USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Charlotte County transit development plan

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Charlotte County transit development plan
Physical Description:
1 online resource (86, 23 p.) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bus lines -- Planning -- Florida -- Charlotte County   ( lcsh )
Bus lines -- Public opinion -- Florida -- Charlotte County   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Planning -- Florida -- Charlotte County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from e-book cover (viewed Aug. 8, 2011).
General Note:
Prepared for the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization.
General Note:
"January 1996."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028701051
oclc - 745911770
usfldc doi - C01-00179
usfldc handle - c1.179
System ID:
SFS0032280:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

CHARLOTTE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Technical Memorandum No.1: Existing Conditions and Public Involvement Prepared for the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization! by the Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida cum January 1996

PAGE 2

Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning O r gani2ation 28000 Airport Road A -6 Punta Gorda, Florida 33982-2411 (941) 639-4676 Director: Staff: Fax (941) 639-8153 Lisa B. Beever, Ph.D., AICP Preston J. Elliott Center for Urban Transportation Research Uruvers ity of South Florida 4202 E. Flower Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, FL 33620-5350 (8 13) 974-3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Director: Project Managers: Gary L. Brosch Rosemary G. Mathias Fredalyn M. Frasier Laura Lachance Baicban Chen Project Staff: Joseph Hagge Reviewer: Dennis Hinebaugh

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................... 1 Study Area Setting .................... ................. .. .... ........ 3 Demographic and Economic Conditions ........................ ............. 3 Population and Population Density ..................... .... ........... 4 Age Characteristics ................. ......................... ..... 6 Minority Population ............ .. ... ... .. .............. . ...... .... 9 I ncome Characteristics ............... .......... ............. .... .... 15 Vehicle Availability ... ................. ....... ....... ............. 16 Labor Force and Employment Characteristic s .... .............. ... . . 19 Transportation Disadvantaged Population ...... ....... .... . . . . . . 25 Tourist and Seasonal Residents _. ............. ................ . ..... 27 Summary .......................................... . ........... 28 Land Use and Roadway Characteristics ....... ......... ...... . : . .......... 30 Land Use ....................... . .... . .................. 30 Parking Supply ....................... ............................ 30 Roadway Characteristics ................. ........ ................ 31 Surrunary ............. . . ....... .................... . .... . 3 3 Major Trip Attractors and Generators .. : ......................... . . : .... 37 Shopping Centers ..................................... ......... ... 3 7 Health Care Facilities ..................... .............. ........ 37 Government Offices and Social Service Agencies ....... .... ... ........ 38 Public Schools and Colleges ............................. ........... 38 Area A !tractors ............... ... ... ... ..... ... .... .. ........ 3 8 Swnmary ....................................... : .... ....... 38 PART B: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................... 49 Interviews with Key Local Officials .. ...... ... ................. ....... . 51 Perceptions of Current Conditions ............................... : .... 51 Interest in Public Transportation ........................... . ...... 53 Potential Sources of Funding ............. ......... ... ... .... ........ 54 I

PAGE 4

Suggestions and Alternatives .................... . .... .... .... . 54 Other Transportation-Related Issues ................................. 56 Swrunary ... ... ............................ ....... ............. 56 Citize n Telephone Survey ................................................ 57 Survey Methodology ............. ......... .... .................. 57 Survey Analysis ....................... . .. ...... ... ......... 57 Current Travel Habits ..................... ................. 59 Interest in Public Transportation ... ... ................ . ....... 65 Preferences for Public Transportation ......... .............. . 71 Priorities for Transportation in the County ..... ........ ......... 77 Willingness to Fund Public Transportation ... ............ ...... 81 Swrunary ................................. ..... ................ 86 .. II

PAGE 5

T able l Table 2 Table 3 Table 4a Table 4b Table 5 Table6 Tab l e 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table II Table 12 Tab l e 13 Tab l e 1 4 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Tab l e 1 8 Tab l e 19 Table 20a Table 20b Tab le21 Tab le22 T able23 Table2 4 Table 25 Table26 Table 27 LIST O F TA BLES Population and Population Density .................................... 4 Population Density by T AZs with ::.: 3 000 Persons per Square Mile ......... 6 Pop u lation Age Charact e ristic s for Charlotte County and Florida .... ...... 8 Population 0 -17 Years . ....... ........................... ....... 8 Population 60 Years and O l der ........ . . ...... ...... ...... .... 8 Minority Characteristics .... . ....... ....... ......... ... . ........... 9 Hou s ing Density by T AZs with :.. 2 500 Houses per Square Mile ........ . 11 Median Household Income Distribution ............. . .......... . .... 15 Inco m e Characteristics for Charlotte County .... ............ ... ....... 15 Vehicle Avail ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Vehicle Availability p e r Household .............. .... . .. . ....... 16 Labor Force Characteristics ................ ....... ................ 19 Labor Force Characteristics by Census Block Group . . ......... . . . 19 Employment Density by T AZ ............................ ... ....... 20 P r ojected Employm ent Growth 1990 t o 2020 ... .... ..... ............ 22 Average Vehi cle Occ upancy by Trip .......... ........... ....... . . 22 Travel to Work ....... .... ............... .. ... . ..... . ....... 23 Travel Time to Work . ....... ........... . .... ...... ...... 23 Trave l Time by Census Block Group .................... .... ... . 25 M e ans ofTravel to Work ........ : .... ........ . . ......... . .... 25 1995 Potent i al Transportation Disadvantaged (TD Category I) ... .... ... 26 199 5 Transportation Disadvantaged (fD Category II) . .................. 27 Hotel s /Motels with> 30 Rooms ............................. .... . 28 1994 Roadway Conditions "Report Card" ........... . ....... ....... . 32 S h opping Centers .................. .... ." .............. ...... ... 39 Medical Facilities ........ ... ... ...... ............... ..... ... ..... 4 0 Government Offices and Social Service Agencies ........... ... .. .. ... . 4 1 Public Schools and Coll eges ..................... . .... ..... . ... 42 Area Attractions ............... ...... ..... ............. ..... . . 43 iii

PAGE 6

Map I Map2 Map3 Map4 MapS Map6 Map7 Map8 Map9 Map 10 Map II Map 12 Map 13 Map 1 4 Map 15 Map 16 Map 17 Map 18 Map 19 LIST OF MAPS Charlotte County Regional Designations ... .......... ......... . . ...... 5 1990 Popula t ion Density Map by T AZ .... . .... .... . ... . . .... 7 199 0 Population Under Age 18 by Census B l ock G r o up . ....... ......... 10 1990 Population Over Age 60 by Census Block Group ........... . ..... I I 1990 Minority Population by Census B lock Group . . ....... . . . .... 1 2 1990 Housing Density Map by T AZ ......... ....... ....... . ....... 14 1990 Percent Househo lds with Annual Income Under $10,000 by Censu s Block Group _. ........ ................. ........ ...... . 17 1990 Percent House holds with N o Vehicle Available b y Census Block G roup ... ......... .......................... .... 18 1990 Employment Density Map by T AZ . ...... ........ .... ....... 21 1990 Percent Workers with Travel Time to Work Over 30 Minutes by Census Block Group ..... . .... .............. ...... ... ....... 24 Current Hotels/Motels > 30 R ooms by T AZ .... . . . .......... . 29 1994 Level of S ervice on Major Road Network ......... .... ............ 34 Bicycle Facilities on Major R oad Network ...... ........ .... . . .... . 35 Pedestrian Facilities on Major Road Network ......... ................. 36 Current Shopping Centers by T AZ ... ...... . ......... . . . . .... . 42 Current Medical Facilities by TAZ ....... ..... ... .. ............ .... 43 Curre nt Government Offices and Social Service Agencies by TAZ . ........ 44 Current Public Schools and Colleges by T AZ ...... ..... .... . .... . . 45 Current Area Attractions by T AZ ......... . .............. .......... 46 iv

PAGE 7

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 FigureS Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure IS , ; ,J( . : LIST O F F I GU RE S Q4. How do you u8ually travel locally? ............................. ... 61 Q8. Have you ever used a taxi in Charlotte County? .... ....... ........ 62 Q9. On average, how many taxi trips do you take per month? . ......... . 63 Q6. When you did use public transportation services in another community was it a service that you would like to see here in Charlotte County? .... . . 67 QIO. In thinking about local bus service in Charlotte County how important do you feel this service would be to you or your family? ...... 68 Q11. If local bus service were avai l able in Charlotte County, woul d you or any member of your househo l d use it? .... . . .... .... . 69 Ql2. For what type of trips would you use the bus? ...................... 73 Q 18. What i s the longest distance you would walk to a bus stop? ..... .... . 74 Q19. How frequent should buses visit each stop? ........................ 75 Q20. What i s the highest one-way fare you would be willing to pay for local bus service? .................................. 76 Ql6. Which improveme n t is most important to you? ....... ........ . ... 79 Q 17. The following improvements were identified as important for Charlotte County. With limits in public funds which of these eight do you think are t he most important to fund o n a scale of I to S? .... .......... .... .... . 80 Q2!. Should tax dollars be used to establish bus service in Char l otte County? 83 Q22. Would you vote for an increase in local taxes to fund futur e public transportation improvements? ...................... 84 Q23. Which of the following local funding methods would you favor to fund public transportation? .... .............. ......... ................. 85 v

PAGE 8

APPENDIX A APPENDIXB APPENDJXC LIST OF APPENDICES Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al Survey Instrument and Sununary Results ... . . . ....... ...... B-1 Cross Tabulation Tables .................... ... ..... . .... C-1 Vl

PAGE 9

Charloe County Part A: Existing Conditions PART A: EXISTING CONDITIONS To assess the potential for transit syste m development, it i s necessary to gain an understanding o f the envirorunent within which the sy ste m wou l d operate. To w ard this end, the first part of this technica l memorandum analyzes (1) the study area setting, (2) demographic and economic conditions, ( 3) land us e and roadway characteristics, and (4) major trip attractors and generators. The information was compiled using Census data, Traffic Analysis Zone (T AZ) d ata, Bureau of Transportation Stat istics, and other relevant data p rovided by the Charlotte Co unty-Punta Gorda M etropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and other Co u nty departments. Maps and the discussion of roadway characteristics were developed by Tindale-Oiive r and Associates the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan consultant for the MPO. Techni cal Memorandum No. I Pagel

PAGE 10

Parr A: Existing Condidoru Charlotte County PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page2 Technical Memorandum No. 1

PAGE 11

Cltarwtte County Part A: Existing CondU/Qns Study Area Setting Charlotte County is a coastal county located in southwest Florida, bounded by the Gulf of Mexico to the west, Sarasota and DeSoto counties to the north, Glades County to the east and Lee County to the south. The county encompasses approximately 693 square land miles. In the 1990 Census, the population was estimated at 110,975. Most ofthe population is concentrated in three distinct areas within the western coastal area of the county. These three major population centers are in Punta Gorda, the only incorporated area within Charlotte County; Port Charlotte/Murdock; and E nglewood. The vast majority of the county's population-! 00,228 or 93 percent reside i n unincorporated areas. Outside the City of Punta Gorda, the urbanized populations reside in low density, suburban style platted developments. The major distinguishing characteristics of the county are its rapid growth in the last decade and its large concentrations of retired perso ns. From 1980 to 1990, Charlotte Cou n ty experienced an 89.8 perc ent growth in population from 58,460 to 110,975, respectively During the 1990s, growth slowed considerably with an average population increase of 3 percent per year. Many of new residents are older and retired, as indicated in the 1990 Census in which t h e median age was report e d as 53. 6 years. The following section highlights population characteristics of the county as a means of analyzing the transportation conditions and needs w i thin the county Demographic and Economic Conditions This section summarizes demographic and economic data for Charlotte County Specific demographic characteristics related to potential transit use are presented including: Population and population density Age characteristics Minority population Housing density Income characteristics Vehicle a v ailability Labor force and employment characteristics Transportation disadvantaged (fD) populatio n Tourists and seasonal residents Technlcol J'Wemorondum No. 1 Page3

PAGE 12

Part A: Existing Condfl/ons Char/Qtte County For the most part, Charlotte County mirrors the state demographics and journey to work data. The average househ ol d size in the county is somewhat smalle r compared to the state, and the age distribution is skewed toward the older population. These characteristics are discussed in further detail in the following sections Population and Population Density The population of Charlotte County increased 89.8 percent from 58,460 in 1980 to 110,975 in 1990, an increase of 52,515 people. Compared to Florida, Charlotte Co unty has a very low overall population density. According to the Census the 1990 population density in the county was 160 persons per square mile, much lower than the state average population density of 240 person per square mile. As noted previously, the county experienced tremendous growth from 1980 to 1990, at a rate almost three times greater than the state. Table I shows population, population growth, and population density for Florida and Charlotte County. Table 2 shows population density by traffic analysis zone (T AZ) for the 15 T AZs with population densities greater than 3,000 persons per square mile. Table 1 Population aod Population Density Population Density Area Population Growth (persons per (1980 to 1990) square mile) Florida 12,937,926 32.8% 240 Charlene County 110,975 89.8% 160 Most of the county has a low population density with fewer than 3,000 persons per square mile. The population is concentrated in the mid and western partS of the county with an average density of350 persons/square mile, whic h is higher than the state average of 240 persons per square mile The highest concentration of population is in T AZ 302 (Punta Gorda), with 7,375 persons per square mile. The eastern half of the county, which has much lower population densities, is predominately agricultural land and the I 0 I square-mile Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Map I shows the regional county designations referre!i to in the T AZ tables The population densities of all the T AZs in the county are shown in Map 2. Page4 Tech,ical Jl1em()randum No. I

PAGE 13

Charlotte CounJy Pa rt A: Existing Conditi o ns = 0 < = .!aD < '"C) = 0 -., =: -_e. ::E -= 0 u .B .... 0 ... OS -= u ..... Q., Teclrnlcal Merrummdum No. I PageS

PAGE 14

Part A: Existing Conditions Table 2 Population Densily by TAZs with 3,000 Persons per Square Mile Density ChaTiolte County TAZ (persons pu square mile) 302 Punta Gorda 7,375 204 Mid-County 5,883 306 Punta Gorda 5,000 379 South County 4,745 234 Mid-County 4 577 225 Mid-County 4 ,54 5 308 Punta Gorda 4,327 226 Mid-County 4,085 313 Punta Gorda 3,941 309 Punta Gorda 3,841 314 Barrierlsland 3,820 218 Mid-County 3,720 232 Mid-County 3,514 222 Mid-County 3,347 3 76 South Countv 3 J 15 According to projections made by MPO staff, the population of Charlotte County is projected to increase by 117 percent from 1 10 ,347 in 1990 to 239,800 by 2020. Likewise, population density is expecte d to increase from 160 persons per square mile in 1990 to 347 persons per square mile by 2020. Population is expected to be concenttated in Mid-County, accounting for about half of that gro"1h; West and South County arc each expected to account for about a quarter of the gro,.tb. Age Characteristics Table 3 compares age group percentages for Florida and Charlotte County. As shom1 in the table, nearly half of the county's population (42.7 percent) is 60 years of age or older. Compared t o the state, Charlotte County has a higher percentage of p ersons age 55-59, and 60 years and older. In fact, the median age in Charlotte County is 53.6, the highest of any county in the United S ta tes. Page6 Technical Memorandum No. 1

PAGE 15

L e gend mfJ 25 People p er dot N a .. \::t \1'> 0 1 2 3 4 5 . . ... /-j) x. ()!:. -H _.r r ,..t /\\ \ / .. "':/t"/ f V .; ._. '' '""' .. . \ .. ( \ '>( ..... \ . / ...l / ""' ':< ........... / t / ; / ... ,..... / ..... / >. ...... ""rY. . ). I .. ---x .,.,_ ;. ...... > .,/. : / 1: } \'-. .. ,, .. .-)-' '(,.A I .. J . ..... / . t I \ .. /. / .. l ':: -..! .. -... ... .. .-, ....... I - / < f . . . ., . . - . . L "':. . I Downtown Punta Gorda 0 . . . . rec { 'oul/!'1; .. . . . . ::. .. . . hkvtMI!I' .}!NV :;-..: llr.b'o()(-l f\0. 1990 Population D en sity Map ByTAZ TRANSITDEVELOPMENTPLAN I CHARLOITECOUNTY M p 0 MAP NO: 2 01/11/96 PUNTA GORDA

PAGE 16

Part A : Existing Conditions 11'-17 Years Florida 21.09% Charlotte County 15.5% Table3 Population Age Characteristics for Charlotte County and Florida 18-24 25-44 45-54 Years Years Years 9.2% 30.5% 10.1% 5.8% 21.0% 8.9% Charlotte County 55-59 60 Years Years and Older 4 .5% 23.6% 6.1% 4 2 .7% Tables 4a and 4b show the census b l ock groups that have greater than 30 percent concentrations of persons aged 0 -17, and census block groups that have greater than 59 percc nt of the age group 60 years and older, respectively. PageS Table4a Population 0-17 Years Census Block Group Percentage 204 .04 Mid-County 41.7% 202.01 Mid-County 30.4% Table 4b Population 60 Years and Older Census Block Group Percentage I 05.03 S outh County 96.2% 306 02 West County 87 .8% 207.01 Mid County 73.4% 303 .01 West County 69.2% I 04.02 Punta Gorda 64.0% I 04.0 l Punta Gorda 62.8% 104 .03 Punta Gorda 61.4% Technical jW.emorandum No. I

PAGE 17

Charlotte County Patt A : Existing Conditwns Age groups at both ends of the scale are of significant interest with regard to potential transit use because the yolUlg and the elderly often do not have adequate access to automobiles and, therefore, commonly are more dependent on public transportation than persons in the middle-age groups. Census block group 204.04, located in Mid-County, has the highest percentage of persons age 0 17 (4 1.7 percent); census block group 105.03, located in South County has the highest percentage of persons age 60 and older (96 .2 perc ent). Maps 3 and 4 show the percentage the population 0-17 years and the percentage of the population age 60 and older, respectively. Minority Population Minorities represent 6.8 percent of Charlotte County's population, which is considerab l y lower than Florida's average of26.8 percent. As shown in Table 5, there a.:e only two census block groups within the county with a minority populatio n grea t er than 20 percent. These areas include census block group 101.01 in East County with a minority population of27. 0 percent, and census block group 103.01 in Punta Gorda with 22.6 percent. It should be noted that census bloc k gro u p 101.01 encompasses a large land area, with a total population of 3 467, which includes a minority population of937. In addition, Charlotte Correctional institution is located within that census block group. The combination of these two fuctors may be affecting the statistics. Map 5 shows the seve n census b lock groups with minority population greater than I 0 percent. TableS Minority Characteristics r,< ,,, . -J'f ._v .. .,., .' : t, . : :: ; i' ' <.#o op, u : .0': $ . ,., ..... ,..,., . . '' ' .,;" .. v v ,, 1 01.01 East County 27.00/o 103.01 Punta Gorda 22.6% 103.03 Punta Gorda 19.6% 203.02 MidCounty 1 8.2% 204.06 Mid-County 12.3% 209. 03 Mid-County 1 1.7% 202.04 Mid-County 10.7% Technical 1Wemorandu.m N(). 1 Pagc9

PAGE 18

0 0 1: .. . .. :t u 00 ... Gl Cl OC( ... ... Gl '0 ::: c :;,Ill "' c li) 0 :I -.: 'J:I li) ., c -G> :I() Q, &. "C '$ '$ c '$ "' CD 0 0 Cl "' "' --;!e 0 .... .3 0 g --'$ '$ '$ 0 --d z o::a6 0 d d ..... !'!t M "' ' ;. . }

PAGE 19

c Legend 0 to 17"/o 17 1 % to 24% 24.1%to44% 44.1% t o 54% 54 .1% to 59% above 59% --:;:. <-. '/ -::. N t f, \ 0 1 2 3 4 5 I .I Population Over Age 60 Census Block I { )JI ;.,_, ... .. ... .. ,, ;i_ .: .. .. .. ,;;. -,.. M.P.O. TRANSIT DEVI!LOPENT PI.AN I CKA.RLOITE COUNTY-I MAPN0:4 ,..,.. .. I PUNTA GORDA I

PAGE 20

Legend O%to 10% IO.I%to20% 20.1% 10 300/o (. -::;.. . ........ / ::;.. ; N 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 .<) Minority Population Census Block C.:rnun : r ' ),.(.;., : H I t ( \ r ,f)!/1 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN i i urnilr . . ..,....,UN .......... CHARL01TE COUNTY PUNTA GORDA M.P.O.

PAGE 21

Charlotte Coun(y Part A: Existing Conditions Housin g Density In 1990, Charlotte County had a t otal of 64,653 single and m ultiple dwelling units, about half of which are l ocated in Mid-County According to the Census the 1990 hous i ng density in the county was 93 dwelling units per square mile. Table 6 shows the I 0 TAZs with housing den sities greater than 2,500 units per square mile. The housing densities for all T AZs in Char lo tte County are shown in Map 6. It is not surprising that the distribution of dwelling units is consistent with population density as shown i n Table 2 and Map 2. Table 6 Hous ing Density by TAZs with 2,500 Houses per Squa re Mile ;:. $ "'' .... ....... . ''1:1:' .. ;.,. "': '';{.; .. : '9; .... I ',/N , .. . .' 'J' . . s t ... ..... , .. '-',H ,;, ., ' ' .. / .... ,i> ... ... .. \ 't : .. ;, ... ::...:.: : :.. 302 Punta Gorda 4,500 234 Mid-County 4,481 314 Barrier Island '3,718 379 South County 3,622 226 Mid-County 3,346 203 Mid-County 2 ,988 306 Punta Gorda 2,750 308 Punta Gorda 2,745 204 Mid-Countv 2.592 According to made by MPO staff th e dwelling units are projected to increase to 138,939 by 2020, a growth of 115 percent from 1990 Lik ewise during that time period the housing densities are projected to increase from an average of93 to 200 dwe ll ing units per square m il e. This projected increase is very similar to that of population density; however, tb.ere are so me differences i n regiona l growth. Population increase is expected to be concentrated in Mid-C ounty, whereas South County is the fastest growing area in housing. This factor may be because of new construction in South County. Teclmital No. 1 Page 13

PAGE 22

. . .. ,-.. ! . ; ... J l. l .. . . ; 0 . . . . . ... ...... .. __ -0 '1:1 "" c -.. .. .,. "' "' !I .. "' 0 :. \ .. ... ;-.. . ... -: . . .; .(' . .,.,r ........ ; j ::. .... ... ... .. : : ... \ .. . .. -. ... .. i : ... .. .. .. ..... .. ... ,. . . . > ., '. . . ... ... .. . . . ... . .

PAGE 23

Chllrloae County ; . Part A: Existing Conditions Income Characteristics The median household income for Charlotte County is $25,746. Table 7 shows the distribution of household income in the county and in Flo rida Compared to the state Charlotte County has a lower percentage of house h o lds with income under $10,000. The county also has a lower percentage of households with income above $40,000 compared to the state. Table 7 Median Household Income Distribution ... ;. ,.. ... ... ., .. > $26:1JQJl1;.:: ; S3.ii;ooiJ:.. : ::l< _. Over . '.' . . :>-,.._ ,) t:$.1.0)0, ? \ I : ?. Area S0'$9;999 : : s39,om ; .... ..... . {. ., ... 208.02 Mid-County 33.4% 103.03 Punta Gorda 31.9% 103,01 Punta Gorda 29.7% 207.01 Mid-County 25.7% 103.04 Punta Gorda 23.1% 207.02 Mid-County 22.5% As shown in Table 8, Charlotte County bas only two census block groups where 30 percent of the households have an annual income below$ I 0,000. The areas with significant concentrations oflowTechnical Jltemorandum No. 1 Page 15

PAGE 24

Part A: Exi.sring CondiJWns Cltar/tJtte Co11nty income households i nclude block groups 208.02 (M id-County ) and 103.03 (Punta Gorda), with 33.4 percent and 31.9 percent, respectively. Map 7 shows the percentage of households with income less than $10,000. Vehicle Availability Tab l e 9 shows the distribution of vehicle availability among households in Charlotte County and Florida. In Charlotte County only 5 percent of households do not have an automobile available, much lower than the Florida average (9 percent). Table l 0 lists the eight census block groups where more than I 0 percent of households do not have a vehicle available Map 8 shows concentrations of househo lds with no vehicles available by census block groups The two census block groups with more than 20 percent of households with no vehicle available are census block groups 207.01 (Mid County and 103.01 (Punta Gorda) the same areas with concentrations of low-in c ome households. Page 16 Area Florida Table 9 Vehicle Availability 0 Vehicles 1 v .. bicle 9% 41% 2 Vehicles 37% Charlotte County 5% 48% 37% Table 10 Vehicle Availability per H ousehold Percentage willi Census Block Group No Veblclc Available 207.01 Mid-County 22.7% 103 .01 Punta Gorda 22.1 o/o 103.02 Punta Gorda 17.3% 207.02 Mid-County 14.4% 210.0 I Mid County 13.3% 208.02 Mid-County 13.2% 103.04 Punta Gorda 1 1.3% 208.01 M id-County 10.5% 3+ Vehicles I 0% 10% Technical Memorandum No. I

PAGE 25

.,.. . .... CL :J 0 -... OJ(!) = ... c .. .i SID -rA 3: :J rA rA "Cc _CI> ou .c;.. =.Q 58 :z:c ... o c..CI>w ... Cl> Cl> c."g c::l ..-e 0 .. c

PAGE 26

Legend 0 O t o 10% -IO. I%to20% 20.1% t o 30% N i 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 ""' 1990 Percent Households with No Vehicles Available B y Census Block Group TRANSIT DE VE LOPMENT PLAN MAP NO : 8 12/22/<)5 f iknruroc: \ 'i!Jj e&W So.lur.:c : Tif\CUi e.()livu .t As.soe18fcs. JQO;. CHAR LOTTE COUNTYPUNTA GORDA M P.O.

PAGE 27

Charlotle County Part A: Exis ting Conditions Labor Force and Employment Characteristics ntis section describes various factors related to la bor force and employment characteristics including a description of the labor force, employment densities, and work travel behavior. Labor Force Labor force statistics include data relating to the number or percentage of person in the labor force. The percentage of Charlotte Count}< residents in the labor force ( 42.2 percent) is lower than for the state (60 4 percent). Table I I displays the percentage of the population 16 years and older in the labor force and the percentage of the labor force who are employed (non-military). T he percentage of labor force employed is 95.5 percent, slightly higher than the state average of94.2 percent. Table 12 shows the two census block groups (204.01 in Mid-County and 101.01 in East County) where the percentage of the labor force in the total population i s greater than 75 percent, i ndicating a larger n umber of employed residents. Th ese l abor force 10haracteristics are not surprising given the large n umber of retirees residing in Charlotte County. Table 11 Labor Foree Characteristics Florida 60.4% 94.2% Charlotte County 42.2% 95.5% Table 12 Labor Force Characteristics by Census Block Group _:::,/ .:. .: .. '1. J ._) i Ceiisui iBio'CkGtilupi ' : . . . ,;., : . : . :: . ::::' :.:: 204.01 Mid-County 80.9 % 101.0 1 East County 75.8% Technical Memorandum /Vo. I Page 19

PAGE 28

Port A : Exist/Jtg Cond/1/ons Cha r/on e County Employment Density Employmen t density i s a measure of the concentration of jobs. It show s where the jobs are loca ted, rather than wher e the employees live. Table 13 shows the concentration of employment in Charlotte County by TAZ. As can be seen from the tab l e and Map 9 most of the employment centers are lo cated along the U S. 4 1 corridor. Table 13 Employment Density by T AZ with ::. S,OOO Employees per Square Mile De11sity (employees per TAZ square mile) 284 Punta Gorda 15,685 230 Mid-County 9,545 1 98 Mid-County 8,97 8 293 Punta Gorda 8,333 189 Port Charlotte 7,951 1 77 Mid-County 7,856 299 Punta Gorda 7,457 296 Punta Gorda 6,842 292 Punta Gorda 5 ,933 301 Punta Gorda 5,611 According to the MPO staff, from 1 990 to 2020, employment figures for Char lotte Cou n ty are exp ected to increase by 1 17.3 percent, from 26,340 t o 57,241, respect ively. The employment density is expected to increase from 38.1 emp lo yees per square mile in 1990 to 82.7 employees per square mile by 2020. South County is the fastest growing employment area, with an expe cte d increase of 134.1 percent from 1990 to 2020. The employment growth rates for West and Mid-County are projected to be 121.1 percent and 49.5 percent, respective ly (see Table 14) Page2Q Technical Memorandum No. I

PAGE 29

-----. . 'Itt. ... --r-... --( ........ 1.. ,. ..... .... . ; ----. 7 -.r-..,-............. ..... ............ ............. r .-.r -[' .r:. -f ' Legen d 5 Emplo yees p er dot !--.. .. J' . .....:_ .... _: _ J I I } f \.... '---.. !};. ' I ...::1 \_ . \ , v-, ""'. _ --:-'<'\.. f', / I \ \, . _..H. / i-j' ,:r-.. _ _ 1 I --'1 I .. C.: f l ---I l I \ ';'--_;_ ';.[ /1 .. : --L----\ ...-- .. I. / -----\ . r . ... : .:, \ r 'IJ:o':l /\ ::,...... 1 .... t ., . < t l / .. "::... .... w.- ,. -< . \.", \ \ "l / -'}''t :" \ , / ---',... .. ...... ,..-: N l t.. \ v I' -._ r "1. (.'._ f!:. :r:-Jl?P.-\,r,,_._ .. / . .. .,. ..... "' < ... :,.%..,. . : ._: ; ; .>' . . . .... ... . ''"' v X-->',Y;.,.,,.-J . l r . / \ t /",/ ::.:l . :. ... .1' /."'{ . ... ---:1. ........ .. .... ... J ...... )<. ,/ ,.. : : : : .... . .... '1 .. . -----. '" .. \ .. / )\. .. .. . .' . . I : ; > .. Dow ntown Punta voroa 0 12345 / /.{"i.' ( o tuilr -: -f;IOliCEP.P_OW 1 9 9 0 E mploym ent D e nsit y M a p ByTAZ TRA N S I T D EVELOPME NTPLAN I CHARLOITEC OUNTY M p 0 MAPNO: 9 01/ll/96 PUNTAGORDA

PAGE 30

Part A: Existing Conditions Charlotte County Tab le 1 4 Projected Employment Growth 1990 to 2 0 2 0 W est (;onnty Mi d -Co u nty S oulb Coun ty Pet g P ctg. P ctg. 1990 202 0 I n c. 1990 2020 I n c. 1990 2020 Inc . . Industrial 213 2,620 113.0% 3,496 3,950 1 3.0% 2,289 6,596 1 88 .2% Employment Commercial 828 1,8 3 9 1 22 1% 5, 1 57 1 1 636 125 .4 % 5 ,343 11,711 119.2% Emp loyment Service 977 2,097 114,6% 6 954 7,742 11.3% 1,083 2,097 93 .6% Employment Tota l 2,018 4,461 121.1% 15,607 23,328 49. 5% 8 ,715 20,404 1 )4.1 Source : Based on da t a provided by Charlotte County-Pu n ta Gorda MPO The fastest growth in employment i s expec ted to be i n commercial areas (122.3 percen t ) fo llowed by ind u strial (109.6 percent), and service employ ment (109.6 percent). Veh icle Occupancy ln t h e absence of any county vehicle o c cupan c y data, th e Flo rida averag e occupancy rat e from t h e I 990 Nationwide P ersonal Transportation Study (NPTS) i s refer e nced. These figures are generally used for local transportation modeling when local data are not avai lable. T h e average vehicl e occupancy for al l trips in Florida is 1.63. The ave r age vehicle occupancy for trips to/from work is 1.10. Tabl e 1 5 shows the average vehic l e occupancy by trip for Florida and the Unit e d States. Table 15 Averag e Vehicl e O ccupa ncy b y Trip Social/ Fami ly/ Area To/From Work Shoppin g Recrea t ion Penonal Tot a l Florida 1.10 1.43 2 8 5 1.61 1.63 United States 1.16 1.53 2.16 1.59 1.64 Page22 Technlcalldemorandum NQ. I

PAGE 31

Char/JJtu County 1 , : ; . : -: . ,, Part A: Existing Condilions of Work Table 16 shows work locations and the extent of inter-county commuting for Charlotte County residents, as reported in CUTR's 1993 Florida Demographics and Journey to Work report Eighty percent of the labor force works in the county and 20 percen t works outside the county. Travel Time to Work Table 16 of Work 19% 1% Table 17 presents the distribution of travel time to work for Charlotte County and Florida The majority of Charlotte County residents have work trip commutes ofless than 20 minutes. Only 22 percent of Charlotte residents have work trips of 30 minutes or more, compared to 30 percent of Florida residents Table I 8 shows the four census block groups with travel time greater than 30 minutes. Map 10 shows the concentrations of workers traveling more than 30 minutes. Florida 16% Charlotte County 18% Source: 1993 Florida Technical Menwrandum No. 1 Table 17 Travel Time to Work 33% 21% 42% 18% and to Work CUTR 17% 13% 12% 10% Page23

PAGE 32

Legend 0% to 10% 10.1%10 20% 20.1%to 30% 30.1% to40% 40.1% to 50% over 50% c ::. ... .. .. / . . :: N ..... ,.... 0 1 2 3 4 5 ..... "'"' 0 L) 1990 Percent Workers with Travel Time ,..., to Work Over 30 Minutes bv Census Block r.:rn ::..'n.(. :}o { '""' ;;; TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ""' ,';' :fiJi}: F"olf:JOIML8W t.,.; CHARLOTTE COUNTY PUNTA GORDA M.P.O.

PAGE 33

Charlotte County Part A: Existing Conditions Table 18 Travel Time By Census Block Group 205.01 Mid-County 58.5% 205.02 Mid-County 52.7% 102.01 South-County 48.8% 42.4% Table 19 Means of Travel to Work F lorida 77.1% 1 4 1 % 2.0% 2 .0% 4 .8% Charlotte County 80.5% 14.0% 0.0% 1.2% 3.6% Transportation Disadvantaged Population Chapter 427 of the Florida Statues defines transportation disadvantaged (TD) per s ons as: ... those persons Who because of physical or mental disability income s tatus, or age are unable to transport themse lves or to purchase transportation and are, the refore dependent upon others t o obtain access to h e alth care, emp loyment, educa tion, shopping social activities or children who are h an d icapped or high-risk or at risk as de fined in s. 411.202. The Florida Coordinated T ransportat i on System serves two population groups. The first group potential transportation disadvantaged (also ref e rr ed to as "TD Category!"), i n cl u des persons who are disabled, elderly, low income, and children who are "high-risk" or "at-risk These persons are eligible for trips that are sponsored by social service or. other governmental agencies. Technical Memorandum No. I Page25

PAGE 34

Pan A: Existin g Conditions Char l otte County The second population group, transportation disadvantaged (also referred to as "TD Category II"), is a subset of the Category I population. Category II includes tho se persons who are trans portatio n disadvantaged accor ding to the definition in Chapter 427 F.S. (i.e they are unable to t ransport themselves or to purchase transporta tion ). These persons are eligible to rece i ve the same subsidies as those in Category!, plus they are eligible to receive trips subsidi z ed by the TD Trust F und monies allocated to local community transportat ion coordinators (CT Cs) by the F l orida Commission for the Transporta t ion Disadvantaged as funding permits. Tab le 20a shows CUTR's estimate of the number of persons in Charlotte Countyin the potentia transportation disadvantaged population. This figure, 67,488, represents app roximately 51. 8 percen t of the county's 1995 total population. Table 20b shows C U TR 's estimate of the number of persons who are transportat ion disadvantaged. CUTR estimates tha t 1 2,966 perso n s (9.9 percen t of the co u nty s 1995 total popula tion) are transportation disadvantaged and therefore, would meet the eligib il ity criteria for receiving trips su b sidized by the TD Trust Fund Persons in ei t her o f the se TD categories may be heavily dependent on some form of public t ransportation. Table20a 1995 Potential Transportation Dis ad,antaged (TO Category 1 ) Population Segments Included Estimated No. Disabled, NonElderly, Low Income 414 Disabled, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income 4,087 Disabled Elderly, Low Income 75 2 Disabled, Elderly. Non-Low Income 13,175 Non-Disabled, Elderly, Low Income 2,305 Non-Disabled. Elderly, Non-Low I ncome 40,38 1 Non-Disabled, Non-Elderly, Low Income 6,374 Total Potential Transportation Disadvantaged 67 ,488 Source : Estimates prepared by CUTR using the method described in Methodology Guidelines for Forecasting TD Transpor t ation Demand at the County Level. Percent 0.6% 6.1% 1.1% 1 9.5% 3 .4% 59 .8 % 9.4% 100% Page26 Technical iWemorandum No. I

PAGE 35

Cllorlotte County Tabl e 20b 199 5 Tra nsportation Di s a dvantaged (TD Category II) Transportation D isabled, Non-Elderly, Low In come 265 Transportation Disabled, Non-Elderly, Non-Low Income 2,613 Transportation Disabled, Elderly, Low Income 480 Transportation Disabled, Elderly, Non-Low Income 8,408 Non-Transportation Disabled, Low Income, No Auto, 1,200 No Fixed-Route Transit Total Transportation Disadvantaged 1 2 966 Pan A: existing Conditions 2.0% 20.2% 3 .7% 64.8% 9.3% 100% Source: Estimates prepared by CUTR using the method described in Methodology Guidelines TD Demand at the Tour ists and S e asona l Reside n ts Tourists visit Charlotte County during the w i nter (January March) and summer (June-August) According to the Chamber of Commerce, during the winter the average stay is 23. 5 days and the median age (of the head of househo ld) is 55. During the summer the average stay i s 1 3.9 day s and the median age (of th e head of household) is 46. Forty-three percent of touri s ts s t ay with relative s or friends. Table 21 and Map II s h ow the locations of hotels and motels with more than 30 worns. According to the Chamber of Commerce, about twothirds of the tourists and seasonal residents rely o n automobiles for transportation ; about one-third rely on recreationa l vehicles Although predominantly populated by year-wund residents, Charlotte County attracts many seasonal residents as well. According to the Chamber of Commerce, sea s onal residents add 7 percent to the population and typically stay i n the area from one to four months. During some winter peak visi t ati o n per i ods the county population may increase by as much as 30 pe r ce nt. Technical Memorandum No. I PageJ7

PAGE 36

Part A: Existing Conditions Days Inn ofEnglewood Days Inn Port Charlotte Days Inn Punta Gorda Econo Lodge Harbour Inn Holiday Inn Punta Gorda Howard Johnson's Motel6 Peace River Inn Port Charlotte Motel Quality Inn Downtown Sandpiper Motel Sea Cave Motel Veranda Inn of Englewood Table21 Hot els/Mote l s with > 30 Rooms lion State Road 776 East I Englewood 194 1 Tamiami Trail/ Port Charlotte 26560 Jones Loop Road I Punta Gorda 4100 Tamiami Trail/ Punta Gorda 5000 Tamiami Trail/ Charlotte Harbour 300 W. Rena Esplanade/ Punta Gorda 33 Tamiami Trail / Punta Gorda 9300 Knights Drive I Punta Gorda I 520 Tamiami Trail/ Port Charlotte 3491 T amiami Trail/ Port Charlotte 3400 Tamiami Trail/ Port Charlotte 3291 Tamiami Trail/ Port Charlotte 25000 E. Marion A venue I Punta Gorda 2073 S McCall Road I Englewood Source : Community Directory of Punta Gorda/Port Charlotte : September 1 994-1995 Summary Char/one County Rooms TAZ .. 84 278 126 207 84 350 61 253 so 258 183 299 102 292 124 371 34 325 53 249 lOS 232 38 247 31 270 38 312 When compared to the average Florida resident, Charlotte County residents arc more likely to be older, with almost half the county's population (48.8 percent) composed of persons age 55 or older Household income and vehicle availability data suggest that the population is middle class, w ith lower percentages in the county than in the state at the opposite ends of the income and vehicle availability scales. Although the majority of workers in the county drive alone, when compared to statewide figures Charlotte County workers closely match carpool/vanpool use profile. Page28 Technical JJ1tmorandum No. I

PAGE 37

Legend Wid! :-3 0 RQOW 0 ';..<;, --y .::,:...-" '/,-, <;, N I 0 1 2 3 4 5 Current Hotels/Motels With > 30 Rooms Bv T AZ ( oun iy PLAN I CHARL01TECOUNTY MAP N O II 12n2/95 l PUNTA<;lORDA <' < '::' ; > ' M.P.O.

PAGE 38

Pan A: Existing Condillons Charlot County Land Use and Roadway Characteristics These sections present the general land use, parking supply, and roadway characteristics in Charlotte County. Additional information regarding land use and transportation conditions will be presented as part of the Lon g Range Transpo rtation Plan being prepared by Tindale-Oliver and Assoc i ates Inc. Land Use According to the MPO in 1990, of the 451,000 acres comprising Charlotte County approximately 14, 400 acres or 3 percent were developed for residentia l use. For the most part, Charlotte County consists of land areas designated as vacant plotted single family residential and agricultural. The Future Land Use Element for Charlotte County projects the number of acres in residential development will increase by 60 percent to 23,000 acres by the year 2010. The projected grov.1h pattern represents continued population increases in the three concentrated areas of the county Port Charlotte/Charlotte Harbor, Punta Gorda, and Englewood. This future land use pattern with significant vacant and/or agricultural acreage is very similar to the future land use profile for the state. In the future land use map developed for the state, turalland use is the most common category followed (in order) by preserve, single-family, estate, multi-family, milit ary commercial/office, industrial and mining. Parking Supply The supply of parking within the county has not been a critical i ssue Major service and employment centers which include the Port Charlotte Town Center, the thr ee major hospitals, and government facilities, have adequate parking. However, the parking supply is somewhat limited at the two county beach facilities. At Englewood Beach, 255 parking spaces are avai lable at a cost of$1.00 per day and at the Port Charlotte Beach Complex, 277 parking spaces are available at a cost of $0.25 per hour. According to the Charlotte County Recreation and Parks Department, the demand for parking at these facilities exceeds the parking supply on most weekends during the winter tourist season. Another area within the county where the supply of parking has recently emerged as an issue is along t he U.S. 41 access roads (Tamiami Trail) through Port Charlotte. PageJO Technical Memorll/Jdum No. I

PAGE 39

Charloae County ... Part A: Existing Conditions Parking in the City of Punta Gorda is free and in general has not been a critical issue. In 1994, the City of Punta Gorda established an ordinance to increase the availability of short term parking by limiting on-street parking 'Vi thin the downtown area to two hours. Roadway Characteristics An inventory of the major road facilities in Charlotte County was compiled as a part of developing the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. The inventory contains data regarding the existing and proposed configuration of the major roads in Charlotte County, including information such as the existing number of Janes, jurisdictional responsibility, current and projected traffic volume data, level of service, and other information. Summary data of the coverage and condition o f the major road.network in 1994 is provided in Table 22. This table is a report card" on the transportation system summarizing pertinent information by jurisdictional responsibility. The measures summarized in this report card are based on tlie goals and objectives adopted by the MPO to guide the development of the 2020 Transportation Plan. In 1994, the major road network consisted of 418 centerline miles and 970 l ane-miles of road. The database contains traffic volume data for approximately 93 percent of the system. In 1994, roadway operating conditions can be characterized as very good. Peak-hour travel on the road system was accommodated at an average level of saruration of 59 percent, where 100 percent of saruration represents operation at the performance standard established for each road in the current adopted Comprehensive Plan Traffic Circulation Element. Only 12 percent of the peak-hour vehicular trave l occurs on roads that operate below the adopted performance standard. The majority of travel, 57 percent, is accommodated on the State Road System This is because much of the existing development patterns focus on U.S. 41 and S.R. 776, which form an "X" in the central portion of the County. Widening ofU.S. 41 between SR 776 and the Peace River to six lanes has recently been completed, and S.R. 776 from the Sarasota County line to U.S. 41 is scheduled to be four-laned within the next four years. Tecltnical Mtm/Jrandum No. 1 Page31

PAGE 40

Part A: Existing Conditions Charlotle County Table22 1994 Roadway Co n ditio n s "Report Card" County State System System City System I nventory 417.44 miles 97.58 miles 301.88 miles 17.98 miles Peak Hour Vehicle-Miles 266,053 150,594 1 09,546 5 913 ofT ravel (VMT) vehicle miles vehicle miles vehicle miles vehicle miles With LOS Data 387.4 1 miles 97.58 miles 274.22 miles 15.61 miles Percent Coverage 92.8% 100.0% 90.8% 86.8% Weighted Saturation ofVMT 0.580 0.663 0.477 0.369 Percent Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% Served by Transit Sidewalks 34 .79 miles 6.87 miles 19.8 miles 8 .12 mil e s Bicycle Fac iliti es 21.45 miles 0.27 miles 21.18 miles 0.0 miles Capital Cost N/A N/A N/A N/A Daily Road Maintenance/ $343,105 N/A N/A N /A Administrative Cost Daily Accidents 49.38 per day N/A N/A N/A Daily Injury Accidents 8.2 per day NIA N/A N/A Daily Fatalities 0. 1 2 per day N/A NIA N I A Daily Fuel Consumption 441,240 gals. NIA NIA N/A per day Source: T indale-Oiivcr and Assoc iate s inc., May 1995. NIA =not available. Charlotte County also has several major road improvement s scheduled within its capital prog)'am In Mid -C ounty the extension of El Jobean Road, and the four-laning of Harbor Bou l evard arc scheduled; in West County the four-laning of Pine Street and portions of County Road 775 and development of the Wimbledon/Winchester corridor also are scheduled. In 1994 bicycle facilities were provided on 5 percent of the major road system, and sidewalks were provided on appr oximately I 0 percent. Both of these facilities are lack ing in Charlotte County. Page32 No. 1

PAGE 41

Char/one County Part A: Existing ConditiOIIS As part of developing the 2020 Transportation Plan, an evaluation of2005 land uses on the planned ': ... : l .. ... ;;, ...... ..,;.;. ; II( v: : '; 2005 road network was undertaken. Tilis evaluation indicated that no s ign ificant congestion is expected through 2005, either. Growth and financing trends indicated that travel demands will grow at a faster rate than capacity will be added to the system. Thus, congestion will increase; however, the road system is relatively uncongested now and the growth can be accommodated. Map 12 shows the level of service on major roads in 1994, Map 13 shows b i cycle facilities, and Map 14 shows pedestrian facilities on major roads. Summary Current and projected land use in Charlotte County reflects the continuing influence of low density population, housing, and employment areas as well as the large amount of agricultural land Future development and growth along U.S. 41 and in Englewood is predicted. Although there are a few problem areas, for the most part parking is not a critical issue for Charl ott e County. There are limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Roadway conditions in Charlotte County are characterized as being "very good," with few problem areas. Future growth i s not expected to c reate a gr e a t deal of added congestion Technical Memorandum No. 1 PageJJ

PAGE 42

Legend LOS A, B, C LOSD -LOSE LOSF : . -:---. .... / . , . .. . .. N l 0 1 2 3 4 5 I?' I ,... I I I I 1994 Level of Service on Major Road Network ' I I :;;;>" T RA NSIT D EVELOP M ENT PLAN : + { r.: !Hl()($ ..... CHARLO'ITE COUNTY PUNTA GORDA M.P.O.

PAGE 43

... .... S urctsma C owJtt j ;. ' J ' I 1.. 1,.l .... 1 f t ... : .... J > { -''"' \ } Legend . ... . . ,., ... J ....... I 1 i (t..r f ; 1 ..... .. ... ... .. r --->. \ . '" ( >J <:r' [. !I> f f --' r \ ... No Bic y cle Lanes ,, . JI: .. --J ,_ , 'J \ ...,, J r./ 'J .. .l '\, "' J ,/' ' .... j J .. "< . ... ... ..... ,. 0 .! \ ( u '\ ----/ \ \ :. / \ \ .. v \ F'"\ .. \ ......... \ ... ., ;;r 0.. 0 V 1/;,; .. . :,.J A or' ... \. "\,Yfi t &( \. -:;. \ '{..- / j \ j i \ ' ""'..... \ .,.. \ '1. jl, ,. \. ,,. . ,/' ...... ':: l .. \ .... -''l('i'. . 0 ... .::/ / ,... \ ., i ....... N \ .. ,_. : \ i \ ' .. .. ' "\ .f""('" ":t ....... .... .... ... .., " . \. .... ...... .__... ., I '". \ .,,, ., \, r..t. .. lfl4 i _,, ......... ... J f r ---''"--------\ t .. l \ ... !'. 1 \ ., 1 f I ' .j < \ ' ' ., !,e r ('alll1ll' 0 1 2 3 4 5 F
PAGE 44

Legend No Pedestrian Facilitiesj Pedestrian Facitilit i es _. ..... .... . J .' : .... ,. -; -.. N t l J. _., . ' ' ; ... I ,_;;, ''t..., 8Jw I {J. . . ... f < ' ,; ;'i "i 0 1 2 3 4 5 I t . -'l .. . 'i .... . .. Pedestrian Facilities on Major Road Network ' ., r 01-Dl' . . ...... '-.li.. .. '' ,_.lf..,.. ... I -"" -------. ...... ' ..\ ,-;.,. "') , }. l . . < ': l / . < ''' TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP NO: 14 < . 1 f: 6 l-M .. f_, i hi}.'\ .. CHARLOTTE PUNTA GORDA ..... 6 Aoooc.IM ... Ih:: M.P.O.

PAGE 45

Charlo/te County : .,, : ... Part A: ExWJng Conditions Major Trip Attractors and Generators When analyzing the potential for developing a public transit system, it is important to look at the spatial distribution of major trip attractors and generators. These areas usually attract a large number of people, resulting in a concentration of trips, which is more conducive to public transit use. Five categories of trip attractors and generators were identified for Charlotte County: Shopping Centers Medical Facilities Government Offices and Social Service Agencies Public Schools and Colleges Area Attractions The locations of these activities centers have been plotted on T AZ maps for ease in identifying concentration of origins and destinations that might suggest corridors conducive for public transit. The tab l es and maps are grouped at the end of the text descript i ons. Shopping Centers As shown in Table 23 and Map 15, there are 19 retail shopping areas i n Charlotte County. I n addition to attracting shoppers, retai l centers also attract employees. Hence, these types of fac ilit ies generate considerable transportation needs. Most are loca ted along Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41 ). Health Care Facilities Health care facilit ies including hospitals and clinics, also serve as significant tr i p generators for employees as well as clients As shown in Table 24 and Map 1 6, in Charlotte County there are seven major hospitals and clinics, i ncluding three hospitals, three clinics run by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and one mental health clinic. In addition to the facilities listed, there is a concentration of health care centers located along Harbor Boulevard and Olean Boulevard in the Promenades area, and along Tarniarni Trai!IU .S. 41 in Port Charlotte, and along U.S. 17 i n the City of Punta Gord a. Technical Memorandum No. 1 Page37

PAGE 46

Part A: Exisling Cond/Jions Charlotte Cou nty Government Offices and Social Service Agencies A variety of government offices and social agencies are located in Charlotte County. Although many base offices are located in Punta Gorda, as shown in Table 2 5 an d Map 17, many offices also are scattered throughout the county Public School s and Colleges Schools and colleges also can be significant traffic generators, both for the students who attend them as well as for the teachers and staff who are employed th ere Table 26 and Map 18 show the location s of p ubli c schools and coll ege s in Charlotte County. A new campus for Ed i son Community College is being built at 26000 Airport Road in T AZ 333, and i s scheduled to open Fall 1996. By the nature o f their pupil cachement areas, most public schoo l s are scattered thro u ghout the cou n t y. Area Attractions In addition to the many beac h es and park s located throughout the area, Charlotte C ounty offers m ore than a dozen r ecrea tional destina t ions that appeal both to young and old. Tabl e 27 and Map 19 show the loca tio ns of the major attractions located in Charlotte County Summary The development pattern of Charlotte County generally follows along U.S. 41 corri d o r. The Port Charlotte/Murdoc k and Punta Gorda areas serve as commercial anchors w ith a high c once ntration of generators and attractors Also, these areas have the highest population densities in the county. In some are as the commer cial development along U.S. 41 is located a long the access roads Areas where this condition is present would req uire further analysis as it relates to accessibi lity for public transportation. Medical, government, and social service agencies are concentrated in the same areas Educational facilities and area attractions are mo re d i spersed thro ug hou t the co un t y. G iven the population, publi c transportation to these fac ili ties may be a lower priority as co mpare d to those mentioned above. The demographics and trip attractors in th e two concentrated areas (Port Charlotte/Murdock and Punta Gorda) may provide an opportunity for some form of public t ransportatio n ( e .g commun i ty bus/circulator or shuttle se rvice). Page38 Technical Memorandum N o I

PAGE 47

Otarlotte County b :: ".: miit Bwnt Store Plaza Charlotte Square Shopping Center Fis hennan s Village Harbor Square shopping Center Merchant's Crossing of Engl ewood Murdock's Carrousel ShoppiJig Center Peachland Promenades Port Charlotte Reta il Center Port Charlotte Town Center .Promenades Mall Punta Gorda Mall Rotonda Plaza School H ouse Square Cross Trail Shopping Center Super Wal -Mart Center Village Market Pla ce Shopping Center \Val-Mart \Vinn-Dixie Marketplace & Food Pavilion Part A: Existing Conditions Table 23 Shopping Centers :: . 3941 Tamiami Trail/ Punta Gorda 377 2200 Tamiami Trail/ Port Char lotte 203 1200 \V. Rctta Road I Punw Gorda 317 4200 Tamiami Troil/ Char lotte Harbor 253 1500 Placida Road I Englewood 295 2000 Tamiarni Trail I P o rt C harlotte 203 24123 Peachland Boulevard I Port Charlotte 181 1 400 Tamiarni Trail/ Port Charlotte 184 1441 Tarniarni Trail/ Port Charlotte 189 3280 Tamiami Trai l I Port Charlotte 230 133 Tarniarni Trai l /Punta Gorda 292 P l acida Road & Roton da Boulevard West/ 346 Rotonda West 4300 Kings Highway I Charlotte Harbor 258 Cross Street I P unta Gorda 315 U.S. 41 & Murdock Center I Port Char lotte 190 1825 Tarniarni Trail/ Port Char lone 198 2931 S. McCall Road (S. R 776) I 303 Englewood SR766 & Sunny brook Boulevard I 283 Englewood Source: of Punta Gorda/Port r 1994-1995 TechniCill Memorandum tvo. I Page39

PAGE 48

Pan A: Existing Cond i tions T ab le24 Healtb Care F a cil ities .. Facility ". ... Locat i on Bon Sec oursSt. Joseph H o sp ital 2500 Harbor Boulevard I Port Charlotte Charlotte Regional Medical Center Hospital 809 E. Marion A venue I Punta Gorda Englewood Health Care Center 1111 Davry Lane I Englewood Fawcett Memorial Hospital 21298 Olean Boulevard I Port Char l otte Florida Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services I 514 E. Grace Stree t I Punta Gorda Clinic Flori da Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services I 6868 San Casa Boulevard I Englewood Engl ewood Clinic Florida Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services I 2380 Harbor Boulevard I Port Charlotte Primary Care Cli .nic Florida Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative 1105 Taylor Road I Punta Gorda Program Administralion lnter-Medic 2885 Tamiami T rail/ Port Charlotte Independent Home Health Services 4300 Kings Highway I Port Char l otte Life Care Center of Punta Gorda 450 Shreve Street I Punta Gorda Ment al Health Servi c es, Inc. of Charlotte County 1700 Education A venue I Punta Gorda Charlolle (Aunty TM: 2 4 9 284 278 226 3 1 6 329 226 325 233 250 324 326 Palm v iew Health Care Center 25325 Rampart Boulevard I Port Charlotte 219 Port Charlotte Care Center 4033 Beaver Lane I Port Charlotte 253 Senior Health Center of Punta Gorda 1401 Tarniarni Traill Punta Gorda 321 S o uth Port Square 23033 Westchester Boulevard I 253 Port Charlotte Source: Community Dire<:tory of Punta Gorda/Port Charlotte: September 1994-1995 Page40 Technical Mem()riJitthlm No. I

PAGE 49

Charlotte Counry Part A : Ex isti ng Conditions T a ble25 G o vernment Offic es and S o ci al Se rvi c e A genc ies .(' ; : '$'< ; '":: H to' >' ... .; ' : F ...._. : at-: y.; .. . .... ...... ,., . .., .. .... ,. ,.,.,. ,.>w 'l: ........... 'i {,,,,.... ... ;.' . : . . . :,;. ;;. : 4.< ..-.. A y : : . -.... .i. <' ),_/*'- . .... .., .. : >', ... X : ; '1': ?l'} Charl otte County Cooperative Extension Se.rvice 6900 Florida S!reet/ Punta Gorda 300 Charlotte County Council on Aging & 2211 9 Elmira Boulevard I Port C h arlotte 253 Retired Senior Volunteer Program Charlo tt e County Senior Services Office & Dept. of 512 E Grace Street/ Punt a Gorda 316 Social Services Charlotte Co u nty Courtho use 118 W Olympia Avenue/ Punta Gorda 296 Charlotte County Scho ol B o ard Admini stration 1445 Platti Drhe I Pott Charlotte 193 Center Charlotte County Veterans Services 2280 Aaron S!reet/ Port Charlotte 226 Char l o tte County Administration Center 18400 M urdock Circle/ Port Charlotte 193 Charlotte CountyEnglewoo d Annex 6868 San Casa _Bou1evatd I Englewood 329 Char l otte County Public Works 7000 Flo rida Street/ Punta Gorda 300 C h ar lotte County U t ilities/Customer Se.rvice 20 101 Peac hland Boulevard/Port Charl otte 176 Char lotte County Sheriff Department 25500 A i rport Road I Punta Gorda 333 City of Punta Gorda/Cus t omer ServiceP ublic 900 West Henry S tr eet I Punta Gor da 324 Work C ity of Punt a Gorda Police Department U S 41 & Ann Street/ P unta Gorda 32 1 Flor i da Dept. of Labor & Employment S e c urity I 1205 Elizab e t h Street/ Punta Gorda 325 Vocational R ehabilitation H ealth and Human Services D e p t JS o cial S e curity 1777 Tamiami Trail/ Port Charlotte 195 Administration Punta Gorda City Hall 326 W. Marson Avenue I Punta Gorda 299 Punta Gorda Housing Authority I 420 Myrtle Stree t / Punt a Gorda 309 Congre gate Mea l Pr o gram Spec i al Training and Rehabilitation of Charlotte 525 Bowman Terrace I Port C h ar lotte 186 County Sources : Charlott e C ounty-Punta Gorda MPO. Charlotte County Coordin ated Transportatio n Devolopment Plan: 1994 through 1999. Community Directory of P unta Gor da/Port Charlotte: September 1994-1995. Technical Menwrandum No. 1 Page41

PAGE 50

Part A: Exlsdng Conditions Charlotte County Table26 Public Schools an d C oll eges Faelllty : .. ' LoCation TAZ . .. .. Adult & Community Education 2280 Aaron Street/ Port Charlotte 226 Charlotte Vocational Technical Center 18300 Toledo Blade Boulevard I 193 Port Charlotte Edison Community College 2511 Vasco Street / Punta Gorda 343 Benjamin J. Baker Elemen!ar)' S chool 311 E. Charlotte A venue I Punta Gorda 309 Charlotte Harbor School 22450 Hancock Avenue I Port Charlotte 253 Charlotte Senior High School 1250 Cooper Street I Punta Gorda 326 Lemon Bay High School 220 I P l acida Road I Englewood 312 Murdock Middle Schoo l 1 7325 Mariner Way I Port Charlotte 213 Neil A Armstrong Elemen!ar)' Schoo l 22100 Breezeswept Avenue I Port Char lotte 202 Peace River Elementary School 22400 Hancock Avenue NW I 253 Charlotte Harbor Port Charlotte Senior High School 18200 Toledo Blade Boulevard NW I 197 Port Charlotte Port Charlotte Middle School 23000 Midway Boulevard I Port Charlotte 191 Punta Gorda Middle School 825 Carmalita Street/ Punta Gorda 326 Deep Creek Elementary Schoo l 26900 Harborview R oa d I Port Charlotte 219 East Elementary School 27050 N. Fairway Drive I Punta Gorda 288 L. A. Ainger Middle Schoo l 245 Concord Road I Rotonda West 346 Liberty Elemen!ar)' School 370 Atwater Street f P ort Charlotte 166 Mcadow Park Elemen!ar)' School 3131 Lakeview Boulevard I Port Charlotte 242 Myakka River Elemen!ar)' School 12650 Wilmington Boulevard I Englewood 282 New Challenge School of Ch a rlotte County 16529 J uppa Avenue/ Port Charlotte 212 S allie Jones Elementary School 1221 Cooper Street/ Punta Gorda 316 Vineland Elementary School 467 Boundary Boulevard I Rotonda West 346 Source: Community Directory of Punta Gorda-Port Charlotte: September 1994-1995. Page42 Technical Memorandum No. I

PAGE 51

Charlotte County Part A: Existing Conditions T ablel7 : ... ............ '}::"'. : t ... ... . .. .... r .. .......... ,.r<. ., ,.n.., __ ,:o., .,.. .,.. f .,..., ....... .. ,.: .. ' / . : 'i.f: .. :' $ati "'!' .... : . ...... t:, .... ..... ..... ,.,,....,. ___ .,.., !> ,_. ' .... $."'' ,., .,,. Babcoc k Wilderness Adventure 8000 S.R. 3ill'unta Gorda 359 Charlotte County Airport 28000 Airport. Road I Punta Gorda 337 Charlotte County Speedway 8655 Piper Road I Punta Gorda 354 Charlotte County Stadium 2300 Eliobeon I Port Charloue 214 Charlotte Harl>or Environmental Cent er I 0941 S. Burnt Stone Road I Punta Gorda 397 Cinema 8 Theaters Cobb 19190 Toledo Blade Boulevard I 195 Port Charlotte Englewood Beach Beach Road I Englewood 314 Englewood Youtlt Sports Complex San Casa Boulevard I Englewood 334 Englewood Charlotte Public Library 3450 McCall Road I Englewood 279 Gilchrist Park W. Retta Esplanade /l>unta Gorda 308 Harbour Heights Park N San Marino Drive I Otarlotte Harbour 221 Laishley Park E. Marion A venue I Punta Gorda 290 Memorial A uditorium Civic Center 75 Taylor Street I Punta Gorda 292 Museum of Charlotte County 260 W. Reua Esplanade I Punta Gorda 299 Murdock Public Library 18400 Murdock Circle I Port Cha rlotte 193 Port C harlotte Beacb/Beach Comp l ex 4500 Harbor Boulevard I Port Charlotte 2 59 Punta Gorda Public Library 424 W Henry Street/ Punta Gorda 321 Port Char lotte Publi c Library 2280 Aaro n Street I P o rt Charlotte 226 Port Charlotte Cultural Center 2280 Aaron Street I Port Charlotte 226 Tringali Community Center 6900 Pennell Street I Englewood 279 Boca Grande State Park Gasparilla Island I Lee County 40.1 Sourco: Community Directory of Punta Gorda/Port Charlotte: September 1994-1995 Technical MemQrandum No. 1 Page43

PAGE 52

1 ...-----\ > ( Legend ,;;'. , , .. . . . _, .... .. .... .:.':-, . . -' ... N I ill<><-0 1 2 3 4 5 I / Downlown Punla / t': Ot:Nl1 I I Current Shopping Centers ByTAZ TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT P L AN I CHARLOTTE COUNTY. MAP NO. 15 12122/95 PUNTA GORDA -......, M.P.O.

PAGE 53

I \ Legend + 1\okdic.ll Fitililie$ l'v----\ l C >;::.-,. . r '-""' c-/ ,._ :j N + ,Lj ree ('m mty Downtown Punta Go I 0 1 2 3 4 5 Current He a lth Care F a cilitie s ByTAZ TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT P LAN MAP NO. 16 CHARWTIE COUN1YPUNTAGORDA --.._ ,. . M P.O.

PAGE 54

,.. ; .... Legend ";. ,. < ., ..... r . ... -:. N t 0 1 2 3 4 5 Current Government Offices And Social Service Aaencies Bv TAZ TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP NO. 17 f ( ( : ; }/fJ{f'i CHARLOTTE COUNTYPUNTA GORDA M.P.O.

PAGE 55

Legend c. -.::--c/ .:.,.._ ,.. r: N I 012345 Current Public Schools And TAZ TRANSIT DEVELOPMENt PLAN MAP NO. 18 l.ec Cr>tm F CHARLOTTE COUNTYPUNTA GORDA 1 ; -M.P.O.

PAGE 56

I Legend Al
PAGE 57

Charli!tte County Part B: Public Involvement PARTB: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Meaningful public in volvement is an important aspect of data collection and interpretation. As patl of the Transit Development Plan (TDP), CUTR developed a Public Involvement Plan to ensure tha t the public was included in the process from the very beginning. In Part B the resu lts of two major components of the Public Involvement Plan are described: (I) interviews with key l oca l officials and (2) the citizen te lephone surve y The results of these two research effotls will be incorporated int o the final TDP. Technical Memorandum No. I Page 49

PAGE 58

Pan B: Publi c lnJJolvement Charlotte County PAGE LEFT BLANK JNTENTIONALL Y Page SO Technical No. 1

PAGE 59

Cflarlotte County Part B: Public Involvement Interviews with Key Local Officials An essential element of preparing a Transit Development Plan (TDP) is the examination of commWJity perception and opinion regarding the potential for public transportation. The community's view of transit can provide insight into identifying local mobility needs policy priorities, and potential funding sources. Such perceptions will be used to form the basis of agency goals and objectives. Interviews with key local officials and community leaders are an important part of this public involvement process. The manner in which community leaders view the system can strongly influence policy formulation that is related to transit and other transportation issues. The Public Involvement Plan, prepared by CUTR, identified key local officials and conununity leaders to interview. ln September 1995, CUTR conducted a total of l 0 interviews with individuals representing a cross section of local interests, which included social services, local government the business community, and elected officials. This section summarizes the results of those interviews. Their perceptions of current conditio n s, interest in public transportation, potential funding sources, suggestions and alternatives and other transportation-related issues are discussed in the following synopsis. The discussion guide that was used in interviewing the key local officials is included in Appendix A. Perceptions of Cnrrent Conditions The comment most consistently expressed by those interviewed was that there are local mobility needs that require assessment and improvement. Some people, especially the elderly cannot afford to drive or cannot drive because of health or age. Besides taxis, there are no other forms of public transportation service available in Charlotte County. Some elderly who cannot drive at night are also dependent upon taxis or other people for transportation. In 1992, a survey of senior priorities conducted by Our Charlotte Elder Affairs Network (OCEAN), 72 percent of the elderly reported that (medical) transportation was their first need, topping all other priorities. At present, the only choice for those who cannot drive is taking taxicabs or depending on others to drive them. At the same time, respondents expressed concerns about safety and taxi fares. Further, there is limited taxi availability for persons who are disabled. Technical Memorandum No. 1 Page 51

PAGE 60

Part B: Pub/Jc lnwolvement Char/one County For the most part. the development in Charlotte County is scattered, resulting in low density There are no central business areas, no suburban areas, no downtowns and it is an automobile-driven community. Charlotte County has developed in a circular pattern with few sidewalks and no by passes. The only areas that have sidewalks are the center of Punta Gorda and the mid-town area of Port Charlotte. According to those interviewed, everything has to do with driving. During the 1980s, the County grew by 80 to 90 percent. The growth has slowed considerably in the 1990s; now about 3 percent annual growth, with I 000 new houses added each year. Mid-Cou n ty receives the bulk of population growth. South County is the slowest growing area. The County was over-platted in the past with a large number of vacant lol$--250,000 to 300,000----$cattered over 215 square m ile s Residential development is primarily along major roads such as U S. 41, State Road 776, and South Gulf Coast, as well as along water ways. Commercial development and shopping centers have been concentra ted in Murdock and also scattered in Englewood. Charlotte County represents the ultimate service economy, of w hich only I percent is industrial and most is retail. The healthiest business area noted is in Ven ice (wh ic h is in Sarasota County). According to public officials West County continues to open some industrial areas Mid-County is the most re sidential area, and South County will have wide industrial development. According to those interviewed, future development will be in the South County rather than dov.mtown Punta Gorda. Respondents generally agreed that traffic congestion is not a problem i n Charlotte County compared with other communities. However, some traffic can be found on U.S. 4 1 S.R. 776, in downtown Punta Gorda, and on the roads to the beaches. Seasonal visitors have some impact on t he c o ngestion. Another factor causing traffic is that the elderly are more likely to drive s low ly In five years there will be a four-lane road from Englewood to Murdock; U.S. 41 recently had two lanes added. These efforts will help reduce traffic congesti on. Park ing is somewhat problematic, depending on how convenient it is expected to be. Some interviewees stated there is no parking problem. Others pointed out that parking is difficult at the court house in Punta Gorda, along U.S. 41 at strip malls, the Port Charlotte Cultural Center and some areas at the beaches. Page 52 Technical No. 1

PAGE 61

Charlotu Counl)l Part B: Public Involvement Interest in Public Transportation Most of those interviewed maintained that interest in a transit system is widespread and the community has become more interested in the past two years. The biggest concern is fof the elderly who are dependent upon transportation service because of age and health problems. Public transit could tak e the elderly shopping, to medical appointments, and to social activities. Concern for the mobility needs of young people also was expressed by some interviewees. The students of Charlotte High School did a survey in July \995 and presented the results to the County. This survey of high school students found that teenagers would use public transportation to go t o youth recreation areas, beaches, etc. Most of the social service officials pointed out that there is a problem communicating the public transportation needs. One respondent from a social service agency, stated how difficult it is to communicate when nobody listens to them. Those who do not have transporta t ion cannot speak u p about their needs because they do not have a car to get to forums in which they could be addfessed. In spite of the i nterest in public transportat i on expressed by those interviewed, many issues were i dentified that would need to be addressed in more detail. Some interviewees contended that t h e layout of the county makes transit a difficult issue. There is a large rural area. Both residential and commercial areas are scattefed. It would be difficu l t to determine public transit routes because mul tiple origins and destinations are hard to serve. Most people are independent ; as long as they have their own vehicles they are not willing to use transit. Some public officials said only certain groups of people would use buses. In Charlotte County those specific groups include the elderly persons who are disabled, the low-income workers, and teenagers who are too young or do not have aceess to a vehicle They sai d the commtinity needs could not be met by tfansit completely. It is almost impossible for some elderly to walk two to three blocks in the summef sun. Some of those i nterviewed contended that public transportation is only a supplement for persons with low incomes, persons who are disabled, and the elderly not the complete answer Finally, for some people, the lack of transportation is considered to be "(an)othef's problem." Technical Memorandam No. I Page 53

PAGE 62

Part 8: Public l11vo/vement Charlotte County Potential Funding Sources A key issue that needs to be considered to establish a successful transit system is that it should be financially feasible. The problem is that there is a need in the community to be addressed without spending a lot of money. Funding is a major factor inhibiting the establishment of a transit system in Charlotte County Most of the public officials interviewed said there would be no local means to subsidize public transportation. Fares cover only about 20 percent of the total cost; the remaining 80 percent of the cost would be subsidized from taxes, and it would be impossible to afford that level of support. Some interviewees stated that the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) should subsidize transit because local funding would be problematic Others suggested that if the community recognized the need, they would support transit. People would vote for a plan if they saw the benefits. Recently the voters passed a four-year, one cent sales tax to build a jail and a court house One social service representative commented, "Local funding is possible if people can be shown what they are gening for their money. For example, if voters were to pass a one penny sales tax, the fare would drop from $1.00 to 50 cents. They see the difference and they would be willing t o f und it." It is interesting to note that most of the elected officials were more concerned with financial feasibility and affordability, while social service officials maintained there is a local willingness to fund a public transit system if the community is shown what they are getting for their money. Suggestions and Alternatives Those interviewed proposed a number of public transportation alternati v es. A transit system should be flexible, responsive, and provide sufficient coverage. For instance, a large van or a minibus could combine trips more efficiently. Because a large percentage of people who need public transportation are elderly, their specific expectation should be considered. The goal is to provide affordable transit, clear l y addressing the needs of the elderly. Most elderly want door-to-door service. An ideal transit system would go to people's homes. One public official suggested that Charlotte County can learn from other successful transit systems. For example the "commuter computer" in Oregon is a rider response system that provides better Page 54 Technical Jtfemorondltm No. I

PAGE 63

Charlotte County Part B: Public Involvement communication and coordination. Some respondents said Charlotte County could consider combining wilh Sarasota and Fort Myers as an extension of their public transit systems, which would be more cost-efficient. Others stated that we need to learn from the failure of the trolley. There are no houses near U .S. 41, and people needed to be transported to the trolley. To be successful, the transit system needs to be accessible. Finally, one person suggested that the County could consider using mini buses instead of 40-foot transit buses, and also should consider using school buses. Several interviewees stated that policies need to coordinate available resources, with consideration of cost for transportation miles. One respondent said that there could be better use made of !he TOTE (Transportation of the Elderly) program, provided by the Cultural Center. Public transit could be combined with taxicabs and TOTE together to promote utilization of those services. Some interviewees suggested that transit could be sold as a future benefit that could attract more people to the county. In addition, the goal should be to promote zoning and neighborhood accessibility to transportation. A public transit system should be focused, combined with taxi service, serving main bus lines. It also should get the private sector involved. Policies should be changed to be easily accessed and understood. One concern was that some roadways are not suitable for big buses, but maybe for smaller buses. In addition, bike palhs and sidewalks should be. considered together with public transportation planning. Another problem is how to decide the routes. The general consensus was that people would usc transit in housing areas wilh a concentration of seniors. The bus could go from Punta Gorda to Port Charlotte and Murdock, and possibly Englewood Suggested bus routes include T amiami Trail, Harborview, and Kings Highway. The Venice business district, county court house, and the Port Charlotte Cultural Center could be bus stops. There are a lot of people working in Murdock, but not many who would use transit. It was also suggested !hat particular routes would not need to be provided every day. Perhaps vehicles could be alternated between two routes. Monday, Wednesday, Friday, SWlday for one route, and Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday for another. In this way, neighbors could get together to go shopping, see doctors, etc. Also, the fare should not be too high. It is often the case that raising fares results in losing customers. The suggested fare from respondents ranged from $0.25 to $2.00. A lower senior citizen rate was al. so proposed. Technical Memorandum No. 1 PageSS

PAGE 64

Port B: PubUc lnvo/ve-nt Charlotte County Other Transportation-Related Issues Most of the elected officials interviewed felt that the transportation disadvantaged (TD) program works well in Charlotte County. The riders seem happy with the system, although the new $1.00 co-pay required by Medicaid is somewhat of a problem and is complained about. TD transportation is not a very visible issue before the Board of County Commissioners The only time it was rea lly an issue was when there were threats of cutting the budget and/or service. Most of the social service officials said that not many of their clients know about the TD program and few of them use it. Hurricane evacuation routes are a big concern for some of those interviewed and perceived as a serious problem especially i n West County where tbe land is very low There are also no hurricane shelters in the County. The big problem is the elderly and people living in nursing homes. There should be plans that care givers could follow to deal with people on medication during hurricane evacuations. Other suggested goals include improving intermodal access to industrial areas in South County having road perspectives to expect potential growth, and building bike paths and sidewalks around school areas. Summary There is a general consensus by those interviewed that there is a widespread community need for some type o f public transportation in Charlo tte County. A large proportion of potential transit users would be the elderly, persons who are disabled, low-income workers, and teenagers. Most of the interviewees thought funding would be a major problem in establishing a public transit system. To be successful, the TDP should coordinate available resources to clearly address the needs of the community. Factors of the most concern include development patterns, travel behaviors, and income characteristics. More information on local funding and cost/benefit analysis is needed. There were many suggestions provided by those respondents as alternatives of the traditional fixed-route transit system. Foremost were the suggestions to make public transit an accessible efficient, and financially feasible means of transportation for the county. Page 56 Technical 1Wemorandum No. I

PAGE 65

Charlotte Counly Part B : Public [nll()/vement Citizen Telephone Survey The Charlotte County citizen telephone survey was designed to collect information on current travel habits of citizens, interest in public transportation, preferred syste m characteristics for a public transportation system, priorities for transportation in the community, and willingness to fun d public transportation. A summary of the survey results is provided in Appendix B. Survey Methodology The survey was administered by the Marketing Department at the Univer s ity of South F lorida in conjunction with the Center for Urb an Transportation Research (CUTR). A random list of registered v oters was developed by the Supervisor ofElections of Charlotte County; of this list 714 individua l s were contacted by p ho ne in June 1 995. Of the 71 4 pers ons contacted, 272 persons dec l ined to answer the survey, 37 we r e not ava ilab le and 405 completed the telepho n e survey. Fo r the 405 interv iews that were completed, the data was entered directly into a spreadsheet by the i ntervie wers. The verified data then was reviewed and analyzed using a microcomp u ter version of a statistical package known as Statisti ca l Application Software (SAS) A completed survey was not a requirement to be included in the s urv ey results. All completed questions were included in the analysis, regardless of whether the entire survey was completed. However, most surveys were completed. The sample represents xx percen t of the target population, Charlotte County registered voters. The accuracy leve l f or results in this survey i s plus or minus x p erce ntage points at tb.e xx confiden c e level. Survey Analysis The analysis of selected questions is included in the foll?wing s ection A copy of the survey instrume n t and response results from all questions are included in Append ix B, with attachme n ts listing all responses to open-ended ques tions. In addition sel ected cross tabulat ions fo r seven quest i ons contained in Appendix C. The following analy s is is separa ted into five difterent sections re la ted t o (I) current travel habi ts, (2) interest in public transportation, (3) preferred system characteristics for a public transportation Technical Memorandum No. 1 PageS7

PAGE 66

Part B: Public Charlotte County system, (4) priorities for all transportation in the community, and (5) willingness to fund pub lic transportation. Responses were weighted for age, gender, and region of the County in order to adjust for differences in these characteristics from the total population of registered voters to the sample that was taken for this survey For example, the voter-registration roles indicated that 53.2 percent of regi stered voters live i n Mid-County, 23.6 percent in South County, and 23.2 percent in the West County. However, the sample distribution (of the 405 i ndi vidua l s who answered the telephone survey) is 58.8 percent in Mid County, 35.6 percent in South County, and 5.7 percent in West County Because West County was under represented i n the sample and South County was over represented, the sample was adjusted for this analysis by weighting more heavily the responses of individuals from West County. Where possible results from this telephone survey were compared to results of similar questions asked i n a Charlotte County transit survey that was conducted by Post, Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, Inc in 1981. Page 58 Technical Jtlemorandum No. 1

PAGE 67

Charlofle County ...... : : . . Technical Memorandum No. I . . . . Part B: l'ubUc Involvement Page 59

PAGE 68

Part B: Pub/: lnWIIvement Clarlotte County PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page60 Technical ;"tnn()randum No. I

PAGE 69

ChariiJtte County Part B: Publk: ln>'Oivement Figure 1 Q4. How do you usually travel locally? Drive Alone CarpooiNanpool 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N=404 To detennine the use of different transportation modes in Charlotte County respondents were asked to report the mode of travel that they have used locally more than 50 percent of the time during the past' six months. Figure I shows that the large majority of the respondents, 92.6 percent, usual l y drive alone when traveling locally. This result is somewhat higher than the 80.5 percent of persons who drive to work alone as reported by U.S. Census. Technical Memorandum No. 1 Page61

PAGE 70

Part B: Public Involvement Char/one County Figurel Q8 Rave you ever used a taxi in Charlotte County? Yes, In Past 6 Months Yes. In Past 3 Years No .So/oj 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N=404 Figure 2 represents the response to whether respondents have ever used a taxi in Charlotte County A large majority 81.5 percent, have not used a taxi in Charlotte County in the past three years The survey question asked about travel within Char l otte County so as to exclude travel to and from an airport outside of the county that provides scheduled airline service. Page62 Technk.al 1 lltnWrandum No. I

PAGE 71

Charlotte County :. ., . : .. Part B: Public Involvement Figure3 Q9. On average, how many taxi trips do you take per month? 0 1 4 5 10+ 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% N=75 Those who responded positively to taking a taxi in Charlotte County in the pa-t three years (75 out of 405 respondents) were also asked how many !alei trips they took per month Figure 3 shows that 42.0 percent of respondents to Question No. 9 did not use a taxi in the past month. An additional 45. 8 percent reported that they use taxis one to four times per month. Only 3.2 percent reported using a taxi fairly frequently (10 or more times in the past month) Tecllnlcal JJiemorandum No. 1 Page63

PAGE 72

Part B: Public Involvement Charloe County PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Pag Technical Memorandum No. I

PAGE 73

Charlotte County ) Part B: Public Involvement Techntcal Memorandum No. I Page65

PAGE 74

Part 8 : Pub/11: lnvo/vtmmt Char/one County PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page66 Technical Memorandum No. I

PAGE 75

Charlotte Counl)l Part B: Public Figure4 Q6. When you did use public transportation services in another community was it a service that you would like to see here iu Charlotte County? Yes No Not Sure/No Opinion 0% 20% 40% 80% 80% 100% N-202 Figure 4 shows the responses to Question No.6 ofthe swvey. This question is a follow-up to Question No. 5, which asked wnether respondents had ever used a bus system in another community. All persons who answered yes to Question No. 5 (50.1 percent or 202 out of 405) were asked to answer Question No. 6. The figure shows that 74.5 percent of these respondents answered that they would like to see a service like what they had used in another community. Te.chn/col Memorandum No. 1 Page67

PAGE 76

Part B: Public Involvement Char/one County Figure 5 QtO. In thinking about local bus service in Charlotte County, bow important do you feel this service would be to you or your family? Ve-ry Important Important Unlmpottanl Very Unimportant 0,0% 20.0% 40.0% 80.0% 80.0% 100.0% N=404 Question No. I 0 asked respondents how important they thought local bus service would be to them or their families. Figure 5 shows that 45.8 percent of respondents thought that bus service either important or very important. More than half (54.2 percent) thought local bus service was unimportant of very unimportant. Page68 Technical Memor11ndum No. I

PAGE 77

Cl1arlotte County , . . Part B: Public Involvement Figure6 Qll. Iflocal bus service were available in Charlotte County, would you or any member of your household use it? Yes Maybe No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N =404 In addition to asking if transit would be important to their families, respondents were asked whether they would use bus service if it were available in Charlotte County Figure 6 shows that 59.7 pereen t of all respondents indicated that they or members of their household would or maybe would use bus service if it were available. A similar question was asked in the 1981 Charlotte County transit survey. That q u estion asked, "If bus service were available, would you or any member of your household use it?" Possible responses to this question were "yes and "no with results of 62.9 percent and 37.1 percent respectively. This proportional result is similar to the 1995 survey if the responses to "maybe" were combined with the responses to yes." Technical Memorandum No. 1 Page69

PAGE 78

Part B: Public Involvement Charlotte County PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 70 Technic al 1 '4emorandum No. I

PAGE 79

. CharkJtte County Part 6: Public Invo/venwu Technical Memorandum No. I Page 71

PAGE 80

Pan B: Public Jnvolvtmtnt Charlotte Coullly PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 72 Technical /,fmwrandum No. I

PAGE 81

Charlotte County Part B: Public Figure7 Q12. For wbat type of trips would you use the bus? (Check all that apply.) Shopping Medical Appts. Recreation Worl< School 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60. 0% 80. 0% 100.0% N = 241 Figure 7 represents the respondents' responses to Question No. 12, which asked what type of trips they would use the bus for if it were available in Charlotte County. This question was only asked of respondents who stated they would or maybe would use local bus service if i t were available (59.7 percent of the respondents) Respondents were allowed to give more than one answer. Us ing the bus for shopping trips was the most common response with 75.4 percent, fo llowed by trips for medical appointments at 53.5 percent, and recreat ion at 43.7 percent. Perhaps one important finding to note is that only 27.8 percent responded that they would use the bus for work trips. This response may indicate that the type of service required may not have to include vehicles that travel on the same routes every day or five days per week. Technical Memorandum No. 1 Page7J

PAGE 82

Pan 8: Public lnvot.ement Charlotte County F igureS QIS. What is tbe longest distance you would walk to a bus stop? More T han 112 MISt t/4 Milt 112 Mlft Leu T han 1 Block ... ... .... N=404 More Th1n t/2 Mile 114 Mile-112 Mila 1 Blo c.U m leu T h a n 1 Block } 7 .111 : -,------------C : .... ... 100% In Qu e stion No. 18 intervi ewees were asked the l onge st distance they would walk to a bus stop if service was available i n Charlotte County. Figure 8 illustrates the cumula t ive responses to this question For e x ample, the bar in F igure 8 that i ndicates all those would walk "Less Than J Block" includes 100 percent of respondents because it includes those that responded 1 -2 Blocks " 1 /4 Mile V. Mile, and "Mor e Than V. Mile ; the individual that is \villiog to walk more than I block \viii als o walk less than I block Ov e r 50 percent responded tha t they woul d walk 1 1 4 mil e to V. mile to a bus stop Only 6.8 perce n t stated they wou l d walk no more than one block to a bus s top. Page 74 Tahnical 1 \lemorandum No. 1

PAGE 83

Charlotte County Part B: Publiclnvolvement Figure 9 QI9. How frequent sh ould buses visit each stop? Every 2 Hours Every Ho"''Every 3D Minutes Every 15 Minutes 014 2014 Note: 24.4 %answered "depends". N =404 40% Evory 2 Hours 0 Every 30 Min. 6014 Every Hou r Ill Every 1 5 Min. 80% 10014 Figure 9 contains the responses to Question No. 19 of the survey. In this question interviewees were asked how frequently buses should visit each stop. Similar to Figure 8, the responses in Figure 9 are displayed cumulatively. The result was that 67.8 percent of respondents stated that it was acceptable that a bus visit each stop every 30 minutes. Only 7.8 percent thought that buses should arrive every 15 minutes Clearly it would be desirable to provide service at least every half hour. Technical Mei1Wra.nthlm No. 1 Page75

PAGE 84

Part B: Public lnvo/ve-nt Char/one County Figure 10 Q20. What is the highest one-way fare you would be willing to pay for local bus service? 10. 2$ 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N=405 Respondents were asked in Question No. 20 to state the highest one -way fare they would be willing to pay for local bus service. As in Figure 8 and Figure 9 Figure 10 contains the cumulative responses to Question No. 20. The figure shows that 62.5 percent would be willing to pay up to $1.00 for a one-way fare. Further 97 percent of respondents would be willing to pay up to $0.50 for a oneway fare. In comparison, 75.8 percent of respondents in the 1 981 Charlotte County transit survey answered that they would be willing to pay up to $0.50 for a one-way fare. Pgge 7 6 Technical No. 1

PAGE 85

Char/one Cou1Jly Part B: Publie ln>olvement Technical Memoranthtm No. 1 Page77

PAGE 86

Char/one County PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 78 Technictll Memor11ndum No. 1

PAGE 87

Cllar/otte County Part B: Public Involvement Figure 11 Q16. Which i mprovement is most important to you? Reducing Accide nts Relieving Congestion Other Tran sport Modes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 00% N=404 I n this question respondents were asked to indicate which improvement is the most important to them ; reducing accidents in high accident location, relieving traffic conges tion or providing for other modes of transportation other automob ile s. As shown in Figure II, the results indicate that relieving congestion was s lightly m or e i mportant to respondents than t he other two i m prov ement s. Providing other transportation modes received 24.8 percent of responses, wbich could i ndi cate that establishin g public transportation is not a high prio rity of c it izens of the community. Technical iVemorandum No. 1 Page 79

PAGE 88

Char/one County Figure 12 Ql7. The following improvements were identified as important for Charlotte County With limits in public fund s which of these eight do you think are the most important to fund on a scale of l to 5? l is the least important and 5 i s the most important. Hurricane Evaeuation Route Main tenance of Streets & H ighways Sidewalks & Bike Faelrrtlea Street lighting E stabllth Public Transit Bridges to Complete Roads New & Exp-anded Roads Expand Para ttanait Service 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 N = 404 Question No. 17 compares a more comprehensive list of possible transportation improvements for Charlotte County. Respondents were asked to rank each improvement individually not rank the improvements against each other. The average response for each possible transpo rtation improvement is shown in Figure 12. "Hurricane evacuation routes" received the highest average score at 4.2. "Establish public transit" ranked fifth in average score, and "expand paratransit service" ranked eighth. It should be noted that the eight improvements in this question were selected for incl usion based on the Charlotte County Transportation Fair Survey,'' conducted by the MPO in April 1 995 In that survey these eight improvements were identified as the most nee ded out of a larger list of 12. Further it may be that respondents were not clear as to the definition of "paratransit," which may (or may not) account for its relatively low average score. Also, it is in teresti ng to note that "new and expanded roads" ranked behind "establis h public transit" in Question No. 17 whereas in Question No 16 "re lieving congestion" was more important to r espondents than other transportation modes". Technical i\-femQrandum NIJ. I

PAGE 89

CTtarloae Co1111!y Part B : Pu6Uc Involvement Technical Memorandum No. 1 Page8 I

PAGE 90

Part 8: Publk: lnvolvtmmt Charlotte County PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page82 Technical Memqrandum No. I

PAGE 91

Cltorwtte CouniJI Port B: Pllbllc Involvement Figure 13 Q:Zl. Should tax dollars be used to establish bus service In Charlotte County? Yes No Depends Don't Know 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N=40S As shown in Figure 13, almost half of respondents indicated that tax dollars should be used to establish bus service in Charlotte County. An additional 12.7 percent responded that it "depends." I n a similar question asked in the 1981 transit survey, 47. 2 percent of respondents responded "yes" when asked whether they would approve of city and county money being used to subsidize a transit system. In that question respondents were only given a choiee of answering yes" or "no." Technical Memorandum No. 1 Page83

PAGE 92

Part B: Public Involvement Figure 14 Q22. Would you vote for an increase in local taxes to fund future public transportation improvements? Yes No Depends 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N=269 Chatlotu Cmmty All respondents, except those who answered no" to Question No. 2 1, were asked in Question No. 22 whether they would vote for an increase in local taxes to fund future public tr ansportation improvements. Figure 14 shows that 57 percent of respondents answered that they would vote fo r an increase and another 19.1 percen t stated that it "depends. When all405 respondents were included in this question the result is that more than 50 percent of respondents would vote or conditionally vote for a tax increase to fund future public transportation improvements. Page 8-1 TechniC1ll i'Jemqrandllm NQ. I

PAGE 93

Clarlotte County . . i.; Part B: Public lnvoll'tmtnt Figure 15 Q23. Which of the following local funding methods would you favor to fund public transportation"! Sales Tax Gas Tax Special Taxing Dist Property Tax 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N=-205 Question No. 23 was included in the survey in 9rder to determine which type of local funding method would be most fuvorable to fund public transportation. All interviewees who responded "yes" or "depe nds' to Question No. 22 (205 of the total405 respondents) were asked this question. Th e responses to this q uestion are represented in F igure 15. The results show a sales tax was the most favored by respondents at 47.8 percent The least favored was a property tax to fund public transportation (9.6 percent). Technical Memorandum No. I Page8S

PAGE 94

Pan B: Public ln110lvurrmt Chatloae County Summary In sununary, the results of the survey were as follows. 92. 6 percent of respondents usually drive alone when traveling locally. 45.8 percent of respondents felt bus service would be important to their families. If bus service were available 46.3 percent of respondents said they would use it, and 13.4 percent said they would maybe use it. 75.4 percent of respondents answered that they would use the bus for shopping trips. 27. 6 percent of respondents stated that they would take work trips on the bus. Over 50-percent responded that they would walk 1/4 mile to Yz mile to a bus stop. 67.8 percent of respondents stated that it was acceptable that a bus visit each stop every 30 minutes. 62.5 percent of respondents would be willing to pay up to $1.00 for a one-way fare. The most important improvement identified by respondents was "hurricane evacuation routes" with an average score of 4.2 out of 5. The average score for "establishing public transit" was 3.4, rank ing fifth out of nine improvements as important improvements for Charlotte County. 47.9 percent of respondents stated that tax dollars should be used to establish bus service in Charlotte County. An additional 12.7 percent responded that it "depends". 57 percent of respondents who thought tax dollars should be used would vote for an increase in local taxes. (38. I percent of total respondents.) The most favored local funding option was "sale s tax" at 47.8 percent. This information, along with the interviews with key local officials and description of existing conditions will be used as background data for development of goals and objectives for public transportation along with an analysis of public transportation options. Page86 TechnlcDI Memorandum No. 1

PAGE 95

.... ., ... .:; APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE A I

PAGE 96

PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY A-2

PAGE 97

Interview Guide A. Where We Are I. How much interest in and support for transit is there in the community? Have the levels of interest and support changed in the last two years? 2. What is your perception of transit's potential role in the community? 3. Are there community needs that could be met by transit? Are those needs being communicated? How? 4. Is traffic congestion a problem in Charlotte County? If so, what role might transit play in alleviating this problem? 5 Is there a parking problem in Punta Gorda or elsewhere in the county? B. Where We Want to Be 6. What goals have the community and elected officials voiced for transportation in the county? What do you see as appropriate goals for a transit system? 7. How could a transit system best meet community needs? 8. If a transit system were to be established, what fare would you suggest? 9. What is happening in Charlotte County in terms of residential and commercial development? How much? Where? Does this development suggest a need for transit that did not previously e)(ist? I 0. What groups would be most likely to use transit service? II. Is there a willingness in the community to consider additional local funding sources to support a transit system? If so, wbat type of funding methods? 12. Are there policies that should be changed to help support a transit system? C. Summary 13. In your opinion, is there a need for public transportation in Charlotte County? 14. If a transit system were to be started, what areas of the county should it serve first? A-3

PAGE 98

PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY A 4

PAGE 99

APPENDIXB SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND SUMMARY RESULTS B-1

PAGE 100

PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY B -2

PAGE 101

1995 Charlotte County Citizen Telephone Survey Summary Data Entry Code: __ Survey Conducted in J une 1995 Data Compiled on September 26, 1995 Phone Number:. ______ Zip Code:----Total Valid Respons..-405 Region Mid-Coun ty South County 238 144 Percent 58 8% 35 .6% West County 23 5 .7% Good afternoon/evening. My name is and I'm with the University of South Florida. \Ve're working with Charlotte County government to under$tand you.r opinions about local transportation. I am not going to try to sell you an)1hing or solicit fuods.lt'U only take a few minutes and your reply is purely confidential. \Ve are a su.ney about traveling i n the Charlotte County area. Are you at l east 18 years old and live in Charlotte County? Record Sex; Then, Go to the next pass. 55.3% Female 44.7 %_Mal e If no, ask: Is there someone in tbe household who fits this description? Ifno: Tcnninate. If yes. ask: Is he or sbe home right now? If yes: Re-read introduction with selected respondent and go to the next page. If no, ask: What wouJd be a good time for me to call this person and wb.at is their name? Name: ______________________ __ ___ Day/Time'------------B-3

PAGE 102

I. How many people live at your residence? 2.3 2. How many people at your residence arc licensed to drive? 1.3 3. How many vehicles are owned by your household? 1.5 4. How do you usually travel locally? (The mode of travel used over 50% of the time during the past six months) [Check one only.} 91.6% Drive alone 5.0%_ CarpooVvanpool 0.7% Walk 0.2% Bicycle 2.2% Taxi 0.2%_ Other (Please specify ____________ _J [If no response to any of the first 4 question. terminate the interview] 5. Have you ever used a bus system in another community? (excluding interstate carriers ; airp<>rt shuttle; club; church or school bus or sim i lar) 9 .9%_Yes, within the past five years 42.6%_ Yes, but over fiv e years ago 47.5% No (if no, go to# 8] 6. When you did use public transportation services in another community was it a service that you would like to see here in Charlotte County? 74.5% Yes 15.1% No I 0.4%_Not sure/No opinion N = 212 7. What was the community? (Name only the community where the respondent had the greatest amount of experience.) City See Attachment A State See Auachmenr A 8. Have you ever used a taxi in Charlotte County? 11.4%_Yes, within the past six months 4.5% Yes, within the past year 6.2%_Yes, within the past three years 78.0% No (lfnoskip # 9andgo to #10] 9. On average, how many taxi trips do you make per month? 2.3 trips N=89 B-4

PAGE 103

10. In thinking about local bus service In Charlotte County, how important do you feel this service would be to you or your family? 27.2%_ Very Important 21.5% Important 32.2%_Unimportant 19.1 %_Very Unimportant 11. If local bus service were availab le in Charlotte County, would you or any member of your household use it? 47.0% Yes [If yes, go to# 12} 39.6%_No [If no, skip# /2 and go to #15) 13.4%_Maybe [If maybe, go to# 12] 12. [If yes or maybe] For what type of trips would you usc the bus? [Check all that apply.] 27.5%_Work 78.7% Shopping 14.8%_School 54. 5%_Medical appointments 4!.4%_Recreation 0.0% Other ________ N 244 13. How many in your household would use the bus service? 1 N -241 14. Do you ever feel that a sidewalk or bicycle facility is needed where one is not provided? 72.1% _Yes 27.9% _No N 244 15. If retail stores were within walking distance of your home, would you walk to them? 82.7% Yes 17.3% No 16. Which improvement is most important to you: [check one] 34.2% _Reducing accidents in high accident locations 38.9%_Relieving traffic congestion 27.0% _Providing for other modes of transporta ti on other than au tomobiles 17. In recent surveys, the following improvements were identified as important for Charlotte County. With limits in public funds which of these eight do you think are the most important to fund, on a sc ale of 1 to 5? 1 is the least important and five is the most important: (Another poss i ble response includes: No opinion= 9) (A =average score) A-3.0 I 2 3 4 5 9 Expand paratransit/door-to-door service A-3.1 I 2 3 4 5 9 Bridges to complete roads A 3.5 l 2 3 4 5 9 Street lightin g A =3.1 I 2 3 4 5 9 New and expanded roads A"'4.2 I 2 3 4 5 9 Hurricane evacuation routes .A 3.4 l 2 3 4 5 9 Establish public transit A =3.8 I 2 3 4 5 9 Maintenance of streets and highways A=3.5 I 2 3 4 5 9 Sidewalks and bicycle facilities B-5

PAGE 104

18. What is tbe longest distance you would walk to a bus stop? 18.1%_Less than I block 40.3% I 2 blocks 35.1%_V.mile-\f2!11ile (3-6 blocks) 6.4%_More than \f2!11ile 19. How frequent should buses visit each stop? 8. 7%_every 15 minutes 39.1% every 30 minutes 25.2%_every hour 4.5%_every 2 hours 22.5%_Depends 20. What is the highest one-way fare you would be willing to pay for local bus service? 17.8%_25 44.4%_50 34.6%_$1.00 3 .2%_More than $1.00 21. Should tax dollars be used to establish bus service in Charlotte County? 46.4% Yes 34.6%_No 12. 3 % Depends 6.7%_Don't Know {If no. go 10 #24.} 22. Would you vote for an increase in local taxes to fund future public transportation improvements? 58.7% _Yes 20.8% No 20.5% Depends [If no, go 10 #24.} 23. Which of the following local funding methods would you favor to fund public transportation? 34.4%_Gas tax [Check alii hat apply.} !0.5%_Property tax 17. 2% Special taxing districts 52.6%_Sales tax N=209 Now tell us a little about yourself. 24. Areyou? 33.1%_employed 3.5%_unemployed 58.8% retired 0.7%_srudent 4 .0% Work at home B-6

PAGE 105

25. What Is your age? 2.2% _18-24 6.4% 25.34 l 1.6%_35. 44 9.9"/o_ 45. 54 17.0%_55. 64 34.3%_65. 74 18.5%_75 and over 26. What is your household's annual income before taxes in 1994, I will be reading from a list of categories please stop me when I get to the corred category for your household. 5.7%_Less than $10,000 12.3%_ $10 000 under $20,000 21.2%_$20,000 under $40 000 11.6%_$40 000 under $80,000 4.9%_$60, 000 under $70 000 3 .2%_$80, 000 or More 41.0%_Do not wish to share that infonnation 27. Are you a registered voter? 90.8% Yes 9.2%_No (ff no, skip #30] 28. Have you voted in Charlotte County the last three (3) years'r 94.0%_Yes 6.0% No N =367 29. Would you like to receive the results of this survey which will he included in a project newsletter? 68.9%_Y es [.if yes get name] 31.1% _No [If yes] Your name is: --------------------------30. Thank you for your taking the time to answer these questions. Do you have any other thoughts about transportation that you "''ould like to share? ___________________________ __ THANK YOU B-7

PAGE 106

Attachment A 7. Communities Where Respondents Have Used A Bus Syste m Communit ies Key West,FL Traverse City, MI Las Vegas NV Trenton, NJ Albany,NY Lexington, K Y Tri Cities, NY Anderson, SC Lee County, FL Telluride, CO Andover,MA Lima, OH Warwick, RI Annapolis, MD Long Is l and, NY Washington, DC Arlington, VA Lorain, OH West Haven, CT Atl anta GA Los Angeles, CA Williamsport, PA Baltimore, MD Manchester NH Bethlehem, P A Miami, F L Binghamton, NY Michigan City, IN Stat es Bloomfield, NJ Middletown, CT B l oomington, IN Milwaukee, WI California Boston, MA Minneapolis MN Canada Brockton, MA Mobile AL Connect icut Bronx, NY Montpelier, VT Massachusetts Buffalo, NY Munc i e, IN Michigan Butler PA New Orleans LA Minnesota Canton, OH Newport, RI New Jersey Charleston, WV Newton/Boston, MA New York Chicago, IL New York City North Carolina Cincinnati, OH Newark,NJ Pennsylvania Clarksburg, WV Norfolk VA Rhode Island C l eveland OH Parkersburg, WV Clinton Township, MI Patterson NJ Columbus, OH Philadelphia PA Dayton, OH P i nellas County FL Davenport, IA Pittsburg, PA Des Moines, lA Port Charlotte FL Detro i t, MI Providence, RI Eau Claire, WI Punta Gorda FL Edison, NJ Redford, MI Englewood, NJ Rochester, NY Fairfield, CT Rockville MD Flint, MI San Antonio, TX Fort Myers, FL San Francisco, CA Gainesville, FL Sarasota, FL Hartford, CT Seabrook, MD Houston, TX St. Louis MO Indianapolis, IN St. Petersburg, FL Kalamazoo, MI Tampa,FL Kansas City, KS Toronto (Canada) Kansas City, MO Towson, MD B-8

PAGE 107

Attachment B 30. Thank you for your taking the time to answer these questions. Do you have any other transportation that you would like to share? Needed Should have public transportation Would like to see an elevated rail on 41 Hope they get one going Would be very nice to have buses Will be convenient for many Would be nice for airport transportation Wish they had public transportatio n Good idea for 41 and the main streets I think it's important to establish public transportation Would be a good idea This is critical to establishing a good tax base It is somethi n g that will have to be dealt with Thinks it is an important need I think it's a necessity I wish to God they had it Very important for Charlotte County I t is something we need Need transportation something like Sarasota Charlotte County does need some mode Need to help people get to doctors, etc Public i s very important Do need transportation for older & disabled In favor of senior buses Need help toward the elderly Areas/retired people / services provided A service that is geared to the elderly E lderly should have as much access as possible It is necessary for the elderly in charlotte county Would be important for the elderly Some kind of service is needed for elderly It is very important the old folks need it Very concerned about elderly transportation We need public transportation for the elderly It is really important for elderly who can't drive Should be some kind of shuttle service for elderly Important to elderly people We do need something for senior citizens More services prov i ded for the elderly B-9

PAGE 108

It would be a good idea to keep seniors off roads Get the people off the highway who can't drive Get handicapped\disabled elderly off the roads Definitely too many old people on the road People wanted it last time and then didn't use it It is difficult for the way things are spread out Don't think Charlotte County should have buses Think they don't need a transit line. Not that much need at this point. Must be a need for bus and people should use it In his opinion would become big parking lot Should have more sidewalk s More people would get out if bicycle paths were available Need to have better construction Red lights are on a little too long in some areas Should have good taxi service with low fares Need to reduce number of accidents Landscaping on 41 is a waste Need additional roads Need to crack down more on dui's, speeders etc ... Hurricane evacuation no. 1 Door to door service would b e great Roads too narrow. Need bike paths Can't stand drivers that blow horns and not brakes You should have sheltered bus areas and benches Don't put so much tax burden on elderly. If tax money is used, transportation could be increased Be sure to use sales tax for public transit Should be run by a private company, not public People who need medical service should be provided for Public should be able to be involved definitely Don't use taX S for trans. ,lind funding elsewhere Should be run by a private company Limited income-most people need help Don't raise taxes losing significant public transit funds Wish there were more volunteers to drive for elderly The questions do not all apply to me B-10

PAGE 109

APPENDIXC CROSS TABULATION TABLES C-1

PAGE 110

PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY C-2

PAGE 111

Ques t io n No. 4 How do yo u u s u ally tnave.ll ocally?* Rcgio of Couty .... Cud' ""' .. (tOO'J) Tocal Mid Soot> Wrst 18-14 -4$.$4 $64 6$.7 4 75> M <$'10 $)1)..20 S1t-40 -$6-Sit+ No RupoJc l)riV t 91.6% 89 .9% 93. 3% 95.1% 100% 91.3% 9)..5% 95.0% 92.8% 91.4% 86. 119.7% 93.9% 73.9% 86.0% 95.3% 91.9% 90.0% 92.3% 92.2% Aloac 5.0% 4.6% S.6% .4..4% 0 .0% 3 .9% 6 .5% 25% 4.4o/. 5.&% 5 .3" S.8o/t 3.9% 1 3.1% 6.0% 12o/ 2.1% 5.0% 7.7% 6 ,0% Vupool Walk 0.1% 0 .1% () 0% 0 0 % 3.9% o .O% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.9% 0.6% 4.4% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% Blcydc 0.)% OA% 0.0% O.O'X 0.0!'. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0.0% 1.3'X 0 .5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0 0% 0.0% 0 .0% Tall 1.1% 3.8% 0.0% 0 0 ... 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 2.9% 4.0% 3.1% 1 .1% 8.7% 4.0% 1.2% 0.0% 5 .0% 0 ,0% 1.8% Otbtr 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25% 0 .0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% o.6% 0.0% 0 .0% 1.2% 0.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% No. ot 404 237 144 13 9 l6 o46 40 69 139 7S 223 Ill 2J 50 ss 41 lO ll 166 C-3

PAGE 112

Question No. 8 Have yo u ever u sed a taxi in Charlotte Countyr of Cou n t)' A.gt Gefldtr luonse T04al Mid South West 13-14 25-34 3544 4$..54 5564 65-74 75+ f M <$10 $10 20 SI0-40 $40-'0 S'0-80 $80+ No R.cspoos t \:'d: Pall 11.4% 12,$% 0.0% 11.1% 7 .1% 8 .1 % 12.5% 5.8% 10 .1% 9 .9 % n.J'Yo 30.4% 8.2% 10. 7% 20.0% 3 0 .8% 5.4% 6 mo \'u: put 4.5% 6.n. 2 .1% 0 .0% 0 0 % 0.<)% 2.2% 2.5% 5 .8% 5 .8% 5 .3o/. 3.1% 6.1% 0.0% 8.0% 2.4o/ 2.1% SJ)% O.fY'/o 6 0'A \'ur Yt.s: flit 6.2% 5 .9% 7.0% 4.4% 21.2% 0 0% 13.0% 1 .5% 8 .7% 2 .9'k 1 .1% 4 .4 % 4.4% 1 0 0% l .w. 4 3% 5.0% 1.1% 1 .2% pvun No 78o/. 76 .0% 7&.5% 95 .7% 66.7% 92.3% 76.1% 11. 5% 19.1% 81 .3% 68.0% 7 9.1% 76 2% 65.2% 62.0% 3S.9% 3M% 70.1)% 6LS% 81.3% No. of 404 237 144 23 9 26 4 6 40 69 139 7 5 223 181 23 so 85 47 20 13 166 Rttp()nsa Unw
PAGE 113

Question No. 10 In thinking about local bus service in Charlotte County, bow important do you feel this service would be to you or your family? Rtgioa or Coilnty Age Gcodu IBeome Total Mid Soutb Wtsl IS-24 25-34 .15-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ F M <$10 SI0 -20 520-40 SO $60-80 $80+ No RetpoiiSt Very 27.9% 25.1% 30.4% 0.0% 23.1% 17.4% 22.5% 26 .1% 31.7% 22.1% 43.$% 34 .0 % 27.1% 17.0% 3 0.0% 15.4% 26.5% Jmportu t lmporlnt 21 .$% 23.6% 20.8% 1.4% 33.3% 23.1% 17.4% 15.0% 18.9% 19.4% 32.11% 25.1% 17.1% 30.4o/. 28.0% 23.5% 25.5% 10.0% 30.8% 21.5o/o Ua32.2% 29.5o/ 38.2o/. 21.7% 33 3% 38.5o/. 54.4% 37.S% 24.6% 31. 7% 21.3% 26.9% 38 .7% 21.7% 30.0'/o 32.9% 36.2% 30.0% 15.4 % Jmporlaot VrryUn19.1% 19.0% 15.3% 43.5% 33.3% lSA% 10.9% '25.00!. 30.4% 17.3% 13.3% 17.0% 21.6Yo 4.4% 8. 0 % l6.5o/. 21.3% 30.0% 38.5% 19.1% l111, portut No. of 404 237 144 23 9 26 46 40 69 139 75 223 181 23 so 85 47 20 13 166 Retpoll$t$ Unwe(ghted Respc:mscs C-5

PAGE 114

Question No. 11 If lo c al bus senice were available in Charlotte County, would you or any member of your hou se hold use it?* lttg ion or CoucH)' Ag< Gutdtr J aromc Total Mid Soutb Wet:l 18 24 1$-34 3S 45-S4 SS-64 65 75+ F M <$10 $1().20 $20-<4 $40-60 $60 -8 0 $80+ No R.ttpoDS.C \ 'tl 47.0% 52.3% 43.5% ll.lo/. 47.8% $() ,()% 36.2% 48.2% $4.1'/. )).4% 6$.2% 6 0 0% 49. 4% 40.4% 45 .0'..1 38.5% 42.2% No 3 9 .6% 35.4% 46.5% -39.1% 77 .8% 46. 2% 41.3% 31.5''-53.6% 38.1% 22.?% 32.?% 48.1% 26. 1 % lll.O% 38.8% 46 .1% 4 5 0% 38.5% 42.8% Mafbc 12.2% 14.6% 17.4% 11.1% 0.0% 10.9% ll.S% 10.1% 13.7% 22.7% 13.9% 12.7% 8 ;7% 12. 0% 11.8% 1 2 .8% 10. 0% 23.1,. I 5.1 No. or 404 2 1 7 ... 9 26 46 4 0 69 139 15 223 181 2:l so 85 47 20 13 166 Rupo ses Unwcighted Responses C-6

PAGE 115

Question No. 16 Which improvem ent is m os t import an t to you?* Regio11 or CoUll()' Age Cudt:r Jneottte Total Mid S.UIO Wm 18 25.J4 35-U 4>54 55-0< 6>74 15 F M <$1 0 $10 $20-40 540-60 $60-M sso. No Responses Reduce 34.2% 32.9% 36.1% 34.8% 33.3% 34.6% 28.3% 37.5% 39.1% 34.5% 30.7% 37 7% 29.&% 21.7% 30.0% 24.7% 55.3% 15.0% 30.8% .6% Acddtntf Rditve l8.9o/c 37 .6% 39.6% 47.30.4 66.1% 57 .7% 39.1% 4$.0% 36.2% 35.3% Jl;?O/. 46.4% 39.1% 36.00/0 482% 31.9% 45.0% 46.2% 3S.S% Congest Olll
PAGE 116

Q ue s t ion No. 17 With limits in pub l i c f u n ds w hich of these eight do yo u t h ink are the most i mportant t o fund, on a sca l e o f l to S? ( l i s the l e as t important a n d Sis the most i mportant.)* Aec,ion of Count) Al< Crndt-r latomr Tota l Mid Solb w ... 18-14 25 35-44 4$-54 SS-64 6$-74 7S+ F M
PAGE 117

Question No. 2 1 Shoul d tax d ollars be used to es t a blish bus service iD Charlott e County?* Jlcc;oo otco .. ty .. ,. Cudtr ....... Tout &fi4 Soutl West ... :. lS-34 4S.S4 ss.. 65-74 7S+ r M

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 028701051
005 20110808154713.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110808s1996 flua o 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00179
035
(OCoLC)745911770
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE5634.C547 (ONLINE)
0 245
Charlotte County transit development plan.
n Technical memorandum no. 1,
p Existing conditions and public involvement
h [electronic resource] /
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
[Tampa] :
b University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1996]
300
1 online resource (86, [23] p.) :
ill.
500
Title from e-book cover (viewed Aug. 8, 2011).
5 FTS
Prepared for the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization.
FTS
"January 1996."
FTS
650
Bus lines
z Florida
Charlotte County
x Planning.
Bus lines
Florida
Charlotte County
Public opinion.
Local transit
Florida
Charlotte County
Planning.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization.
1 776
i Print version:
t Charlotte County transit development plan. Technical memorandum no. 1, Existing conditions and public involvement.
d [Tampa] : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, [1996]
w (OCoLC)34224386
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.179
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001927993;
FTS