense by operating expense; expressed as a percent of total operating expense. Farebox Recovery Ratio of passenger fare revenues to total operating expenses; an Indicator of the share of total operating costs that is covered by the passengers' fares. Local Reyenue Per OPerating Expense Ratio of tota l local commitment with respect to total operating expense. Operating Revenue Per Operating Exoense Ratio of revenue generated through operation of the transit agency with respect to total operating expense. vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle -Vehicle miles divided by the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. It is an ind i cator of how intensively the equipment is used and is Influenced by the bus travel speeds as well as by the levels of service in the off-peak time periods. A more uniform demand for service over the day would result in a higher number. Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle Substitutes vehicle hours for vehicle miles and again reflects how Intensively equipment is utilized. Bevenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile Reflects how much of the total vehicle operation Is in passenger service. Higher ratios are favorable, but garage location, training needs, and other considerations may infl uence the ratio. Revenue Miles Per Total Yehjdes Total revenue miles of service that are provided by each vehicle available for maximum service. Revenue Hours Per Total Vehjdes Total revenue hours of service that are p rovided by each vehicle available for maximum service. Revenue Hours Per Emplovee Ratio of total revenue hours of service to system total FTEs; reflects overall labor productivity. passeMer Trips Per Employee Ratio of total passenger trips to system total FTEs. Another measure of overall labor productivity Vehicle Miles Per Gallon -Vehicle miles of service divided by total gallons consumed and is a measure of energy utilization. Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 258

Vehlde Miles Per Kilowatt-Hour Vehicle miles of service divided by total kilowatt-hours consumed and is another measure of energy utilization. Ayeraqe Fare -Passenger fare revenues divided by the total number of passenger trips. Bay QJunty Transit Oeve/cpment Plan, 2003-2007 F-9

PAGE 259

PEER SELECTION PROCESS-FOOT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUAnON STUDY The methodology for the selection of peer systems for the statewide peer review is relatively simple in nature. The selection is based foremost on geographic location. The spedfied geographic area consists of 12 states in the southeastern United States, as shown below. Kcurucky -'--.. ...... -.JL Miuittippi Ab,..,. Tc:xu Fixed-route systems operating in these states and falling into the specified peer groups for the number of vehicles operated in maximum service (1 to 9, 10 to 49, and 50 to 200) were analyzed based on eight indicators including six operating characteristics (vehicles operated in maximum service, passenger trips, revenue miles, revenue hours, average speed, and total operating expense) and two exogenous variables (service area population and service area population density). The performance of each of the potential non-Florida peers was compared to the average of the Florida systems for each of the three peer groups. A peer received one point for each measure for which It was within one standard deviation of the Florida systems' mean. One-half point was given for each measure that fell between one and two standard deviations from the Aorida systems' mean. Three of the measures (service area population density, revenue m iles, and average speed) are considered to be primary measures of comparison. To give weight to systems that are dose to Aorida's averages for these three variables, one half-point extra was awarded to peers falling within one or two standard deviations of the Florida systems' means (for density, revenue miles, and speed) in each of the motorbus vehicle categories. F-10 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007

PAGE 260

After the total scores were determined, the potential peers were ranked in descending order. For the 1-to-9 and 10-to-49 groups, the top five and eight scorers were recommended as peers for Florida systems, respectively. In the 50-to-:ioo group, the top seven peers were selected. It should be noted that some of the recommended peers elected not to participate in the peer review analysis or were unable to provide their NTD reports in a timely manner. In these cases, several of the next-highest scoring systems that had been chosen in each category to serve as backup peers were utilized instead. To illustrate the peer selection process, consider the example of the Sun Metro system in the City of El Paso, Texas. In fiscal year 19 98 (the year on which the selection prooess was base d since this was the most recent year that FTA-validated NTD data were available for all potential peer systems), El Paso operated 115 vehicles in maximum service placing it into the 50-to-200 peer group. Using service area popu lati on density as a representative variable, it was determined that El Paso's density of 2,130 persons per square mile was within one standard deviation of the Florida average for this peer group Therefore, El Paso was given one point for this measure. In addition, because density is considered to be one of the three key measures on which the selection process Is based (along with revenue miles and average speed), El Paso was awarded one-half point extra since Its density was within one standard deviation of the Florida average. In total, El Paso scored 10.5 points in the analysis, which was the highest score In the group (two other systems also scored 10.5 points) As one of the top seven scorers in the 50-to-200 category, El Paso was, then, chosen as a peer for Florida systems operating between 50 and 200 vehicles in maximum service. Comparison of peers utilizing standard deviations is different from the past methodology, which selected systems based on whether they were 10 or 15 peroent within the Florida averages. It is important to note that the results of this analysis were not radically different than the results derived from the previous approach. However, the use of standard deviations Is a widely emp loyed, statistically valid technique that proved to produoe expected, common-sense results. Bay County TfiJnsit Development Plan, 2003-2007 F-11

PAGE 261

1'-12 &y County Transit Development Pl8n, 2(}()3-2001

PAGE 262

APPENDIXG Fixed-Route Trend and Peer Data Tables

PAGE 263

G-2 88y Ccunty Transit Oevelopment Plan, 2(}()3-2fl07

PAGE 264

G GENERAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SeiYioe Mia Population (000) SeMoe Mia Size (square mllos) Poooqor Trips (000) l'asseolger Miles (000) Vehlclo Miles (000) RO\Ienue Miles (000) Vehicle Hours (000) -Hours (000) Route Mills T Olaf Opetaflng Expe..., (000) Totll Operoting Expense (000 of 1 9 84 $) To4af Malnt..,anoo EJq>ense (000) Totll Maintenance EXpense (000 of 1964 $ ) Total CoPtoJ e_. cooo> Passengtt Fare Revenues {lloo) TOCaf EmployMS Tmnsportaflon Employoos Maintenance Employee& Admlnfslnllive Employees V-Av-forMa>drrunSoMc:o Vehicles Operabad In Maxi'mum SetvfCCI Spore Re6o Tocal Gallons Cansumed (000) TABLEG-1 Jby ToWD Trolley Direclly Operated Motorbus Pel"formaneel n dicators 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 122 .901 122 901 122 .901 1 22 .D01 122.901 78.500 78.500 78.500 7UOO 78.500 38.05'2 48.694 81.479 66.482 74.787 117.006 134.034 1$3.57 1 188. 205 191. 979 155 .988 153.883 1 63.691 165.na 190 190 151. 452 151.363 163.571 1158.158 175.531 8.588 9.287 9 867 9 32 11.565 8.318 9.038 9.361 9.038 10.637 106.000 106.000 106.000 106.000 118.000 203.2!1S 231. 522 206.093 255 8 1 0 120.4 26 145.063 126.200 133 44 5 147. 1 86 18.995 17.508 19.830 33.766 18.316 1 2 098 1 0.9 70 12.151 19.988 10.538 .OSA17 431. 032 5 14Jl 91 673.569 009.508 1!!.798 16.652 20.586 20.548 26.292 7.400 7.300 6.100 8.240 8.730 7 000 6.300 5.100 5.130 7.000 0 000 0.300 0 500 0.550 1.140 0,400 0.700 0 500 0.560 0.590 4 .000 3.000 3.000 a.ooo 6.000 3.000 3 000 3.000 3 000 4 .000 0 .333 0.000 o .ooo 1.000 0.500 23.869 26.136 30.855 2.6.484 26. 690 Bay CLJunty Transit OeYelopment Pfan, 2003f}()7 % Chao>ge %Change 1997-2001 2000 0 00% 0.00% 0 00% 0.00% 96.54% 1U9!1 &2.78% 15.51% 21. 92% 14.72% 15.90% 10. 98% 34.98% 22.61 % 26.71% 1&.81% 11.32% 11.32'J(, 25.85% 13A7% 1 3.72% 10. 30% -3.57% -45.78% 12.87% -47.27% 199U2% 35.0211. 87.38% 27. 97% 17.97 % 311.90% 0.00% 36.4 5% nfa. 107.27% 47.50% 5.36% 50.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 50 00% .5().00% 13.24% 0 .85%

PAGE 265

. EFFEC11VEHESS M EASURES SERVICE SUPP1. Y v.,_ Miles Pe-Capita SERVICE CONSUMPTION Passenger Trips Pet C:..pita Passenger Trips Per Revenue M ile Passenger Trips Per Rewnue Hovr QUALITY OF SERVICE Avago Speed (R.M.IR.H.) Avcrage Headway On mlnules) Average AQe of Fleet (i n yeare) Number of Incidents Revenue Service I nterruptions Revenue Miles Between Incidents (000 R...,ue Milos ae-.l ntMupllono (000) AVAI!.A81UTY R.....,._ /.Gies Per Reule Mle (000) WMI:day Span ol SeMce {)lhclon) R"""' M;IO$ Pflf Sq. Mile ol SeMc:e Area G-4 TABLEGl Bay Town Trolley Direc:lly.()peraled Molorbus Etreellveness Measures 1 997 1998 1ll99 2000 2001 1.269 1.252 1 .332 1 .3"9 1..547 0 .310 0.396 0-600 0 541 0 .609 0.251 0 .322 0 .400 0 420 0.426 4 .&76 5.389 6.11& 7 357 7.096 1 8.212 16.750 16 .405 1 7.503 1 6.859 232 8 1 2 253.134 258.451 242. 243 212. 504 2.000 3.800 2 .500 3 500 4 500 0.000 0.000 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 61.000 9.000 6.000 14.000 17.000 nlo nla nla nla nla 2.483 16.817 25.595 11. 297 10.325 1.429 1.423 1 .449 1.492 1 .C88 12.666 12.500 12.500 12.500 12.500 1.350 1.350 1.350 1.350 1.SOO Bay County Transit Development Pfan, 2003 2007 %Change % Clllnge 1 997-200 1 2000-2001 21.92% 14 72% 96.54 % 12.% 69.58% 1.36% 55.11% "-53% -8 53% -4.8 3% -8 .72% 1 2 28% 1 25.00% 28.S7% nla nla 12.13% 21 .43% nlo nla 315.87% -8 60% 4 11% -0.30% 1.31% 11.32% 11.32%

PAGE 266

G EmCtEHCY MEASURES COST EFACIENCY Operaflrog Expense Pet C.plta Operating Exi)Gnse Po< Peak Vehicle (000) Operiltlng Expense P er Passenger Tri p Operating ElCpenM P91 Passooger Mile Operating E Kpense Per Revenue Mile Oporallng Elcpen56 Pet -HoiK Mile --ecpense ElcpenM OPERATING RATIOS Farebox Reoovt<)' VEHICI.E UTiliZATION Vehi cle Mil .. Pet Peak Vehicle (000) Vehicle Hou,. PO< Poak Vehicle ( 000) Revenuo Milos Por Vehicle Miles R.,...,t Milo l Per ToCol Vehicles (000) -Hours PerToCOI Vehldes(OOO) t.ABOR PRODUCTMTY Pas...ngor Trlps Per (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehic l e M iles Per Gallon FARE Average Fare TABLEG-3 Bay Town n-ollty Direetly -Opera ted ltlo torbut EffioiCDcy Measures 1997 1998 1199 2000 2001 1 654 1.884 1 .677 1.834 2.081 87. 753 77.174 68. 898 75.145 63.953 5.342 4.755 3.391 3.421 1.723 1.727 1 .342 1.356 1.332 1.342 1.530 1.342 1.425 1.457 24.442 25.622 22.016 24.948 24.277 0 .125 0.116 0 129 0213 0.10< 0.0113 0.076 0.()110 0. 150 0 .072 7 7% 12% 10.0% 9.1% 10.3% 5 1 .996 5 1 .288 54 564 55258 47.545 2.856 3.096 3 .289 3.144 2.891 0.971 0.984 0 .938 0.984 0.923 37.863 50.451 51. 190 26.360 29255 2.079 3.012 3.120 1 .596 1 ,756 1. 124 1238 1.535 U48 1207 5 142 6 .870 10 .079 10.654 8.567 6 .618 5 .887 5 .305 6.284 7.128 0.413 0.342 0 .338 03
PAGE 267

hi = i ; ; I 1 ; ! 9 ! I = 4 hi as; s i 1 s = 1 l"

PAGE 268

I h .. if l o ;sll sn ..: ... .; =I!! a :;; {!. h 8 f n i I tH.U 8 & I .. u t u 1h!n .! .I H HUll t I!

PAGE 270

APPENDIXH Transportation Disadvantaged Population Estimation Methodology

PAGE 271

H-2 Bay County Tntnslt Development Pian, 2003-2007

PAGE 272

To investigate the transportation needs of a given area, certain distinct segments of the population must be examined. One step in the development of the TOP requires the analysis of segments of the study area population that consist of persons who use transit service as a primary source for mobility requirements. Rorida has a classification for such persons as defined by Chapter 427 Florida Statutes which provides a definition for those persons who are "Transportation Disadvantaged" (TO). Traditional transit markets include: Youth (persons under the age of 18); Elderly (persons 60 years of age and older); Disabled (persons with a public transportation disability); Low income (persons with Incomes below the federally-established poverty level); and Zero-car households (households In which no car is available). This Appendix provides a description of the demographic characteristics of Bay County in terms of the traditional transit markets listed above. Transportation Dlsad'lilntaqed Population Chapter 427 of the Rorida Statutes defines transportation disadvantaged (TO) persons as: .. those persons who because of physical or mental disability, Income status, or age are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, soda! activities, or children who are handicapped or high-risk or at risk as defined In s. 411.202." The Florida Coordinated Transportation System serves two population groups. The first group, now being referred to by the Aorida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) as the "Potential" TO population, includes persons who are disabled, elderly, low-income, and children who are "high-risk" or "at-risk." These Potential TO persons are eligible for trips that are sponsored by social service or other governmental agencies. The second population group, referred to by the CTD as the Transportation Disadvantaged (TO) population, is a subset of the Potential TO population. The TO population includes those persons who are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are not able to receive transportation under other sponsored programs. Persons in this subset may be eligible to receive trips subsidized by the TO Trust Fund monies allocated to local community transportation ooordinators (CTCS). Often, there Is a local process developed to determine the eligibility under this category and may become required by the cro. The 2001 estimate for persons who are included in the Potential TO population, 53,648, represents approximately 36 percent of the oounty's 2001 population of 150,287 (estimated by Bay County). Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007 H-3

PAGE 273

Tables H-1 and H-2 contain projections for the Potential TO population and the lD population of Bay County to the year 2007. From 2001 to 2007, the Potential TO population is projected to grow from 53,648 to 5 9,994. 111e lD population is estimated to reach 17,163 by 2007. Table H 1 2002-2007 Bay County Potential Transportation Disadvantaged Population Projections Market Segment 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Disabled. Non-Elderly, tow lnalme 1,389 1.406 liMl 1,452 1,"464 Olsabl_.,, Noi>-EI Oi5lbled, Elcdology Guidelines for Forecasting 11> TrM$JXJ11aliOn Demlln(J at 1M County l.evtl and tile 2002 Say County Transporta llon Cisadvan toged SeMte Plan prepar_., by llle W est Flollda RegiOnal Planning COuncil. Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2(}(}3-2(}(}7

PAGE 274

Table H-2 2002 Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Population Projections Market Segment 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Transportation Handicapped, Non-512 518 524 531 535 Elderly, Low Income Transportation Handicapped, Non-3,017 3,054 3,092 3,129 3,155 Elderly, Non-low Income Transportation HandicaJllled, Elderly, 1,070 1,095 1,119 1,145 1,181 Low Income Transportation Handicapped, 8derly, 6,468 6,613 6,764 6,916 7,139 Non-Low income Non-Transportation HandlcaJllle(l, Low Income, No Auto, No Public 4,579 4 ,638 4,699 4,759 4,807 Transit Transportation Disadvantaged 15,646 15,918 16,198 16,480 16,817 Population 2007 539 3,182 1,219 7,368 4,855 17,163 SOURCE: C\JTR methodology described in Methodology Guidelines fOr Forealsting TD Transportation Demand at the Cctmty Level and the 2002 Bay County Transportation OIS&dvantaged serw.::e Plan prepared by the West Rorida Regional Planning Council. Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003 H-5

PAGE 275

H-6 Bay County Transit Development Plan, 2003-2007