USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Charlotte County transit development plan : technical memorandum no. 4, demand estimation and needs assessment


Material Information

Charlotte County transit development plan : technical memorandum no. 4, demand estimation and needs assessment
Physical Description:
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


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

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 34923494
usfldc doi - C01-00181
usfldc handle - c1.181
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00181
(OCoLC) 34923494
2 110
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization
0 245
Charlotte County transit development plan : technical memorandum no. 4, demand estimation and needs assessment
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1996 April
Local transit--Florida--Charlotte County--Planning
Bus lines--Florida--Charlotte County--Planning
Paratransit services--Florida--Charlotte County-- Planning
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


CHARLOTTE COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Technical Memorandum No. 4: Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment Prepared for the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization by the Cente1 for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida iCUTR April19, 1996


Charlotte County Punta Go rda Metropolitan Planning Organization 2 8000 Airport Road A 6 Punta Gorda Florida 339 82-24 .11 (941) 639-46 76 Fax (941) 639-8153 Director : Lisa B Beever, Ph.D., AICP P res t on J. Elliou Staff: Center for Urban Transportatio n Research University of Sout h Florida 4202 E. Flower Avenue, ENB 118 Tam pa FL 33620-535 0 (813 ) 974-31 20 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813 ) 974-5168 Director: Project Manager : Gary L B r osch R osemary G. Ma thias Laura Lachance Baichan Che n Projeet Staff: Reviewers : Steve Maas Dennis Hinebaugh Joel Volinski


TABLE O F C O NTENTS Overview ...... . ........ . .... ............. . ........ . .... ..... ......... 1 Demand Estimation .... .... . ........ . .... . ........... ... ......... .... . 3 Paratransit Demand Estimates .... . .................... . . .. .... . 3 Fixed-Route Transit Demand Estimates ............ ....... ..... ... . . . . 7 ADA Complementary Paratransit Demand Estimates ...... . . . . ... . . ... 12 Needs Assessment ... .... ........ ... . ........ ..... . ......... ." . .. ... 15 Existing Public Transportation Services .... ... ... ... .................... 15 Unrnet Need ......... .... .......... : ..... . . . . . . ....... . .... ... 16 SWlllnary ........ . ....... ....... . . ....... . ..... ........ .... ....... 23 APPENDIX A Charlotte County Existing Public Transportation Services ... ..... A-1 I


Tabl e I Tabl e 2 Tabl e 3 Tabl e 4 Table 5 LIST OF TABL E S Es t imated TD Pop u lation, Patatransit Demand, and Paratran s i t Suppl y ..... . 4 Comparison of Pamtransit Peer Group with Charlo tte Cou n t y ........ . .... 6 Compariso n of Fi x ed-Route T ran s it Pee r Group w ith C h a rl otte County .... . 9 ADA Parat r ansit Popu l ation and Trip Estimates . . ...... ..... . . ...... 14 Summary of Demand Estimat i o n and N eeds Assessment Techniq u es ....... 24 11


LIST OF MAPS Map I Transit Depende nt Tracts .. ............... . ......... . ............ 11 Map 2 Subscription Trips ...................... ...... . ......... ...... 18 Map 3 Demand Response Trips ................................. .......... 19 f )1_1




Char/otic County Demand Estimation ami Needs Assessment . ........ ........... Overview Before Charlotte County can choose a specific strategy for providing public transportation, there must be an accurate u n derstanding of the potential demand for service and the level and type of unmet mobility needs of the community. The objective of Technical Memorandum No. 4 is to develop demand estimates and to quantify mobili ty needs for the study area The assessment of transit demand and mob i lity needs will help to detennine whether servi ce options outlined in Technica l Memorandum No. 5 will be responsive to the needs of the community. The tasks of estimating demand for transit and the mobility needs of th e community are more diffic.uJt i n the cas e of C h arlotte County because there curr ently is n o fixed-route service; howe v er there is existing paratransit service, which can serve as a starting p o in t. Tecltltlcal Jl1ent1Jrandum No. 4 Pagel


Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment Cllar/otte County PAGE LEI!'T BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 2 Tee/mica/ A1emornmlum No .f


Charlotte County Demand Estlmalitm and Needs Assessment Demand Estimation There are several methods of estimating demand for transit service. Tile following sections contain methods to estimate demand in Charlotte County for paratransit and fixed-route service. This section also i nclu des an estimation of the demand for complementary paratransit service under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilitie s Act of 1990 (ADA) w bich must be provided if the MPO opts to offer fixed-route transit service Paratransit Demand Estimates As described i n Technical Memoranda No. I and No.2, Charlotte County coordinates and operates paratrans it service for persons who are elderly, disabled and/or low income, and fo r children who arc "bigh lisk" or "at lisk" of a developmental disability. In Florida, these people are referred to as "transpo rtatio n disadvantaged" (TD). Although no t the same as general public para transi t detn and, projecting TD paratransit demand and supply will give a good idea of the potential demand rel ated . to those who most need public transportation. Florida's coordinated TD system serves two population groups. The first group inc lud es all th ose w ho are elderly, disabled, and/or low-income persons. Tills group, referred to as the Potential TD Population (also referred to as "TO Category I "), is eligible for trips purchased by soc i al service agencies. The Potential TD Population is roughly analogous to the transi t dependent market, described later in tbis T echoical Memorandum. The second population group (a subset of the first) includes people who are tra nsportation disadvantaged, according to the eligibility guidelines in 427 Florida Statutes ( i .e., those persons from the Potential TD Population who are unable to transport themselves or to purc h ase transportation and children who are "high-risk" or "at-risk"). These persons, referred to as the TD Population (also referred to as "TD Category II"), are eligible for tlips purchased through the s tate TD Trust Fund, as well as for tlips purchased by social service agencies. Forecast ofTD Transportation Demand at the County Level Projections of the Po ten tial TD Population and the TO Population fo r Charlotte County were developed using the method described in the 1993 report, Methodology Guidelines for Forecasting Teclmical Memorandum No. 4 Page3


04!mllnd Estimation tmd Needs Chnrloll Cu lllll}' TD Transportati o n Demand at the County Level, prepared by the Center for Urban Tran spo rtat ion Research (CUTR) for the F l orida Co mmission f or the Transpo rtation Disadv antaged. The model forec asts the TD p opu l ation s using data from the Bureau of Economics and Busine ss Resea rch (BEBR) at the University of F l orida, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The forecast s for Pot entia l TO Population and TD Population for FY 1996 through FY 2 000 are shown in Tab l e I Table 1 Esti mated TD Population Paratran si t D e mand and Paratransit Su ppl y FY F Y FY FY "RY . Estimates 1996 1?97 1998,.; :. J999 2000 . : . Potential TD Population (Cntegory I) 69,846 72,286 7 4,813 77 4 26 80,132 TO Population (Category II) 13,412 13, 873 14, 350 14,844 15,355 Demand for Para transit Service 313,246 324, 088 335,30 8 346,925 358,945 Supply ofParatransit Service 149,019 154,219 I 59,601 165,170 I 70,934 Unmet Demand for Paratransit Service 164,227 169,869 175,707 1 81,755 188,011 Note: Figures i n clude trips provided through the community transportation coordinator (CTC) and estimates of t h e trips provided outside of the coord inated system (e.g., by social service agencies that do not have coordination agreements with the CTC). Source: Based on CUTR: Methodology Guidelines for Forecasting TD Transportati on Dumond at the Cou n ty Level 1 993. Also shown in Table 1 are estimates for the demand, supp ly, and unrnet demand for paratmnsit service (o r trips) in Charlotte County Two typeS of trips arc provided in Florida 's TO progran1: p rogram trips and general trips. Program trips are trips m ade by clients of social service agencies for the purpose of participatin g in agency programs. Examples of program trip s are trip s t o congreg ate dining facilitie s, Head S tart, j ob training facilitie s, and Medicaid service s. Generally, these trips are purchased by the agencies for their client s M em bers of the Pot ent i al TD Popu l ation (wh i c h inc ludes the TD Population) are eligible for program trips. General trip s are trips made by the TD Population to destinat.ions of their choice, not to agency-sponsor ed programs Examples of general trips are trips t o work, grocery stores or non-Medicaid medical trips General trips are typically purchased through the TO Trust Fund o r local sources. Only persons in the TO Population are elig ible for general trips purchased through the TO Trust Fund (u nless the trip i s paid for by a soc ial service agency) M e m o rand um No. 4


The app r oac h used to forecast demand trljls Involves the use of trip rates derived in a study of p aratransit demand, based on actual exper iences of para transit sy stems that are meeting most or all of the deman d in the i r se rvice areas In that study, trip rates were deve l oped from an eval u a tion of seven paratr ans i t s y stems that provided hig h l evels of service. Th ese trip ra t es 1.0 trips per month in areas with fixed-rou te service an d 1.2 trips per month in areas wid1out fixed-rout e service, rep resent th e demand for geneilli tri ps. Annual demand for general trip s in Char l otte County is sinlply the TD Population (13, 412) multiplied by 14.4 trips per year for a total of 193,133 trips in FY 1996. The de mand for program trips is forecasted diff erently from th e demand for gen eral trips. As p r e viously discussed, program trips are sponsored by social s e rvice agencies fo r tbe p urpose o f transp orting c l ients to and fom p r o grams of d1ose agencies. The d e mand for trips is a "derived demand" ; tha t i s, the demand f or fu ese tr ips is dependent upon the existence of the program to which transportation disadvantaged persons are transported. For example, demand for trips to senior centers exists only because there are senio r center programs and facilities. Thus, the demand for program trips i s equal to the }lutnber of tri p s required to take advantag e of the service offered by the programs. Therefore, demand for program tr ip s wil l de p e n d o n the leve l of funding for tbe variou s s ocial service programs. The a pproach used t o for ecast de man d for program trips ass umes tha t the funding for th es e p r ograms will grow at a r a t e sufficien t to keep up with in creases i n t he number of pers on s in the TD populatio n The demand for program tr ips is e stim ated to be 120,113 for FY 1996. Th e total demand for trips in F Y 1996 is estimated to be 313,246 by adding general trips (193,133) and program trips (120,113) (see Table 1). Paratransit tri p s will be suppl.ied both by opera t ors wbo are part of th e c o ordin ated TD system and by operators w ho are n o t part of the co ordinated system Withi n t h e coordinated TD system, it i s assume d that the supply o f p rogram trips and those gen era l tri p s purchased with agen cy fw1ds will increase a t the same rat e as the Pot e n tial TD Popula tion. It is a ssum e d that th e su p ply of ge n e ra l trips purchase d furou gh th e TD Trust Fund will increase at the same rate as the TD Population. 'The supply of trips by operators who are not part o f th e coordinated system is forecasted to grow at the same rate as the growth in the Potential TD Population. The difference between the n mnber of trips demanded and the number supplied is the unme t d emand for TD trips. Based on this ana l ysis parntransi t pr o viders in Charl otte County are only provid ing 48 perce n t of the t otal estinlated dem an d s u ggesting a current unmet deman d of more than 1 64 000 paratr ansi t Tt!dutlcal Mt!morandum No. 4 Page 5


Demand Estimation and Needs A.tsessment Cltarlotte County trips annually The demand for, supply of and urunet demand for paratransit trips is projected to increase by 3 percent per year, based on data from BEBR Comparison with Para transit Peer Group Another approach for estimating demand for paratransit service is to compare per capita ridership. vehicle miles, fare, and operating expenses of the Charlotte County Tran sit Department (CCID) with those of similar paratransit systems i n Florida. Table 2 contains averages and per capita measures for Charlotte County's CTC peers (Bay, Hernando, Indian River, Okaloosa, and St. Lucie counties) T hese per capita measures were then applied to Charlotte County's population to estimate passenger trips, vehicle miles, fare, and operating expenses. Th is analysis is used to calculate the leve l of paratransit service Charlotte County could be expected to provide based on its peers. Table2 Comparison of Paratransit Peer Group w ith Charlotte County Population 138,439 130,397 NIA Passenger Trips 1 1 5,258 103,676 I 08,563 Vehicle Miles 585 327 34 6, 74 4 55 1 ,579 Operating Expenses $965,579 $700,750 $908,867 Operating Expense per Trip $8.38 $6.76 Operating Expense per Capita $6.97 $5.37 Passenger Trips per Capita 0.83 0.80 Vehicle Miles per Capita 4.23 2.66 Farebox Recovery Ratio 1.4% 0.0% Note: The peer group contains Bay, Hernando, Indian River, Okaloosa, and St. Lucie counties. The averages do not include Charlotte County. N / A =not applicable. $8.38 $6.97 0.83 4 23 1 .4% Source: Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged: Annual Performance Report, FY 1994-1995. Page 6 No. 4


Cllar/ottc County Demand Ettintatioll and Neet4 AssetMIC/11 As shown in Table 2, Charlotte County Transit Department provided or coordinated 103,676 passenger trips in FY 1995. To match the peer g;:i)u p average CCTD would have provided 108,563 one-way passe n ger trips during that year. CCTD also provides less service, as measured by vehicle miles per capita, than the peer group average. In F Y 1995, CCTD logged 346,744 vehicle miles. Using the peer group average, CCTD would have Jogged 551,579 vehicle miles CCTD' s operating expenses per capita also were Jess than the peer group average in FY 1995. Using the peer average, operating expenses for th. e extra service would have been $908,867, instead of $700,750 actua l expenses Based on this comparison v.'ith its peers, had Charlotte County provided the expected munber o f tdps in FY 1995, it would have provided 5 percent m ore trips (I 03,676 vs. 1 08,563), but had 1 0 percent less cost to provide those trips. It should be noted that the other peers also are constraine d by limited budgets and do not meet the demand in t h eir service areas either. Fixed-Route Transit Demand Estimates . CUTR has estimated potential \xed-route demand using the following four methods: ( 1 ) transit J?eer group compadsons, (2) a census b l ock group analysis, (3) threshold analysis, and ( 4) c it izen input and interview results. Because Charlotte County does not currently provide fixed-rou t e service, demand estimation techniques for fixed-route are limited. Also, some of the demand for fixed-I'Oute service may already be met by the paratransit program coordinated by CCTD, and, converse ly, some of the paratransit service provided by CCTD might be able to be shifted to a fixed-route system. Comparison with Transit Peer Group Although Charlotte County does not have a fixed-route transit system, fixed -ro ute demand can be estimated by examining the ridership rates from peer counties with varying levels of tran s i t servic e and per capita transit spending, and applying these rates to the Charlotte County service area (Pun ta Gorda-Port Charlotte urbanized area only) (see Table 3) Transi t peers were selected based on their general similadty to Charlotte County in terms of population, population densities, and t h e size of the fixed-ro ute transit system. The peers include Manatee County, Flodda; Albany, Georgia; and Amarillo and Beaumont, Texas. San Angelo, Texas, also was in the original peer group in Technical Memorandum No.2; however, because of data reporting problems in FY 1993, San Angelo was dropped from this peer comparison. Using these averages, per capita indices were developed, which Teclmical Memorandum No. 4 Page7


Es tlm4ti o n tmd Nuds Assessmint Char/ one Counl) were then applied to Charlotte County's urbanized area population. The results are FY 1993 estimates of passenger trips, revenue miles, and operating expenses for transit service in Charlotte County if there had been fJXedroute transit service during that time. Table3 Comparison of Fixed-Rout e Trans it Peer Group w i th Charlotte County ." : '" .' FY 1993 :"' t' ." Measure ': : l!eer G.roup 'G:barl o tte. County Estimate s ..... : < . '. Serv ice Area Population 102,621 67,033 .. Pas senger Trips 1 083,749 707,868 Revenue Mil es S38,448 3SI, 92 3 Operating Expenses $1,403,214 $916 341 Passenger Trips p e r Capita IO.S6 10.56 Revenue Miles per Capita S.2S S.2S O p erating Expen s e per Capita $ 1 3.67 $13.67 N otes Figures are for fixed-route serv ice only, unless otherwise noted. Based on transit peers identified in Technical Memorandum No.2: Manatee County, F l orida ; Albany Georgia; and Amarillo and Beaumont, Texas. Sao Angelo, Texas, was omitted from this peer group as data were: n o t avail able from J 993 Transit Profiles. Service area population is for Punta Gorda-Port C harlotte urbanized area; r emaining figures are projections based on peer group per capita rates applied to Charlotte County. Sources: US DOT: 1993 Transit Profiles : Agencies in Urbanized Areas with Population of Les s than 200,000 USDOT: 1993 Transit Profiles : Agencies in Urbanized Areas Exceeding 200,000 Population. U S Bureau of the Census, 1990. As can be see n in Tab le 3, multiply ing the peer group's average passenger tdps per capit a (10.56) by C h a rl o tte Co unty's service area population yields a projected 707,868 passen ger trip s, had Char l otte Co unty provided fixed-route service durin g FY 1993. (The n wnber of pas senger trip s per capita for the four peers ranged from 3.4 (625,897 trips) for Manatee County to 27.1 ( 1 ,359,537 tri ps) for Albany.) By way of compariso n, Charlotte County' s CTC coordinated I 08,861 paratransit trips during FY 1993. Poge 8 No. 4


Charlotte Cou11ty Demand Estimation 0/ld Needs Assessmenl --------. . Similady, multiplyj ng the peer group's average revenue miles per capita (5.25) by Charlotte County's population yields a projected 351,923 revenue miles, had Charlotte County provided fixed route service in FY 1993. (The revenue miles per capita for the four peers ranged from 2.9 (533,693 revenue miles) for Manatee County to 8.0 (403,026 rev enue miles) for Albany.) Finally, multiplying the peer group's average operating expenses p er capita ($13 .67) by Charlotte County's population yields a projected operating of $916,341, had Charlotte County pwvided fixed-route serv ice in FY 1993. (The operating expense per capita ranged from $8.57 ($! ,556,9 44 operating expense) for Manatee County to $20.48 ($1,694,500 operating expense) for Beaumont. Census Block Group Analysis CU1R used the census block group (CBG) data from the 1990 Census for this demand estimation method. Daia on characte1istics that are highly correlated with a person's or a household's transit dependence was analyzed for each census block group within Charlotte County. The demographic characterist ics that were chosen t o ;indicate transi t dependence include the percentage in each census bl ock group of persons 60 years or older, households with an annual income below $10,000, and h ouse holds without access to a vehicle. (CBGs with persons younger than 18 also may be used, but were no t included in this analysis because of th e small number of p ersons represented in this group.) The first step in identifying the census block groups that have persons or households with the greatest propensity for transit use is to calculate the percent distributions of the three demographic characteristics for each census block group. This pwcess resulted in a table of values indicating the p e rcentage of elderly persons, lowincome households, and zero-vehicle househo lds for each of Charlotte Cowtty's 71 census block groups. The CBGs were then sorted for each characteristic in descending order of percent distri bution so that the CBGs with higher percentages for each c hara cteristic would appear at the top of their respec tive ranges. From the percentage ranges, an average percent value and a standard deviatio n value were calculated for each characteristic. Statistically, the standard deviation is considered a measure of distance from the average value. Each cei}SUS block group under each of the three characteristics was then assigned a weight dependent on its deviation from the average for that characteristic. Teclmicol 1l1enrorandum No. 4 Page9


Estimat i on an d Nuds Cha d otte County After weights wer e assigned t o each c ensus block group for each of the three c h aracteristics, a sco r e for eac h census bloc k g r oup was c alculated by summing the three weights for e a c h census blo c k g r oup. An average and s t andard deviation was then ca l c ulated for all of the s cores. Using this information, the census bloc k groups were stratifi e d into primary, secondary a nd t e rtiary d e pe n d enc e on trans it based o n h o w each score d e viat e d f r om the average. The r e m aining C BGs show a lower dep e n dence on t ransit, with indivi duals who may be d e p e nd ent on o t hers for their lransportation. Map I presents the results o f this analysis Two census bloc k groups in Mid-County and Punta Golda indicate a primary de pend ence o n t ransit ; anot h er II C B Gs in Punta Gorda, Mid Coun t y, and South County indica t e s e condary d epende n ce on lrans it. Anoth er 24 census block groups have the potenti a l for a t er tiary dependence o n transit. A lthou g h this method d ocs n o t yield a quantitative e st imat e o f demand, it is a u s eful e x erc i se f o r predicting areas tha t are m ost likely to be depen dent o n and s upportive of fiXed-rou t e transit service and aids in identifying po t ential routes for fixed -route service, if deemed appropriate. Thr eshold Analysi s G u i d elin es, reported in Whe r e Transit Works, prepar e d by the Regional Plan A ssociatio n, were prese nted in Technical M e m orandum No.2 that descri b ed t h e s ize and concentrati o n o f w or kplace and resi d e ntial devel o pm e n t needed t o support vario u s forms of tr a n s i t service. F o r minimum l ocal bus service ( limi ted service on 60-min ut e h ea d ways), t he t hres h o ld for r e sidential dens ity was identified as four dwelling units per acre. Only nine T AZs in Charlotte County meet this residential density thresho l d (see Table 6 in Technic al Memorandum No. I and Map I in this document) TI1e nonresidential mini mum downtown concentrati o n needed to s upport minimum bus se rvic e i s 3.5 million squ are feet of n o n residential floor space A cc o r ding to County and MPO staff; there are 550, 000 square fee t of n o n -residential floo r spac e in d o wntown Punta Gorda and a n a dd i ti onal 2 million sq u are f eet of non-residential floor space i n the Port Char lotte/Murd oc k area, falling s h o rt of the 3.5 million square-foot threshold an d s pread over a larger area than a trad i tional downtown It should be noted that these guidelines w ere c r ea t ed in the 1970s, "'hen most transit systems operated only larg er transit vehicles, rathe r than mor e flex ible min buses and smaller buses. These gu i delines have not bee n r evise d since the mid-1970s. Pog 10 Technical Aft m ora n dum No .f


""" Legend Primary Secondary Ill Tertiary 8.., 'C6 N t \ t ..tJ 012345 Transit D epende n t Tracts by Census B l o c k G roup Sarasota .,... .,..,hr----1 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP NO. 1 02122196 ,,., ,,... Lee County -_"'.,._.__...... CHARLOTIECOUNTYM p 0 PUNT A GORDA


Demand Estimation and Needs Nsessment Cltar lotte County Citizen Input and Interview R esults Another means of predict ing public t ransporta tion use is from citizen inpu t gathered during surveys and public meetings. Results of the citizen telephone SU(Vey and interviews with key local officials, which CUTR conducted in the summer of 1995, provided valuable information for determining the demand for public transportation in Char lotte County (Results from the survey and int ervi ews are discussed in mor e detail i n Technical Memorandum No. 1.) In the survey, in which 4 05 registered vote r s of Char lott e County were randomly selected to answer q u estions about p ubli c transportation, 46 percent of respondents stated that they or members oftbeir household would use local bus service if it were available in Charlotte County An addi.tional 13 percent of respondents indicated that they might use local bus service if it were available There was a general consensus by those interviewed that there is a widespread community need for some typ e of public transportation in Charlotte County, primarily for the elderly, persons who are disabled low-i ncom e workers, and teenage rs Most of the interviewees thought funding wou l d be a major problem in establishing a public transit system. To be successful the TOP should coordinate availab le resources to clearly address the needs of the community. Fac tors of m ost concern i n clu de d e velopment 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 a lternatives to trad itiona l fixed ro ute trans it sys tem. Foremost were th e suggestions to make public transit an accessible, efficient, and financially feasib le means of transportation for the county Similar reactions were gained during thr e e public workshop s held d u ring February and March 1996 (see Technical Memorandum No. 5) During these workshops citizens expressed concerns about th e lack of transportat ion alternatives for those who cannot or do not wish t o drive There was considerable interes t expressed in developing a publi c t ransporta tion system, as long as it was fiscally responsible and cost-effective. ADA Complementary Para transit Demand Estimates The Americans with Disabi litie s Act of 1990 (ADA) requires all transit agencies tha t provide fixed route bus service to provide complementary paratransit service, as well. The paratransit service must Page 12 Teclmlcal No. 4


' Cltarlotte County Demand Estimation and Needs Assessrnem "shadow the fixed-route service area and provide a comparable lev el o f service for persons who cannot use the fixed-route service. ADA-eligible persons fall into three categories: Category 1 : Persons who are unable to board, ride, or disembark from a vehicle even if they a,-e able to get to the stop and even if the vehicle is accessible. Category 2: Persons who cannot use vehicles \vithout a lift or other accommodations These persons are eligible for paratransit serv ice if accessible fixed route vehic les are not available on the route on which they need to travel when they need t o travel. Category 3: Persons with specific impainnentrelated conditions who cannot travel to a boarding location or from a disembarking location to their fmal destination Population estimates for the se three categories, based on the methodo logy presented in the ADA Paratransit Handbook prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation, are presented in Tab l e 4. Beca u se Charlotte County does not have a fixed-route t(ansit system, the P u n ta Gorda -P on Charlotte urbanized area population was used as the service area population. The ADA-eligible populations are determined by multipl y ing the urbanized area population by 1 5 percent for Category 1 and Category 3 combined, and by I percent for Category 2. (Category 2 is separated because these persons would use the fixed-route system if the vehic les were accessible. ) These population estimates were then adjusted for Charlotte County by weighting the populations by the pe rc ent of persons in Charl otte County reporting a "public transportation disability" in the 1980 Census for C h arlotte County divided by tl\e natio n al percentage. (lnfonnation from the 1980 Census was used because this question was not asked in the 1990 Census.) A low estimate and a high estimate for annual trips were then calculated for each population group, based on estimates in the ADA Paratransit Handbook. As s h own in T able 4, the low and high estimates of trips that would be made by the Category I and 3 eligible popula t ions for FY 1996 are 24,694 and 108,655, respec tively. For Category 2 the low estimate of trips is 16,463 an d the high estimate is 72,437. Passengers who would be considered eligible for ADA compleme n tary paratransit servic e arc not analogous to the TD Popul a tion; ADA eligibility is more narrowly defmed (Category I and 3 as describ ed above). Further these estima t es of ADA eligible comple mentary paratransit trips are not in addition to the trips that are already being provided or coordinated by th. e community 1'eclmical Memorandum No. 4 Page 13


Demand Estimation at1d Need$ Assessment Cflarlolle County transportation coordinator. In fact, approximately 3 7,000 annual trips are already being provided by CCTD for persons with disabilities. Page U Table 4 ADA Paratransit Population and Trip Estimates Estimated Urbanized Area Population Estimate of ADA Eligible Population Categories I & 3 Estimate of ADA Eligible Population Category 2 Estimate of ADA Trips Category I & 3 Estimate of ADA Trips Category2 Low High Low High 80,028 82,429 84,902 87,449 90,072 2,058 2 120 2, 1 83 2,249 2,316 1 ,372 1,413 I 455 1 499 1,544 24,694 25,435 26, 198 26,984 27,794 108,655 1 11,915 Jl5,272 118,730 122,292 16,463 16,957 17, 465 17,989 18, 529 72,437 74,610 76,848 79,154 81,528 Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990. USDOT: ADA Paratransit Handbook, 1991. Technical Memorandum No. 4


C/larlotte County Demand Estimation and Needs Needs Assessment The previous section outlined demand estimates for transit and paratransit services in Charlotte County. In this section, mobility needs will be assessed. Mobility needs address the way to meet unmet demand. This discussion includes unmet needs, potential new markets, and the extent to which mobil ity needs are being met by existing public transportation services. Existing Public Transportation Services Existing public transportation services are available through two primary sources: the service coordinated by the Charlotte County Transit Department and service tha t is provided outside of the coordinated program. Coordinated Service : The Charlotte County Transit Department prov i des and coordina tes shared-ride, door -to-door ' para transit service for persons who are transportation disadvantaged in the County. Service is offered on an advanced-reservation basis, generally for subscri ption (standing orde r) trips or a demand-response (random) basis. (A description of existing services is provided in Appendix A.) In addition to providing service i tself, CCTD also coordinates services operated by other transportation operators includi ng Charlotte County Veteran's Council, Charlotte County Community Mental Health, Cooper Street Recreation Center, and the Charlotte County School Board C?ead Start Program). In FY 1995, these services totaled 103,676 one-way passenger trips, with a m ajority of the trips being fo r medical, nutrition, and education/training purposes These trips were provided for clients of the above-mentioned programs and for persons who q ua lify under the state prescribed guidelines for TO-eligibility (as descri b ed in Technical Memorandum No. l and in the previous section). Non-coordinated Service Other transportation services are provided b y public and private agencies, as well as volunteer organizations who are not part of the CTC's coordinated system (non-coordinated operators). As Technical Memorandum No. 4 Page Jj


Demand EstimatiOJt and Needs ASSt!SJ,'ntell/ Charlolfe County part of this study CUTR contacted 28 organizations, identified by the MPO, to determine what types of services they offered; however, only eight non-coordinated agencies responded (see Appendix A). T here also are more than a dozen taxicab and limous.ine services, as well as the Jolly Trolley that provide service. Information for those providers a lso is included in Appendix A. Only limited informat ion was available related to the actual numbers of trips provided by these serv i ces. It should be kept in mind that most agencies only provide trips for their own clients. UnmetNeed There still is a large urunet n eed for public transportation service in Charlotte Cou n ty As indicated in the section on demand estimation for paratransit service, in FY 1996, there are an estimated J 3,412 persons in the TD Population and 69,846 persons in the Potential TD Population. CCTD currently provides and coordinates service for le ss than 5,000 of those persons. Furtlter, an estima ted 149,019 trips (coordinated and non-coordinated) will be provided to the transportation d i sadvantaged in FY 1996 leaving an estimated 1 64 227 unmet trips. To meet these needs requires assessing many aspects of service including service area, frequency and hours of service, intermodal connections, and coordination of service with otlter operators. The proposed goals and objectives presented in Technical Memorandum No. 3, the citizen telephone survey, interviews with local officials, and demographic characteristics all are used to assess the characteristics of need Service Area A part of assessing the need for improved transi t service is determining where th is improved service should operate in the county. The first step in establishing a service area is detennining where potential riders live. An estimation of th is population was done in the census block group analysis in the demand estimation section. Using census data, census block groups that have a large percentage of persons that could potentially have a dependence on transit were identified. Three characteristics were identified as factors that could influ ence a person's dependence on transit: persons age 60 or older, households with an annual income Jess than $10,000, and households with no access to a vehic le The results of this analysis are shown in Map I As shown in this map, many of the census block groups that have a primary or secondary dependence on tra n sit are located on or near the U.S. 41 corridor, from Punta Gorda to Port Charlotte. Page 16 Tecllnical ftfemora11dum No. 4


Clzarlotte County Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment The next step is to determine where public transportation service is currently being provided. One week of trips provided and coordinated by tlle Mmtlitiliity transportation coordinator of Charlotte County (CCTD) was mapped according to the origin and destination of each trip (see Maps I and 2). The lines do no t indicate multiple trips; rather, they show a compilation of origins and destinations for the period. A one-week period, October 23-27, 1995, was chosen as a typical week of paratransit service in Charlotte County. The trips were separated into subscription trips and demand respons ive trips. Subscription trips, which recur on a regular basis are shown in Map 2 Most of these trips were for training programs, nutrition sites, and shopp i ng trips, with many trips focused on the Charlotte County Special Training and Rehabilitation (S TAR ) program in the northern part of the m ap. ; Demand-response trips are shown in Map 3. Most of these trips were for medica appointments. In comparing the transit dependent census block groups in Map I with the current supply of services identified in Maps 2 and 3, CCTD is currently providing a major part of its service to the highly transit-dependent U.S. 41 corridor, with additional service to and within Englewood and other outlying areas. In addition to evaluating the serv ice area according to demo grap hic characteristics and current supply of paratransit trips, interviews w i th loca l officials provided information on establishing a service area (see Technical Memorandum No. 1). The general consensus was that people would use transit in hous ing areas with a concentration of seniors. For example, a bus could go from Punta Gorda to Port Charlo tte and Murdock and possibly Englewood. Suggested bus routes inclu de Tamiami Trail, Harborview, and Kings Highway. The Venice business district, County Court House, and the Port Charlotte Cultural Center were suggested as potential bus stops. Frequency and Hours of Service Another important aspect of public transportation service is the frequency of the service (time between buses) and the hours and days of service. The current paratransit service by CCTD is operated from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays, except on national holidays when there is no service. After-hours, weekend, and holiday service (for limited trip purposes) can be bought :from Ambitrans Inc., at a higher cost per mile. The service is operated as a door-to-door service with some scheduled routes on a daily and/or weekly basis Tee/mien/ Memorandum No. 4 Page 17


Legend Nutriti on Education & Trainh1g Employment Medical Shopping + Other Q .__..., 8-. (> 0 N l 0 1 2 3 4 5 Sub&crlpUou Trlpa Octobe r 2 3 'r7 1995 S a r aso t a C ount y T I 1ANSIT D E VIELOPMENT PLAN MAP NO. 2 02121/96 Lee County fH.ofi:IOOI &W'et: .. tt Aoto<"ltt, fM CIIARU)Tn; COUNTY PUNTA GORDA M.P.O.


Legend Nutrition Ed ucati on & Tra ining Employment Medical Shop ping + Othe r Q ,_,..., 8... co N I 012345 Demand R esponsive Trip s October 23-27. 199 5 -. t:_ \ '' TR AN SIT DEV ELOP M E N T P LAN MAP NO. 3 02121/96 Le e County CHARLOTTE COUNTYPUNTA GORDA fiiii;CIIE.$'10tM M.P.O.


Demand Estimation and Neetls Assessment Cflarlolfe Couno I nterviews with local officials indicated a perceived need both for daytime and evening service. The main service needs are in the daytime for medical appo in tments, shopping, and social activities. There also was an ind ic ated need for elde r ly who cannot drive at night and are dependent upon taxis or other people for transportation. Further there also was concern for the mobility need s of children who could use public transportation to go to locations such as youth recreation areas or beaches The t e lephone survey of Charlotte County residents (described in Technical Memorandum No. I) indicated that if fixed-route publ ic transportation were available the buse s should pass each stop every 30 to 60 minutes; however it was suggested in the interviews with local officials that par t ic ular rou tes would not need to be provided every day. Perhaps vehicles could be a l ternated between r outes. For example, on Mon day Wednesday, and Friday, one route could operate in one area; on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday another route serving a d i fferent area could be offered In this way, neighbors could get together to go shopp ing, see doctors etc. It should be remembered that Goa l l of the Proposed Goals and Objectives stated that public transportation needs t o be simple and dependable Intermodal Connections An important part of the provision of public transportation service is the connections with other transportation modes such as bicycl e and pedestrian facilities, the airport, the rail depot and interci t y bus stops. Goa l 3 in the Proposed Goals and Objectives pres ented in Technica l Memorandum N o 3 indi cated a need to connect trans p orta t ion modes Specifically, coordinating expansion of the public transportation system should be linked with improvements in related facilities 'Ibis can be done by providing comfortable and useful facilities at major dest in ations including benches, s helters trees, and bicycle facilities; continuing to expand the availability of sidewal k and bike paths associated with fixed bus routes ; providing bike racks on buse s and a t stops; and providing taxi stands at b us stops. Coordination of Service with Other Operators Several interviewees s t ated that polici e s need to coordina t e available resources, with consideration of cost for transporta tion miles. One responden t said tha t there could be better use rnade of the TOTE (Transportation of the Elderly) program, provided by the Cul tural Center. Public transit cou ld be coordina ted with taxicabs and TOTE to promote ut i lization of those services. Page 20 1'ecllnical Jlfemortmdum No. 4


C/zarlotte County Denwnd E.vtimation and Needs Assessment In addition, considerable interest has been expressed w ith respect to involving the private sector in the provision of service--whether it be paratransit or fixed -route transit. Using the private sector is viewed by many in the community as a prudent use of resources and may result in more cost effective service. r Technical Memorandum No. 4 Page21 '''


Estimation and ; b f tS.'mrt.nt Charlotte Count)' PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Pagt 22 Teclmico/ \femornndum No. (


Cflarlotte County Demmtd Estimation and Needs AsseS$ment Summary The purpose of this technical memorandum was threefold: I. To provide estimations of the demand for public transportation (paratransit as well as fixed route). 2. To estimate the mobility needs of the community. 3. To the current public transportation service provided by the C TC, the Charlotte County Transit Department T h e demand for public transportation serv ice was calculated both for paratransit and fixed-route services as well as for ADA complem e ntaty paratransit. To the extent possible, those estimates were quantified. The methods used and the results of this effort are S\llDlllartzed in Table 5. The mobility needs of the community also were identified, by examining the existing public transportatio n services provided by the community coordinator (Charl otte County Transit Departme n t) as we ll as the services offered by other providers who are not part of the coordinated TD transportation system. An origin-destinatio n analysis of subscr i p i ion and demand response trips provided by the CTC"was conducted to determine whether th e current supply of trips coincides \vith the potential transit depe n dent markets identified in the needs portion of this document. No matter what technique was used, there appears t o be a demand and need for some type of additional public transportat ion in Charlotte County. Teehnical Memorandum No. 5 describes the results of the Community Workshops held during FebrUaty and March !996, and describes four general options for providing public transportation for Charlotte Cou nty. Tech Memorand11m No. 4 Page23


Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment Charlolfe County Table 5 Sum mary of Demand Estima t ions and Needs Assessment T echniques -n'e'mi'niliESiima'liontTeclinrc\iie n T :'i' ... .. ,, -* '"' .. >ti"i < . ."-" . ...... F o reca s t ofTD Paratransit Trip Demand Only 48 percent of the estimat ed demand for TD paratransit trips will be met in FY 1996: FY 1996 Est. Demand 313,246 FY 1996 Est, Supply 142,012 FY I 996 Est Unmet Demand = 1 64,277 Comparison witlt Paratran sit Peer Group The Cha r lotte County CTC is provi ding 5% less service than its peer CTCs. FY I 995 Peer Group Average 1 1 5 ,258 FY I 995 Charlotte Co. Trips 103, 676 FY 1995 Expected Charlotte County Trips (based on peers) 1 08,563 Comparison with Transit Peer Group Based on an analysis of transit peers, if Charlotte County had provided fixed route service in FY 1993, t h e projected number of passenger t r i ps wou l d have bee n 707,868, almost seven times the number of para t ransi t trips provided at that time (I 08,86\ ). Cens us Block Group Analysis About half of Charlotte County's 71 census block groups (CBGs) i n dicate a primary, se c o .nda.ry or tertiary po tential dependence on transit (mostly along U.S. 4 1 ). 2 CBGs indicate a primary poten tial dependence on transit II CBGs indicate a secondary potential depend ence on transi t 24 CBGs indicate a t ertiary pot ential d e p end ence on transit Threshold Analysis According to the th resho l d aoalysis, Charl otte County does not yet have sufficiently concentrated non-residential floor s p a c e (i e employment facil i ties) to support minimum fixed route bus service Residen tial density meets the t hreshold req u iremen t in only nine TAZs. Non-residential density does not meet the minimum threshold requ i rement of3.5 million square feet in the down town area. Page U Technical Memorandum No. 4


Cltar/otte County Citiz.e.n Input & Interview Results ADA Complement ary Paratransit Demand Estimates Ex isting Public Transportation Services Umnet Need Service Area Frequency and Hours of Service Intennodal Connections Coordination of Service with Other Operators Tee/mica/ Memorandum No. 4 Demtmd Estimation and Needs Assessment General consensus there is widespread community need for public transportation. service must be cost-effective should serve the transit dependent See Proposed Goals and Objectives in Teelmical Memorandum No. 3 Required if Charlotte County implements fixedroute service (i.e both fi>

Dtmand Esti mation aud Nttds Assssmelit Charlotte County PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 26 Tec.lmical A1tmornudum No. 4


Appendix A Charlotte Co unty Existing Public Transportation Services A-I




Ex i s ting Public Tran s portation Services Introduction A p p endix A describe s existin g public and privat e transportation services operating in Clulrl otte County. An inventory of existing transit services was developed to serve as the basis for the later deman d estimat e and needs assessment. The review consists of three categories o f transportation services in C harlott e County: I ) coordinated transportation providers; 2) transportation providers; and 3) taxicab, limousine, and trolley companies. Coordinated transportation pr oviders are those providers who opera t e a s p a rt of the transportation program coo rdinated b y th e Charlotte County Transit D epartment (th e local commu nity transportati o n coordinato r ( CTC)), as part of the Florida Coordinated Trans portation Syste m providers are those service providers an d age ncies who d o n ot have a c oor dination agreement with the CTC. The t axicab, limousine, and trolley companies also were inventoried to see what other public transportatio n resources are avail able l ocally. CUTR c o llected the follo w in g information f or each provider. Name of o p er ator Type of service S ervice area Users of the s ervice Fare financial data Service agreement/contra c t s with other agencies V e hicle inventory Information for coordinated provid ers was based o n data provided by the Charlotte CountyPunta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO) and i nterviews with the CTC. The primary d ata sources in cl ude CTC's Annual Operaling Reports (FY 1994 & FY 1995 ) and the Charlotte County Coordi n a t e d Transportation Development Plan: 1994-1999 (CTDP). Informatio n about non coordinated operators was gathered from mail questionnaires, supplemented by tel eph on e interviews cond u cted by CUTR Data on taxi and limousine companies were collected thro ug h a telephone survey conducted by CUTR. Informatio n about the trolley service came from literature printed by the o perator. A-3


Coordinated Transportation S ervice s During FY 1995, ridership on the coordinated transportation service was 103,676 a slight increase from 10 3,151 trips during FY 1994 When trips are analyzed by trip purpose, medi cal nutritional and employment trips have in cr eased whereas education/traini n g, shopping, and other trips have decreased Unduplicated passengers have in crease d by 17 percent, from 4,250 in FY 1994 to 4,971 in FY 1 995. D e tailed operational data for both fiscal years are presented in T able A-1. Table A-1 Charlo tt e County CTC Annual Oper ati n g Data .. : '" . : .:;: ., < : \;_ , ;;Measures i ; ;;;' I f ,. (i ${ "';; Zi r; ::,'7 :, :':-:: .. :.. <-: . -'; .. >'C>o"> " A.. .. ,, "" . '"' ; Total Passenger T rips 103,151 103,676 0.5% Emp loyment 0 680 ola 23,725 27,233 14 .8 % Nutritio n al 30,9 45 33,102 7 0% Education/Training 25,788 24,460 (5 2%) Shop ping 7,22 1 6,440 ( 1 0.8%) Other 15,472 11,761 (24.0%) Und u p l icated Passengers 4 ,250 4,971 17.0% Vehicle Miles 346,299 346,7 4 4 0.1% Total Revenue $ 630,151 $700,750 11.2% TD Commission $ 1 01,714 $ 101,71 4 0.0% US DOT & FOOT (Tota l ) $38,000 $73,347 93.0% Medicaid $46,980 $65,301 39. 0% Loc al Government $327,422 $33 1,63 6 1.3% Other $116 ,035 $128 ,7 52 11.0% Vehicle Miles/TO Cap ita 5.1 3 4.92 (4 1%) Passenger TripsNehiele Mile 0.30 0.30 0.0% Operating Ex penseNehicle Mile ole $2.02 N / A Opera tin g Expense/Passenger Trip ole $6.76 N/A Note: n/c=not comp le t e, ola =not applica bl e N/A c not available Source: Transpo rtation D isa dvantaged Annual Operations Report, FY 1994 & FY 1995 A-4


As the local CTC, the Charlotte County Transit Department provides several types of service for persons who are transportation disadvantaged, inc luding subscription trips and demand response trips. Subscri ption trips include daily congregate meal (nutrition) routes, as well as daily sh o p pi n g tri p s w ithin th e servi ce area. Subscription service also i s provided to C harl otte Comlty Community Mental Health (CCMH), the Visually Impai red Persons of Charl otte, and Charlotte County Special Training and Rehabilitation (STAR). Demandresponse trips are provided primarily for medical appointments including Medicaid-sponsored trips. Trip priorities have been imposed that give preference for essential trips (such as medical appointments, shopping, and training and educational programs). There are 1 6 vehicles in the CCTD fleet incl udin g three, 3-passenge r station wagons; three 15-to 16-passenger vans; and ten, 10to 26-passenger buses (four have wheelchair lifts). Some of the vehicles are aging and are scheduled for replacement (see Table A-2). Oth er transportation s ervices are operated as part o f the coordinat ed transportation system including the Charl otte County V et eran' s Council, Charlotte County Community Mental Health (CCMH) Cooper Street Recrea tion Center, and the Charlotte County Sc hool Board (Head Start program). Putcliase of service contracts are annually negotiated and signed with Charlotte County SocialfSen.ior Service, Community Care for Disabled Adults (CCDA ), and the Agency for Health Care Ad! A dditional contractual agreements were signed with four taxi and limousine compan.ics-AAA All Service Transportation Inc., A mbitrans/Gran t M edical Transporta t io n A s t or Cab & Lim ousine, and Mary's Taxi-who provide serv ice for the CTC. N on-coo rdin ated Operators O t h e r tran sportat ion s ervi ces are provided by public and private ag en c i es, as well as vol unteer organization s who are not part o f th e CTC s coordinated syste m (non coordinated operators) In December 1995, CUTR con du cted a survey of those non-coordinated operators. The questionnaires were mailed to 28 agencies aad organi2ations identified by the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO. Fourteen agencies and organizations returned the survey. Using the same survey CUTR contacted the oth e r 14 agencie s by t elephone and was able to get five more responses Among the 1 9 vali d resp onses, five of them were from coordinated oper dtors, and have been discussed above. Six of the respondents are medical service providers or nursing homes that do not prov i d e any transportation, eve n for their own clients; however, all six state that there are some "unmet transportation n eeds" of their c)jents The noncoordinated operators' data are presented in Table A-3. A-5


)> "' Table A-2 CCTD Vehicle Inventory *.;Y f' .. i(li Modtl VClhide SpePifXMVI02807 1990 Bus 23 39,95 2 2001 NONE IOKI;JOI MXKIIC11>856 1989 Ou5 14 116,744 1995 1-II'T 2Gili i631KIJ4113010 1988 Bus 18 142,663 1992 NONE 2001 1631KIJ4115473 1 988 Bus 18 177, 4 2 6 1992 NONE IOBKI'l270Fl38J06 1985 B u s 20 154,295 1991 NONE 011' J2 M I'C 33 1982 !Jus 18 227,457 1994 NONE Ncs : 1nforrn11ion accura.te for August 199$. IIC<>Ooan! ofCouncy MAArca Aganmt ofTnnsporulioo. SW-Iion wogon. Sour: Based on data pro>id

?-... TableA-3 Non-coo.rdinated Ope.rators American Cancer 1 Charlotte, Glades 1 9,000 I Elderly, low income children 135 volunteer I N/A Society &Hendry unemployed, disabl ed autos counties Fawcett Charlotte, 25 -100 Elderly disabled, with n o 16 buses & 113,358 Memorial Hospital Sarasota, DeSoto p er day means of transportati on vans counties Health Plus Murdock to Burnt 2,989 Elderly I Volunteer IN/A S t ore Road private aut o If Palmvi ew Hea lth Care Charlotte County, 107 Elderly II van I NIA Fort Myers. Sarasota Salvation Army I Charlotte County 11,500 I Low income I 2 vans I NIA South Port Square I Charlotte County I soo I Elderly, disabled, low income 2-buses, 3 NIA vans, 1 auto Visually Impaired Charlotte County 60 Elderly I van NIA Persons of Charlotte Note: N/A"''lot available. This is not an exhaustive list; however, it represents responses to the survey. Source: CUTR: telephone and mail surveys, December 1995. I Tralr.tin_g, recreational I Private I Medical for their I Privat e clients only I Medical, shopping, I Private personal business I Medical, nutrition, social service I Federal, state, andH!v!O I Medieal, social, I Priv ate shopping Medical, shopping, IN/A p ersonal business, recreation Training, recreational State & local, United Way :i : ; ; ; ' . , : : .


Volunteer organizations provide medical and some other trips for the elderly, economically disadvantaged, and persons with disabilities. A number of these agencies do not own their own vehicles; however, they have volunteer drivers who use their own vehicl e s. in practice, however most agencies a nly provide trips for thei r o w n clients. T a xicab, Limousine, a n d T r o ll e y Companies CUTR conducted a telephone survey of taxicab and limousine companies in Charlotte County in August 1995, based on a list of taxi and limousine operators with business licenses, provided by the Charlotte County Zoning Department. Of the 27 taxi and limousine companies, seven were out of business when the survey was conducted CUTR was able to gather l 0 valid responses from the 20 taxi and lim o u si n e providers who were still in business. The re m aining companies would not respo n d t o CUTR's calls. Information was coll ected on service area, vehicle inventory, rates, contra ctual agreements, and wheelchair accessibility Two of the taxi and limousine companies, Astor Cab & Limousine and Mary s Taxi, also provide contract service through the CTC. Both subscribe to the CCTD Vehicle System Safety Plan. A matrix of the survey results is presented in Table A-4. In addi t i on, Jolly Tro lley System also p ro vides p u bli c t ransportation in the Po rt Charlotte and Punta Gorda a r e a The tr o lley runs from Pun t a Gorda t o Mu rdock, o n two -h o u r headways, Mo n day through Sat urday The fare is $2.00 fo r adu l ts ; up to three children (l e ss tha n 6) ride free with an adult. 'The trolley systems also provide large group services like parties, congregate dining and shopping, and church and school trips at discount rates Most of the service is oriented toward tourists A-8


. Tabl i!A4 Taxi and Limousine Serv i ces in Charlotte County A Cab OrA Punta Gorda 2 Auto Yes $!/mile None Limousine Astor Ca b & Punta Gorda & 10 Town car Yes $1-$3/ CCTD Limousine* Port Charlot1e mile C W T axis Charlotte County I Van No $limite None Casino Punta Gorda & 2 Van No $16$30/ None Caravans Char l otte County tri p Easy Cab Co. Charlotte County 5 n/a No $ !/mil e None Friendly Ride Cnarlotte County 6 Van No $40/tri p None T r ansport Inc. Flor ida T r ansit Airports 7 n/a No $25-$35 / N one Serv ice Inc trip Mary s Tax i Englewood & 6 4 Autos, Yes $!/mile Medicaid Inc Charlotte 2SWs CCTD MauriceJ. Englewood & I Auto No $65/trip None Ferrite r A i rports R&R Charlotte County 2 Van No $35/trip None Transportation & Airports Notes: *CCTD contract operators; rates provided are for the general pu b lic. SW=station wagon, WC=wheelchair, n/ a=not avai labl e This is not an exhaustive list ; however, it represents responses 10 the telephone smvey. Source: CUTR: 1995; March 1996. A 9