USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

A study of coordination of local and regional public bus transit and fixed guideway transportation systems in Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A study of coordination of local and regional public bus transit and fixed guideway transportation systems in Florida
Physical Description:
1 online resource (42, 39 p.) : ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida Transportation Commission
Publisher:
Florida Transportation Commission
Place of Publication:
Tallahassee, FL
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
the Florida Transportation Commission.
General Note:
Title from cover of e-book (viewed Aug. 4, 2011).
General Note:
"April 1991."

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 - 028432546
oclc - 745119061
usfldc doi - C01-00188
usfldc handle - c1.188
System ID:
SFS0032289:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

A SI'UDY OF COORDINATION OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL PUBLIC BUS TRANSIT AND FIXED GUIDEWAY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS IN FLORID A Apri11991 e Florida portation ------""' vmmissi on (904) 488-8995 605 Suwannee st. Tallahassee, FL 32399..()45(), MS 9 Fax (904) 4883 1 7

PAGE 2

FLORIDA COI'm'IISSION Commluloners David K""-Chatmtan John BroiDfllng. Jr. Alt KenneSOn l'ltll/!eeOO Hem:U Sllerltelm Bob WU/telm The Honorable Lawton Chiles Govemor of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 April 3, 1991 The Honorable Gwen Margolis, President The Florida Senate Room 409, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable T.K. Wetherell, Speaker The Florida House of Representatives Room 420, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dear Governor Chiles, President Margolis and Speaker Wetherell, o ....... or Lawf
PAGE 3

Transit Coordination Study April 3, 1991 Page2 coordination is the key to achieving the goal of an integrated, multi-modal transportation network at the local, regj.onal and statewide levels. We hope that this report will assist you as you address issues related to coordination of public transportation systems. Dlllvid c: G. Kerr,

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................. 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Study Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Recommend.atiorzs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Study Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Defining CoordinaJion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Passenger Per spective of Coordinated Transit Services . . . 7 The Public Policy Perspective of Coordinated Transit Services . . 9 CoordinaJion of the Planning Function . . . . . . . . 11 Quantifying and Valuing CoordinaJion . . . . . . . . . 11 Attaining Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 SECTION 1. AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Existing Coordination Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . 17 SECTION 2 A DETERMINATION OF THE NEED FOR COORDINATION AT THE LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE LEVELS AND BETWEEN THESE LEVELS . . . 20 SECTION 3. A REVIEW OF V ARlO US METHODS FOR COORDINATING PUBLIC TRANSIT AND FIXED-GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 CoordinaJion Through Consolidation . . . . . . . . . 23 SECTION 4. AN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SUCH METHODS TO FLORIDA . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The Current Transit Planning and Operating Environment in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The Tampa Bay Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Orlando/East Central Florida . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The Mi(111li Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 The Jacksonville Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 State and Federal Level Activities . . . . . . . . . . 35

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONT E NTS SECTION 5. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEED FOR COORDINATION, THE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AT WIDCH COORDINATION SHOULD OCCUR, AND METHODS FOR ACCOMPLISIDNG THE RECOMMENDED COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 R ecomnzendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF REFERENCES TO COORDINATION IN FLORIDA STATUTES ......... . .... ......... A-1 APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL DATA ON EXISTING T RANSIT ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1

PAGE 6

Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This study was conducted in response to Senate Bill 348, enacted by the 1990 Legislature. The F lorida Transportation Commission was charged with conducting the study The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the Universi ty of South Florida performed the necessary research and analysis. This executive summary presents the Commission's recommendations. The body of the report discusses materials and information developed by CUTR during the course of the study and p resents key findings. This report represents a compilation o f ideas from literature, observations, numerous discussions with transportation professionals and input received at Commission meetings where this study was presented and discussed. Study Objective As stated in the l egislation, the study objective is: The Transportation Commission shall study the need to coordinate local and regional public bus transit and fixed-guideway transportation systems. The legislation also l ays out five study requirements. Such study shall include but not be limited to: (1) An analysis of current coordination.

PAGE 7

Page 2 (2) A determination of the need }or coordination at the local, regional and state levels and between these levels. {3) A review of various methods for coordinating public transit and fixed guideway systems. (4) An analysis of the applicability of such methods to Fwrida. {5) Recommendations on the need for coordination, the levels of government at which coordination should occur, and methods for accomplishing the recommended coordination. In February 1989, the Florida Transportation Commission produced a report titled Public Transit in Florida which outlined a series of policy recommendations for public transportation in F lorida Several significant conclusions were included in that report and are relevant to this study: States and local governments have assumed a greater role in providing operating subsidies. Public transit has both social service and transportation attributes. There is no single, coordinated local planning process for public transit. Elected officials are sometimes too involved in making operational decisions for public transit systems. Local governments have and should retain the primary financial responsibility for public transit. Public transit and urban growth patterns are interdependent. Fixed guideway systems present unique problems and opportunities and require carefully coordinated local policies for land use, transportation and parking.

PAGE 8

Page 3 The findings and recommendations of this study complement and build on the policy foundation established by the 1989 Commission report. Conclusions and recommendations of the 1989 Report should be considered in conjunction with this report. Recommendations These recommendations cover key issues concerning coordination of public transportation planning and reflect a consensus position of the Florida Transportation Commission. They are based on key findings contained in the report. 1. Although the statutory directive focused solely on coordination between fixed guideway and public bus transit transportation systems, the need for improved coordination extends well beyond, to virtually all transportation planning. Coordination of planning for all transportation modes is essential to a successfully integrated multi-modal network within which viable public transportation systems serve the greatest public benefit. Moreover, with regard to public transportation systems, close coordination with land use planning is considered crucial, since complementary land use decisions are key to success. The scope of issues associated with coordinated public transportation should be expanded to include: coordination between jurisdictions coordination with all public transportation modes coordination with all roadway transportation plans coordination with intercity transportation modes coordination with local land use plans

PAGE 9

Page4 coordination with policies for parkirig and urban design coordination between planning and operations 2. State investments in public transportation should be conditioned on sufficient documentation that the necessary level of planning coordination has been achieved and will be ongoing. Further, the State should accord high priority to promoting coordination, including enabling and encouraging specific actions and organizational structures that enhance coordination. 3. Ideally, a metropolitan area should have a single agency which has planning authority for all transportation modes, including roads, waterports, airports, bus transit, fixed rail, vanpooling, paratransit, etc. However, it is recognized that consolidation of all transportation planning in a single entity may not be achievable given current local conditions and entrenched local interests. At a minimum, regions should establish a single forum to coordinate public transportation planning within an entire metropolitan area. Examples include creation of a committee composed of representatives from the respective MPOs which would coordinate public transportation planning, or establishment of a single, multi-county MPO in large urban areas. In either case, the planning entity should include a mix of elected officials and private citizens. 4. As a corollary to the previous recommendation, the proliferation of "single purpose" or "special purpose" public transportation planning organizations should be discouraged. These entities, whose planning focus is limited (often to one mode and one project), promote fragmentation and competition among the various modes and as such can create barriers to coordination and system integration. The Tampa Bay and Orlando metropolitan areas are characterized by multiple, single-purpose planning entities and need to strive for improved coordination

PAGE 10

Page 5 among existing dispersed plann ing entities. By contrast, the Jacksonville area is probably the best example in Florida of a regionalized, multi modal planning approach in which public transportation planning functions (except airports and waterports) as well as expressway p l anning are consolidated in the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. 5. Research indicates that several metropolitan areas in the United States and Canada have well-coordinated public transportation systems. Although the configuration of p l anning entities varies, and no "formula" fo r successful coordination exists, certain characteristics that promote or improve coordination were identified. Compliance with the following general guidelines is recommended: The entity responsible for regional public transportation planning should not have a vested interest in a single mode or project. The entity responsible for regional public transportation planning should be the same as, or intimately coordinated with, the entity doing regional transportation p l anning. The entity responsible for regiona l public transportation planning should have adequate control over project programming and funding to significantly influence plan implementation. The entity responsible for regional public transportation should have planning authority for the full market area whose needs are being addressed in the plan. The entity responsible for public transportation should have both elected and citizen representation in decision making roles. The entity responsible for regiona l public transportation planning should have strong ties to the entities responsible for land use planning and related policies that affect system success.

PAGE 11

Page6 INTRODUCTION This study was conducted in response to Senate Bill 348. The study was designed to address the specific objective and study elements identified in the legislation. The Florida Transportation Commission was charged with conducting the study. The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida performed the necessary research and analysis The study began in the fall o f 1990. This report provides a discussion of the issues and presents findings and recommendations. Additional materials and information developed during the course of the study are compiled into supporting technical appendices. The materials presented in this report represent a compilation of ideas from literature, observations, numerous discussions with transportation professionals, and input received at commission meetings where this study was presented and d i scussed. Study Objective The legislation lays out a specific study objective and an itemization of what the study should address. This report includes an introductory section followed by sections specifically addressing each of the study requirements itemized in the legislation. As stated in the legislation, the study objective is: The Transportation Commission shall study the need to coordiiUlte local and regional public bus transit and fixed-guideway transportation systems. The legislation also lays out five study requirements. Such study shall include but Mt be limited to: (1) An aiUllysis of current coordination

PAGE 12

Page 7 (2) A detenninatlon of the need for coordination at the local, regional and state levels and between these levels. (3) A review of various methods for coordinating public transit and fixed guideway systems. (4) An analysis of the applicability of such methods to Florida. (5) Recommendations on the need for coordination, the levels of government at which coordination should occur, and methods for accomplishing the recommended coordination. In February 1989, the Florida Transportation Commission produced a report titled Public Transit in Florida which outlined a series of policy recommendations for public transportation in Florida. Several significant conclusions were included in that report and are relevant to this study : States and local governments have assumed a greater role in providing operating subsidies. Public transit has both social service and transportation attributes. There is no single, coordinated local planning process for public transit. Elected officials are sometimes too involved in making operational decisions for public transit systems. Local governments have and should retain the primary financial responsibility for public transit. Public transit and urban growth patterns are interdependent. Fixed guideway systems present unique problems and opportunities and require carefully coordinated local policies for land use, transportation, and parking.

PAGE 13

Page 8 The findings and recommendations of this study complement and build on the policy foundation established by the 1989 Commission report. Conclusions and recommendations of the 1989 report should be considered in conjunction with this report. Defini ng Coordination Coordination is an inherently attractive concep t. Coordination means to work together, to harmonize, to act together in a smooth concerted way. Conceptually, coordination is a very attractive goal. Who would want uncoordinated bus and fixed guideway transit services? H owever, to evaluate coordination and understand the implications in practical terms requires a more detailed definition of coordination as it relates to public transportation. Coordination of bus and fixed guideway transit could rang e from verifying communications between the respective transportation professionals and policy makers to consolidation of functional responsibilities within a single agency i nstituti onally ensuring coordination by having administration and decision making carr ied out by the same entity. Tile P assenger Perspective of Coordinated Transit Services Coordination of fixed guideway and bus transit systems can be l ooked at from two perspectives. The first perspective i s the passenger perspective. The passenger would define coordination in terms of observable characteristics of service. Five such characteristi cs are: Coordinated Service Design Public transit services should connect popular travel origins and destinations regardless of mode or jurisdiction boundaries. Coordinated service design uses each mode in locations where its performance and

PAGE 14

Page 9 are appropriate and connects these services into a system to meet the public travel needs. Coordinated Modal Interface Appropriate public transit should accommodate multiple modes and offer convenient transfer locations and facilities with features such as shelter, good customer information and related passenger amenities. Coordinated Scheduling Operating hours and transfers should be scheduled to enhance passenger convenience. The hours of operations of supporting services should be coordinated and, where possible, vehicle meets (transfers) should be "timed" to reduce the time a passenger has to wait for another vehicle by having busses arrive at key points simultaneously. Coordinated Fares Fares should be structured to facilitate easy transferring. A single regional fare system should be used and the fare syst em should enable transfers and have convenient fare sales locations. Coordinated Customer Information Good information promotes convenient transferring and use of all modes and &ervices. It might include a one stop customer information system with readily available and comprehensive information. The Public Policy Perspective of Coordinated Transit Services The second major perspective on coordination is the public policy perspective Coordinating activities are supportive of cost effective and efficient investment of public reso urces. For purposes of this study, this perspective on coordination will include:

PAGE 15

Page 10 Coordinated Bus and Fixed Guideway System Planning Consistent assumptions about key factors such as demographics, land use, and anticipated transportation investments should be used. Coordination of systems planning can resu l t in savings in data collection, method development, and analysis costs, and can produce consistent and credible results. Coordinated Geographic Market Focus Facilities and services should be noncompeting and complementary. This very critical coordination element simply means that publicly supported facilities should not unintentionally compete for the same customers (riders) and where appropriate, should complement each other by providing feeder/distributor services Mode Selection/Integration Planning should ensure that mode selection and system interface are coordinated Explicit trade-offs should be made concerning how many and which modal technologies are implemented. Economies of scale in capital and operating investments should be captured where possible and customer needs should be considered. Phased Market Development Transit investments shou l d have coordinated phasing in an area This includes building transit markets by aggressively supporting bus services in corr i dors that are intended to support fixed guideway investments in the future and making right of way preservation and other capital investments in a manner that allows flexibility in accommodating future needs. Examples include building bus park and ride facilities in locations that may be future fixed guideway station locations and possibly designing rights of way to be upgraded to higher capacity modes in the future. Coordinating Bus and Fixed Guideway Investment Decisions Investment plans should be coordinated to ensure consistency of plans. Specific examples include.

PAGE 16

Page 11 ensuring that adequate resources are avaUable to support ongoing bus operations as construction and operation of fixed guideway systems are implemented. This also refers to prioritization of capital projects to ensure high priority projects are constructed first and that the sequencing of projects is cost effective and supportive of passenger needs. Coordination of the Planning Function Another way to help define the issue of coordination is to address the various functional areas associated with providing bus and fixed guideway services. Major functional responsibilities include planning, funding, implementing, and operating services. The issue of coordination is relevant for each. In the discussions below, the importance of the various functional responsibilities becomes clear. The primary focus o f discussions in this report, however, will be on the planning of coordinated services. This focus reflects both the importance of plann ing to the resultant extent of coordination as perceived by the traveling public and the taxpayer and the fact that many of the Florida urban areas are at or nearing the planning stage as it relates to fixed guideway systems. Quantifying and Valuing Coordination Coordination as it applies to public bus and fixed route transportation, while it has been defined, does not lend itself to easy quantification or valuation. There are no check list type measures of coordination. However, there are some identifiable characteristics. Similarly, there is no valuation of coordination in terms of dollars saved or extra trips served that easily can be used to quantify the benefits of coordination or to trade off these benefits against other consequences.

PAGE 17

Page 12 Attaini_ng Coordination Based on the general appeal of the concept of coordination and the concepts of coordination as described from the passenger and public policy perspective, one might reasonably ask a number of questions about coordination. Is adequate coordination already in place? What factors preclude bus and fixed guideway co ordination? Are failures to coordinate simply the result of persons not being aware of the benefits of coordination? Are there legitimate constraints to coordination? And, are the benefits of coordination worth the trade-offs? In understanding constraints to coordination it is important to recognize that there are real trade-offs to coordination. There are several key factors that have to be considered in efforts to ensure coordination. 1. While the concept of coordination is nearly universally popular, the mechanisms for ensuring coordination often have associated with them several other consequences that are not always broadly favored. Impediments to coordination are not simply a lack of knowledge but often involve logical individual and organizational objectives or resource constraints that preclude more aggressive coordination actions. 2. Some of the considerations that complicate coordination of bus and fixed guideway public transit include simultaneously dealing w ith the desire to coordinate with roadway plans, intercity transportation facilities (ports, airports, intercity rail), land use plans, and urban design, parking, and related policies. These considerations can have an equally important impact on the success of the resultant transportation system and preclude bus and fixed guideway coordination from being looked at in a vacuum.

PAGE 18

Page 13 3. Political and public policy considerations as equity, local control, cost effectiveness, and responsiveness to local needs are often perceived to be trade-offs to at least some of the concepts traditionally proposed to attain coordination of multi-modal systems. The natural reluctance to accept changes and the fears and impacts such changes may have on existing institutions and individuals also impact the acceptability of changes designed to enhance coordination. These issues are discussed in detail subsequently in Section 3, A Review of Various Methods for Coordinating Public Transit and Fixed-guideway Systems. Each of the following sections specifically address study requirements outlined in the legislation.

PAGE 19

SECTION 1. AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT COORDINATION Page 14 As is described in detail below, a great deal of coordination does take place. Trans portation professionals and decision makers are uniformly aware of the value and benefits of coordination. Many of the mandates and processes associated with planning and decision making for public transit contain elements designed to require or encourage coordination. While these actions are detailed in the following sections, the focus of the remainder of this discussion is on changes that may help resolve continuing coordination problems. This section is presented in two parts. The first is a descript ive summary of the current status of existing mult imodal transit operations and planning in the urba n areas in Florida that have or are actiyely planning fixed guideway systems. This includes brief discussions of activities in the Jackso nville, So utheast Florida (Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area), East Central Florida (Orlando), and the Tampa Bay area The prospect of rail transit services have also been considered in at least two other regions (Tallahassee and the Manat ee-Sarasota area); however, prospects for rail in these areas are in the distant future and hence are not explicitly addressed in this section. The second part of this section presents a summary of existing mechanisms that enable or mandate coordination of public transit services. Operations of existing, multi-modal, public transit systems in the state of F lo rida are generally coordinated. Multi-moda l operations are limited to Jacksonville and the Southeast Florida areas.

PAGE 20

Page 15 The Jacksonville Skyway Exptess people mover system and the Jacksonville bus system are coordinated by virtue of the fact that they are operated by the same agency. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JT A), has the authority to design services and facilities in a manner that enables as much coordinat i on as is appropriate for the market. The Metrorail, Metromover, and Metrobus systems in Miami are also coordinated by virtue of the fact that they are operated by a single agency, Metro-Dade Transit Agency, which has authority to coordinate services. These modes are operated as an integrated system with extensive transferring and facilities, schedules, and a fare structure designed to enhance coordination. The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, serving Dade, Palm Beach and Broward Counties, is an independent agency that interfaces with transit operations in three counties. Tri-Rail is authorized to operate feeder and distributor services but currently contra cts for these with bus systems in the member counties. The authority resulted from the collective efforts of the three counties; and all three counties are represented on the board as is FOOT. Tri-Rail currently works w i th all three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). An operations coordination committee has been created to coordinate services between the various operations. Facilities and fares are coordinated. While there may remain resource constraints and different priorit i es, information exchange and an appreciation of the benefits of coordination are considered in decision making. Planning for future multi-modal operations is coordinated to varying degrees and in various ways in the different urban areas. Jacksonville -The existing organizational structure and the metropolitan form of government provide an opportunity for coordination in multi-modal transportation planning. Planning is handled cooperatively by the transportation authority and the MPO.

PAGE 21

Page 16 Southeast Florida -The large number of jurisdictions in southeast Florida have made transit planning more complicated. The Miami area has had coordinated transportation planning as a result of the presence of the metropolitan government and the close working relationship between the transit authority and the MPO. Intercounty cooperation for p l anning of projects has been handled through interagency agreements. The prospect of a larger regional transit agency has been raised in Southeast Florida and has been mentioned as a possible Unified Planing Work Program study item. The motivations for a multi-county regional agency extend well beyond coordination of fixed guideway and bus transit services with much of the interest generated by the desire to establish a dedicated local funding source with a sufficiently large revenue base to enable service expansion This issue is discussed in a subsequent section of this report. Tampa Bay Region A coordinated Tampa Bay regional approach to public transit had been attempted in the 1970's and was followed by separate, uncoordinated fixed guideway studies in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Recently, there have been new efforts to coordinate planning between the two counties. This coordination has taken the form of the multi-county transit study by the District office of FDOT and the creation of the multi-county Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority. The bus agencies are now cooperatively operating services across the bay. Orlando AreaSeveral fixed guideway transit planning projects are underway in the Orlando area. These studies are being conducted by agencies other than TriCounty Transit, since TriCounty serves primarily as an operating agency. However, bus transit inte r ests and the need to coordinate bus and fixed guideway systems are recognized by the parties conducting the studies. The most cri tica l coordination issues in the region relate to the jurisdictional scope

PAGE 22

Page 17 of various fixed guideway projects and the coordination of the various fixed guideway concepts being considered by various agencies. The multi-county MPO has authority to provide oversight and is a forum where coordination can occur. The Central F l orida Commuter Rail Authority also has multi-county authority for planning commuter rail services. The need for enhanced coordination of planning efforts has been recognized and is reflected in the local commitment to an area-wide process for developing a local s trategy for public transit. Existing Coordination Mechanisms Federal Leve l Coor d inati o n Effo rts The fed e ral government, as a participant in funding regional transportation planning and tran s i t capital and operating investments, has a variety of requirements on planning activities tha t directly and indirectly requ i re coordination As a prerequis ite to planning for individual fixed gu i deway projects, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration requires a system plan for the region The mandated planning process has histor i cally been characterized as the "3 C" process for continuing, cooperat i ve and comprehensive planning. Long range system plans identify the interrelationships and priorities of projects. UMT A requires an e l aborate process known as Alternatives Analys is to move ahead i n implementing a fixed guideway project. This effort has several steps that mandate and enable coordination including: extensive document review by all relevant agencies opportunities for public review a finance plan verifying financial capacity evidence of strong local support

PAGE 23

Page 18 extensive review of physical; operating and policy plans The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FDOT has several mechanisms as part of its planning and work program development process that ensure coordination of bus and fixed guideway systems. Specific authorities include: to coordinate the planning and provision of transportation services to develop the F lorida Transportation Plan to coo rdinate public-private efforts in transit to imp lement a capital investment policy for transit to r eport on the performance of transit systems to require a five-year transportation development plan The state capital investment policy for public transit which is currently in development and review will prov ide additional a ssuran ces that state investments in transit fixed guideway projects are sound. In addition, the FDOT district transportation secr eta ries serve on the commuter rail authorities' boards. The Florida Department of Community Affairs -The Department of Community affairs has responsibility for rev iew of the comprehensive plans developed by urban areas. There are three sections where evidence of adequate public transit service coordination could be noted: traffic circulation plan transit circula tion plan intergovernmental coordination section

PAGE 24

Page 19 Local Coordination Efforts -Metropolitan Planning Organizations have a strong role at the local level in ensuring coordination of planning efforts. Several of their activities can ensure coordination. These include: long range plan transportation improvement program (riP) intergovernmental agreements between FDOT, local jurisdictions, and transit operators extensive public meeting and review opportunities extensive technical and policy advisory committees In addition, the transit operators through their own planning activities and interagency communications and agreements have opportunities to coordinate activities.

PAGE 25

Page 20 SECTION 2. A DETERMINATION OF THE NEED FOR COORDINATION AT THE LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE LEVELS AND BETWEEN THESE LEVELS As indicated in the introduction, and the discussion section which defines coordination, coordination has great value to both the passengers and the taxpaying public It is of benefit to public transportation system users and the taxpaying public to have coordination of local regional public bus transit and fixed guideway transportation systems Coordination of operations the quality and convenience of service to the public and hence encourages use of the systems. Coordination of planning ensures public investments in transit are focused on the highest priority projects. The coordination of planning for public transit can be treated as two distinct, but potentially related issues: (1) There is a need for coordination between flXed guideway and bus transit services (2) There is a need for coordination between jurisdictions and between the efforts of various levels of government.

PAGE 26

Page 21 The need for coordination has been recognized by the extensive existing mechanisms that both mandate coordination and enable coordination to take place. Among the agencies that have responsibilities to ensure coordination are the FDOT, local MPOs, Department of Community Affairs, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, the commuter rail authorities, and local transit agencies or their parent governments.

PAGE 27

Page 22 SECTION 3. A REVIEW OF VARIOUS METHODS FOR COORDINATJ;NG PUBLIC TRANSIT AND FIXEDGUIDEWAY SYSTEMS Coordination of public transit bus and fixed guideway systems can be accomplished a number of different ways. The auay of mechanisms employed by the various governmental agencies suggests that numerous methods are presently being used. Information Exchange Many of the more passive means of coordination involve activities that enhance or require the exchange of information which then enables the various entities to make decisions that incorporate kno wledge of what other agencies are doing. These mechanisms enable coordination but do not require coordinated decisions. These activities include such things as public hearings, and technical and steering comm i ttees to exchange information and ideas, and review opportunities of plans and programs. Such actions as designating that the District FOOT Secretary have a non-voting seat on commuter rail authorities and the recent requirement that the local tran sit authority have one representative on the MPO Board are among the passive actions that enable coord ination. Other actions such as having a single individual involved on mul tiple boards or committees can also enhance coordination. Mandatory Reviews Beyond the passive steps, more aggressive means of ens uring coordination include specific requ i rements of plan or program review and concuuence or sign-off. While one agency seldom has an opportunity to single handedly override or reject another agencies plans or programs, the typical multiplicity of actors in approving and funding most major transportation investments results in many entities having a great deal of influence on subsequent actions. The adoption of a Tran spo rtati on Improvemen t Plan (TIP) by an MPO,

PAGE 28

Page 23 for example, would provide many entities an opportuf!ity to raise concerns about coordination if they were felt to be significant. Organizational Structure The most frequently considered options when discussing coordination for bus and fixed guideway transit projects involve organizational structure issues. Virtually every urban area that contemplates implementing a fixed gu i deway system goes through a series of evaluations and deliberations concerning how such an agency should be organized. This issue is very complex, but is critically important to public transportation. As the discussions below indicates, the issues involved in these debates extend well beyond coordination. One way to assure coordination i s to consolidate responsibilities for public transportation modes This has occurred in terms of consolidated operation and planning, financing, and policy decision making In some instances all of these functions have been consolidated into a single agency. Other urban areas have chosen to consolidate planning and policy decision making and leave operat i on responsibilities to one or more different agencies Coordination Through Consolidation The f ollowing examples are discussions of generalized debates that have taken place in different parts of the country. They are included here to exemplify some of the controversial considerations that have arisen as other locations have evaluated the alternative methods of coordinating The majority of the controversy centers on issues of organizational structure with the objective of coordinating by consolidating being a common consideration. These decisions about the moda l and juri sdictional organization extend well beyond coordination. Some of the motivations and considerations that have influenced reorganizations are discussed.

PAGE 29

Page 24 Consolidation of geographic areas Some agencies have established regional approaches to both cover a contiguous travel market and also to have a broader base for financial support. Several transit authorities which are supported by sales taxes favor a larger geographic coverage to ensure a larger tax base. This captures the frequently higher value and faster growing suburban residential markets. A larger juri sdiction also provides a larger political constituency. The larger state and federal l egislative del egations are likely to have greater influence in attaining required financial and policy support from the respective governments. Developing broader bases of fmancial and political s u pport are often more powerful motivators i n pursuing consolidation than is insuring coordination Consolidation of t ransportation mod es Structuring of agencies to cover a range of modes is another common practice. While this can provide coordination and some simplification of administration, other issues also come into consideration Some areas have chosen to have implementation of fixed guideway systems handled by existing agencies that have roadway transportation or public works responsibilities. The logic o f this arrangement is to take advantage of the existing administrative and project management capabilities to implement new programs. This i s in contrast to establishing a new agency which must develop project management skills as it implements a multimillion dollar infrastructure program. Moda l consolidation also enables a concentration of t ransportation skill and knowledge in one organization. This may provide cost savings and/or a chance to establish a concentratio n s of specialized expertise to better administer transportation programs. Other agenc i es have consolidated responsibilit i es for all transit and some roadway p r ograms in an effo r t to provide an equitable return on revenue to all geographic areas. Transit needs and market potential are typically g r eater in more dense, core urban areas .. Suburban or fringe areas often are major generators of tax revenues

PAGE 30

Page 25 and yet not likely to use as much transit service or receive fixed guideway services for several years as most systems start with service to the central business district and expand outward over a number of years. This problem has been addressed in both Dallas and Houston, Texas which have sales taxes dedicated to funding public transportation, by arrangements to spend a share of the sales tax collections on roadway improvements in the suburbs. Thus, the equity issue of a return on tax contributions has been addressed by expanding the range of transportation modes to enable the agency to spend funds on transportation needs of the suburbs. Consolidation versus local control Numerous urban areas maintain complex organizational structures because various jurisdictions are unwilling to surrender local control of public transit decision making. In large multi-jurisdictional urban areas, outlying suburban areas often are able to provide transit services at a considerably lower cost because they can avoid some of the high cost compensation and work rule agreements that exist in many urban areas. Locations like Minneapolis, Washington D.C. and Chicago have suburbs that provide or contract for transit operations in order to avoid the higher costs of the regional operators. Other jurisdictions are unwilling to surrender the control of service planning, fare setting, determining hours of service, or other decisions that may change if they are part of a consolidated system. Some jurisdictions are unwilling to share discretion as to the level of investment in transit that is appropriate for the jurisdiction. There is often a reluctance to relinquish control over hiring decisions for hundreds of public transit employees and some communities fear that in a consolidated agency they would have less control of how millions of dollars in projects would be spent. Maintaining control over procurement decisions is an important consideration in some organizations.

PAGE 31

Page 26 Consens u s build i ng as an impediment to consolidat i on Some urban areas have had the organizational structure of their transit planning and operating authorities shaped by the realities of reaching a consensus. Transit needs, and the willingness and abi lity to support transit can vary significantly across urban areas Efforts to have large geographic areas covered by a single agency are often prec l uded by an inability to reach consensus as to a plan and program of action. In the Atlanta area some of the original five counties that voted on the Metropolitan Atlanta Regi onal Transit Authority (MART A) referendum chose not to partic i pate in funding the transit system and service In other areas, referendums on a consolidated transit agency have r esulted in individual incorporated suburbs choos i ng not to participate in larger agencies. In the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, light rail planning and implementation is being handled by the individual counties simply because one county was willing to move ahead and the other was undecided Rather than waiting for a consensus, individual counties are free to advance their programs at their own pace. Simple considerations such as an inability to determine how board seats will be allocated can eliminate consolidation from being an ideal way to coordinate fixed guideway and bus transit services Some urban areas have been able to consolidate the planning activities because these are lower profile and lower cost actions Coord in a t ion th ro u g h consolidation o f p l anning and o peratio n s Enhancing coordination by having responsibility for planning and operations of transit within a single agency i s a hotly debated issue. Some persons favor the integrated agency approach where persons with operations experience can lend their expertise to planning and policy issues. This arrangement is felt by some to ensure that existing bus operations are not neglected by having all the attention focused on the more g l amorous fixed guideway projects. In addition, market development and feeder service planning can be improved by having a full range of responsibilities

PAGE 32

Page 27 in a single agency. There is a very strong tendency for there to be p l anning and operational consolidation in u r ban areas with a dedicated transit revenue source s ince a single revenue mechanism is typically used to fund both operations and capital needs and hence a single agency is the recipient of the funds from a dedica ted revenue source. Similarly, the ability to use state and federal funds for both capital and operating needs favors a single local agency making the decisions on the allocation between planning and capital or operating spending Other persons favor separating planning and operations They argue that the effort to implement a fixed guideway project will be continually distracted by funding, service, safety or other routine operating problems. Public transportation professionals and policy makers fear going to public meetings on future guideway projects and being faced with questions about why the bus was late or how come the fares were increased Negative news about today's operations can detract from progress on futux;e plans Some l ocations have favored a new agency t o overcome some of the political or institutiona l constraints of an existing agency. Existing policies on things such as procurement procedures, personnel policies and compensation, eminent domain and condemnation/relocation compensation, public hearing requirements, and others may be more easily modified in the context of a new organization. The range of issues involved in transit coordination extends well beyond coordination. The trade-offs are complex and very dependent upon local conditions. Just as charter review and considerations of reorganizing city or county government are controversial, so too are organizat i ona l decisions relating to transit that typically involve funding, operations, and f acility and service plans for a n area.

PAGE 33

Page 28 The review of coord_ination methods and literature on coordination of pubic transit in other areas indicated the following characteristics: 1. The method for coordination and organization are very context specific with solutions crafted to the particular political, geographic, jurisdictional and historical characteristics of the area. They are very much Influenced by the general governmental structure. 2. Decisions on organization and coordination have changed over time in many locations. Some areas have found that different organizational approaches are appropriate at different points in time in the evolution of a regional public transit system. 3. It is not uncommon to have a decision on a physical transit facility plan, a funding plan, and an organizational structure all made at one time. It can be very difficult to separate out the effectiveness of a given organizational structure or approach to coordination from the broader issue of the success of a given overall program including the key features such as the financing plan, the physical service and facility plan, and the agency management. 4. There is generally a desire and willingness to have a coordinated region-wide approach to systems planning. Howe ver, that does not necessarily mean that a regional a gency develops the regional plan. Often plans are developed by jurisdictions within the region and incorporated in the regional plan The dominant political entity in a region is seldom willing to delegate planning authority for a transit system to a larger regional planning body. 5. Efforts to establish a broader coordinated regional agency for planning often remove transit planning further from critically important land use, urban design, parking and related policy making authority that traditionally resides at the local level.

PAGE 34

Page 29 SECTION 4. AN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SUCH METHODS TO FLORIDA In looking at what mechanisms to ensure coordination might be appropriate in Flor ida, it is useful to look at characteristics of Florida that may be unique and may influence how coordination should be addressed. In Florida, most metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are county o rganizations and not metropolitan wide agencies. The Tampa Bay area and the Miami area have multiple MPOs existing in the urbanized area. Since many of the mechanisms to enhance coordination are activities carried out at the MPO level, this structure could allow multi-county transit coordination issues to be overlooked. Moving to multi-county MPOs in contiguous urban a reas where tr ansit markets cross county iines could provide better coordinated transit planning as well as enabling more speci alized transit planning skills. Florida is a rapidly growing, but low density area and the success of fixed guideway systems will be dependent upon future development activities supporting transit commitments. Making land use decisions that will support fixed guideway operations will require aggressive policy decisions and sugge sts the need for close cooperation between the land use plannin g policy making bodies and transportation planning entities. Changes to enhance coordination should also be evaluated in terms of their ability to strengthen the relationship between land use and transportation. Historically, transportation projects have been funded from a variety of public sources including extensive federal investment. Increasingly, the private sector and larger shares of local funding are required to impleme nt fixed guideway systems. Approaches to coordination should ensure adequate opportunity for

PAGE 35

Page 30 participation by the private sector and local governments. The structure used to ensure coordination should not be unresponsive to the private sector's need to make timely decisions or so focused on equity considerations as to preclude responding to joint public-private opportunities that may not be equitably distributed Many of the mechanisms that provide opportunities for coordination are requirements of the funding agencies such as UMTA and FDOT. However, a sensitivity to ensuring that the advantages of coordination are realized for projec t s funded by nontraditional means should also be maintained. While transit has historically focused on work trips and serving central business district concentrations of employment and activity, many of the Florida flxed guideway projects may focus on tourist travel needs and feeding ports, airports, and intercity rail services. Coordination with these modes will be important. The mechanisms for coordination as outlined in Section 3 are valid approaches for consideration in Florida. As indicated in Section 2, many mechanisms for coordination are already in place and others are being considered and evolving at the local level as progress toward fixed guideway systems is made Specific recommendations on how to proceed to ensure coordination are noted in Section 5. The Current Transit Planning and Operating Environme11t in Florida Several changes and activities are currently underway r egarding public transit in Florida that influence the ability to evaluate current coordination and reach a consensus on what changes might be appropriate. The following summary

PAGE 36

Page 31 itemizes conditions and changes at the local and state level. This dynamic situation has been influential in shaping the subsequent recommendations in Section 5. There are four major urban areas that have been actively considering rail transit services. Two other areas (the Sarasota/Manatee area and the Tallahassee area) have also considered rail transit. While expansion of people mover systems is programmed in both Miami and Jacksonville and funds are programmed for Tri Rail in the Southeast corridor, no other fixed gui deway transit projects currently have funding commitments. Several other areas are in the early stages of the traditional process of reaching decisions and making commitments to fixed gui deway The Tampa Bay Area Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) recently hired a new executive director (August 1990). HART has also been filling vacancies on the senior management team. HART has had three Board chairpersons in the past year. Serious budget shortfalls have resu lted in service reductions of more than 20% and fare increases. Further service reductions are planned. The Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority first met in mid-1990. After several organizational meetings, a mission statement and recruiting plan for an executive director were developed. The subsequent state spending freeze deleted the authority's funding for this fiscal year and postponed recruitment and development of the required plan of action mandated in the legislation and due in July 1992. The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PST A) executive director resigned in September 1990, and PSTA recently hired a new executive director. PSTA also has a new Board Cha i rman. PST A is undergoing a sunset review by the state

PAGE 37

Page 32 legislature. After a series of meetings and a data collection effort! the legislature is expected to reauthorize the existing legislation. An inability to reach a decision as to how seats on a smaller Board of Directors should be allocated has been a critical issue in shaping new legislation for PST A. Pasco County initiated its first fixed bus route service in 1989. That service continued until June of 1990 when it was discontinued in favor of a dial-a-ride type service that would operate at a lower cost. Current active study efforts include a major study sponsored by FDOT to evaluate transportation and public transit needs within the Tampa Bay area. This study is scheduled for completion in 1992. I t should provide an assessment of inter -county transit travel demand and some ideas on network configuration. A major study of transportation for the Tampa central business district is also getting underway. Orlando/East Central Florida TriCounty Transit is the transit provider in the East Central F lorida market area. TriCounty is currently recruiting an executive director. TriCounty has been active in local efforts to initiate a process t o address local coordination and funding of public transit. Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority (CFCRA) was created by the legislature in 1989 and began meetings several months later. The Authority is initiating efforts to produce an action plan to provide to the legisla ture. A work program has been developed and solici tation of a consultant is underway. This Authority also recently contracted with an executive officer and has operated with contract staff and donated technica l support. CFCRA is also active in the efforts to hold

PAGE 38

Page 33 a regional summit to address transit coordination and funding. Recent. cuts in state funding have limited the resources available to support their activities. Maglev Transit continues to be an active i ssue in the Orlando area with the certification decisions expected in the spring of 1991. Other major efforts in the Orlando area include: A downtown trolley circulation system is being pursued by the City of Orlando. A request for Federal financial support is pending. A study of alternatives would be expected to follow receipt of funds. A public transit transitional study is in the process of being fmalized by the Metropolitan Planning Organization. This study looks at corridors north of the city and includes recommendations for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes as the initia l priority for transit development. A new long range transportat ion plan update will soon be initiated by the MPO. The airport is continuing evaluation of airport to seaport transportation options and corridors. The joint public -private study of public transportation in the International Drive corridor is expected to be completed within the next few months. Options for alternative public transportation investments for this corridor will be presented. The Orlando urbanized area has committed to a transportation "summit". This summit is envisioned as a major regional effort to develop a regional consensus on a strategy for public transportation in the Orlando area. This summit process has been delayed as a result of the recent structural change in county government that resulted in the election of the first county chairman in November of 1990. It is anticipated that the summit process will commence within the next few months.

PAGE 39

Page 34 Additional changes to transit boards are anticipated as a result of this change in structure. The Miami The Metro-Dade Transit Agency recruited a new executive director in mid-1989. A major effort in 1990 focused on developing a strategic plan for the agency. Other significant efforts were devoted to the referendum for a local dedicated funding source for public transportation. This sales tax proposal would have provided local funding for system expansion and operations. The November 1990 referendum failed and service reductions and fare increases have been implemented. Miami Metro is assisting the Metro-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization in preparation of a system planning update study to determine the need for and feasibility of system expansion. This one year long study will be initiated in early 1991 and should identify longer range fixed guideway needs. System coordination and the fmancial capacity of the system will be reviewed. The study is being conducted in accordance with the UMTA process and involves the numerous steps mentioned above to allow coordination. Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority has similarly completed a strategic plan in 1990. A committee has been established to assist in coordinating service. The Jacksonville Area In the Jacksonville area the Jacksonville Transportation Authority has responsibility for planning and operating public transportation services. This authority also has responsibility for the expressway program in the area. The metropolitan style of government results in the JT A having public transportation responsibilities for the full metropolitan area. JTA operates public transportation services and does long

PAGE 40

Page 35 range planning for public transportation which is incorporated into MPOproduced regional plans. JTA recently successfully passed a refer endum which authorized a one-half cen t sales tax to support bond retirement for expressway projects. Th e sales tax may subseque ntly supply revenues to support expanded transit City government general funds cur r ently support transi t operations. Expansion of the people mover system is proceeding and long range planning activities are looking at fixed guideway alternativ es. Sta te and Fed era l L evel Activities There are some recent and pending actions at the state and federal level that may influence the appropriate steps required to enhance coordination. FDOT is in the process of preparing a transit capita l investment poli cy The state oversig ht of complian ce with this policy will i nclude a requireme nt for coordi nation with various agencies and transportation and land use plans. The FDOT requirement to develop a five-year Tra nsportation Development Plan will necessitate the local areas cooperating to develop a coor d inated plan. The recently ena cted requirement that transit authorities have a member on the MPO Board should assist in enhancing coordination. The pending reau thorization of the federal surface transportation legislation may significantly impact the extent of intermodal coordination of transportation facilities and may influence the desired organizational structure for planning and coordinating transportation. Specifically, the ability to use funds for either public transit or roadway projects would support a structu re where joint roadway and transit p lanni ng are carrie d out w ithi n the same agencies.

PAGE 41

Page 3 6 SECT IO N 5. RECO MMENDA TIO NS O N TBE NEED FOR C OORDINATION, THE LEVELS OF G OVERNMENT AT WIDCH C OORDINATIO N SHOUL D OCCUR, AND METH ODS FOR ACC OMPLISHING THE REC OMMENDED C OORDINATION This section presents the findings of this study and a series of recommendations that represent the position of the Florida T r ansportation Commission. The findings draw from discussions in othe r parts o f the report. Findings l. I t is o f benefit to public trans portation system users and the taxpaying public to have coordination of l oca l and regional public b us transit and fixed gui d e way transportation systems. Coordination of operations enhances the quality and conv enience of service to the public and hence encourages use of the systems. Coordinati on of planning ensures public investments in transit are focused on the highest priority projects. 2. The need for coo rdin ation has been recognized by the extensive existing mechanisms that both mandate coordination and enable coordination to take place. Ther e are extensive processes and requirements in pla ce at all levels of government to enable and ensu r e coordi nation. Those entities funding fixed g uideway facilitie s have opportuniti es to ensure coo rdin ation. Both the federally r equired alternatives analysis process and the p roposed FDOT capita l investment policy for major public transit projects have specific requirements designed to ensure coordination.

PAGE 42

Page 37 3. The value and importance of coordination is recognized by the professional transportation community in the state of Florida. Coordination is receiving increased attention as evidenced by the new procedures and requirements mentioned above. Multi-modal thinking is becoming more than a "buzz" word. 4. The multitude of changes in transit organizations, particularly in the Tampa Bay and Orlando areas, has resulted in the priorities of these regions being to recruit executive staff and to attain funding. New requirements such as those associated with preparing a transit element for comprehensive plans, complying with new performance reporting requirements, preparing block grant requests, preparing a transportation development plan to meet new requirements of FOOT, complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for transit accessibility, and meeting clean air requirements for transit vehicles are among the issues preventing coordination from receiving greater attention. 5. In spite of extensive opportunities and requirements for coordination, there remain concerns that the multiplicity of agencies involved in public transit planning creates opportunities for uncoordinated public transit planning. 6. While the concept of coordination is nearly universally popular, the mechanisms for ensuring coordination often have associated with them several other consequences that are not always broadly favored. 7. Considerations that complicate coordination of bus and fixed guideway public transit include the desire to simultaneously coordinate with roadway plans, intercity transportation facilities (ports, airports, intercity rail), land use plans, and urban design, parking, and related policies. These considerations can have an equally important impact on the success of the resultant transportation

PAGE 43

Page 38 system and preclude bus and fixed guideway coordination from being looked at in a vacuum. 8. While it was not the charge of this study to examine coordination of roadway and transit investments, this is an important and logical consideration when evaluating organizational structure options. A single, multi-modal transportation planning capacity at the regional level is a highly desirable, though potentially politically challenging, objective. 9. Political and public policy considerations such as equity, local control, cost effectiveness, and responsiveness to loca l needs are often perceived to be trade-offs to at least some of the concepts traditionally proposed to attain coordination of multi -m odal systems The natural reluctance to accept changes and fears of the effects such changes may have on existing institutions and individuals also impact the acceptability of changes designed to enhance coordination. 10. The experiences of other urban areas suggest that the "most appropriate" methods for coordination and organization of public transportation are very context specific, with solutions crafted to the particular political, geographic, jurisdictional and historical characteristics of the area. 11. Organizational structure is one of the most powerfu l means of ensuring coordination; however, no single overall organizational model has been systematically identified as most successful. 12. The choice of how to organize public transit has changed over time in many locations. Some areas have found that different organizational approaches are appropriate at different points in time in the evolution of a regional public transit system.

PAGE 44

Page 39 13. An ideal situation for enhanced coordination would include a regional form of government with a division or agency having responsibility for all transportation activities and having close affiliation with land use and related policy controls for the region. Ho wever, the number and magnitude of the issues associated with adopting this form of government are numerous. 14. There is generally a desire and willingness to have a coordinated region-wide approach to systems planning. However, that does not necessarily mean that a regional agency develops the regional plan. Often, plans are developed by jurisdictions within the region and incorporated into a coordinated regional plan. Strong political entities in a region are seldom willing to delegate planning authority for a transit system to a larger regional planning body unless they are assured of strong control over the plan. 15. As coordination is pursued by urban areas, state support through legislative changes to enable regional organizational structures and other changes that enhance coordination of public transportation will be necessary. 16. Any subsequent initiatives to insure coordination should focus on the broader modal, functional, and jurisdictional issues outlined above. Moving beyond the principles outlined here will require a detailed focus on individual urban areas and sufficient local participation and time to enable the development of a local consensus. Recommendations These recommendations cover key issues concerning coordination of public transportation planning and reflect a consensus position of the Flo rida Transportation Commission. They are based on key findings contained in this report.

PAGE 45

Page 40 1. Although the statutory directive focused solely on coordination between fixed guideway and public bus transit transportation systems, the need for improved coordination extends well beyond, to virtually all transportation planning. Coordination of planning for all transportation modes is essential to a successfully integrated multi-modal network within which viable public transportation systems serve the greatest public benefit. Moreover, with regard to public transportation systems, close coordination with land use planning is considered crucial, since complementary land use decisions are key to success. The scope of issues associated with coordinated public transportation should be expanded to include: coordination between jurisdictions coordination with all public transportation modes coordination with all roadway transportation plans coordination with intercity t ransportation modes coordination with local land use plans coord ination with policies for parking and urban design coordination between planning and operations 2. State investments in public transportation should be conditioned on sufficient documentation that the necessary leve l of planning coordination has been achieved and will be ongoing. Further, the State should accord high priority to promoting coordination, including enabling and encouraging specific actions and organizational structures that enhance coordination. 3. Ideally, a metropolitan area should have a single agency which has authority for all transportation modes, including roads, waterports, airports,

PAGE 46

Page 41 bus transit, fixed rail, van pooling, paratransit, etc. However, it is recognized that consolidation of all transportation planning in a single entity may not be achievable given current local conditions and entrenched local interests. At a minimum, regions should establish a single forum to coordinate public transportation planning within an entire metropolitan area. Examples include creation of a committee composed of representatives from the respective MPOs which would coordinate public transportation planning, or establishment of a single, multi-county MPO in large urban areas. In either case, the planning entity should include a mix of elected officials and private citizens. 4. As a corollary to the previous recommendation, the prol iferation of "single purpose" or "special purpose" public transportation planning organizations should be discouraged. These entities, whose planning focus is limited (often to one mode and one project), promote fragmentation and competition among the various modes and as such can create barriers to coordination and system integration. The Tampa Bay and Orlando metropolitan areas are characterized by multiple, single-purpose planning entities and need to strive for improved coordination among existing dispersed planning entities. By contrast, the Jacksonville area is probably the best example in Florida of a regionalized, multi-modal planning approach in which public transportation planning functions (except airports and waterports) as well as expressway planning, are consolidated in the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. 5. Research indicates that several metropolitan areas in the United States and Canada have well-coordinated public transportation systems. Although the configuration of planning entities varies, and no "formula" for successful

PAGE 47

Page 42 coordination exists, certain characteristics that promote or improve coordination were identified. Compliance with the following general guidelines is recommended: The entity responsible for regional public transportation planning should not have a vested interest in a single mode or project. The entity responsible for regional public transportation planning should be the same as, or intimately coordinated with, the entity doing regional transportation planning. The entity responsible for regional public transportation planning should have adequate control over project programming and funding to significantly influence plan implementation. The entity responsible for regional public transportation should have planning authority for the full market area whose needs are being addressed in the plan. The entity responsible for public transportation should have both elected and citizen representation in decision making roles. The entity responsible for regional public transportation planning should have strong ties to the entities responsible for land use planning and related policies that affect system success.

PAGE 48

APPENDICES

PAGE 49

APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF REFERENCES TO COORDINATION IN FLORIDA STATUTES INTRODUCTION Florida statutes are replete with mandates to coordinate at nearly every level. Coordination of transportation planning is to be primarily focused through the circulatio n element of the local comprehensive plan, which acts as the base for a pyrami d of planning structures. The statutes clearly envision that systems planning conflicts be worked out at the MPO level. In additio n to the comprehensive planning prooess a number of commissions, authorities, and other agencies referred to in the statutes are charged with playing a role in transit coordination. The roles of various entities in transit coordination are discussed in this appendix. COMPREHENSIVE PROCF.SS R e f erence: Florida Statute Chapter 163, Part II--Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Developmen t Regulation; Florida Statute Chapter 337, 337.2 73, Transportation Corridors. Purpose of Statutes: The Local Government Comprehensiv e Planning and Land D evelopment Regulation Act was passed "to utilize and strengthen the existing role, processes, and powers of local governments in the establishment and implementatio n of comprehensive planning programs to guide and control future development [P.S. 163.3161(2). The oomprehen sive planning process includes various considerations for transportation The intent of the act is to encourage and assure cooperation between and among municipalities and counties and to encourage and assure coordination of planning and development activities of units of local government with the planning activities of regional agencies and state government. .. [P.S. 163.3161(4))." A-1

PAGE 50

Specific Topics Related to Transit Coordfuation: Transportation goal for local governments The statute indicates that the comprehensive planning process will help local governments ... facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation ... [F.S. 163.3161(3)]." General Circulation Plan Contingent on the establishment of a local planning agency, which establishes the comprehensive plan [F.S. 163.3161(3)], local governments are to have "a traffic circulation element consisting of the types, locations, and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, including bicycle and pedestrian ways [F.S. 163.3177 (b)(b)]." Transit Circulation Plan A transit circulation plan is mandatory for local governments with a population greater than 50,000 and is optional for local governments with a population less than 50,000. The transit circulation plan may be included "As part of the circulation element ... or as a separate element, a mass transit element showing proposed methods of moving people, rights of way, terminals, related facilities, and fiscal consideration for the accomplishment of the element [F.S. 163.3177 (7)(a)]." In addition, as part of the general circulation element or as a separate element, "plans for port, aviation, and related facilities [shall] be coordinated with the general circulation and transportation element [ F. S. 163.3177 (7)(b)]. Intergovernmental CoordinationTransit/Land Use The comprehensive plan must include "An intergovernmental coordination element showing relationships, and stating principals and guidelines to be used in the accomplishment of the adopted comprehensive plan with the plans of ... units of local governments providing services but not having regulatory authority over use of the land ... [F.S. 163.3177 (6)(h)]." Intergovernmental Coordination ... State Input The Florida Department of Transportation is to review and comment on local plans (presumably the circulation element), through the state land planning agency [F.S. 163.3184 (4)]. ln addition, other state agencies and the respective regional planning councils also review the local plans and provide their comments to the state land planning agency. A-2

PAGE 51

Coordination in the designation of Transportation Corridors in the Comprehensive Plan "Government entities are encouraged to cooperate in the protection and acquisition of transportation corridors by designation in each entity's plans and by entering into a Transportation Corridor Protection and Acquisition Agreement (F.S. 337.273 (7)]. Such an agreement identifies the rights and responsibilities of the parties i nv olved in the designation of the corridor. METROPOLffAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 339-339.175 Transportation planning organization. Purpose of Statutes: The statutes require that at least one metropolitan planning organization (MPO) be established "within each urbanized area or group of contiguous urbanized areas where a planning organization is necessary to meet federal requirements for obtaining and expending federal transportation funds [F.S. 339.175(1)]." Responsibilities of MPOs Pertaining to Transit Coordination: The MPO has the responsibility to make an overall transportation plan and transportation improvement program which is consistent with the circulation plans of local governments, with significant input from the Department of Community Affairs (F.S. 339.175(5-10)]. "Th ere shall be a written agreement between each MPO and the Florida Department of Transportation clearly establishing a cooperative relationship essential to accomplish the transportation planning requirements .. .. [F .S. 339.175(12)]." "An MPO shall execute and maintain an agreement with the metropolitan and regional intergovernmental coordinator and review agencies serving the urbanized area. Such agreement shall describe the means by which activities will be coordinated and specify how transportation planning and programming will be part of the comprehensive planned development of the urbanized area [F.S. 339.175 (13)] A-3

PAGE 52

"An MPO shall execute and maintain an agreement with publicly owned operators of mass transportation services which specifies interaction essential to an effective consideration of mass transit usage within the urbanized area [F.S 339.175 (14)]." REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILS Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 186 186.504 Regional planning councils; creation; membership; 186.505 Regional planning councils; powers and duties. Purpose of Statutes: The purpose of the statutes is to establish a regional planning council (RPC) in each comprehensive planning district in Florida The role of RPCs is to help coordinate, advise, and review planning activi ties in the respective districts. Responsibilities of Councils Pertaining to Transit Coordination: Regional planning councils are charged "To act in an advisory capacity to the constituent loc al governments in regional, metropolitan, county, and municipal planning matters (F.S. 186.505(10)] . The regional plarming councils are also given the authority "To participate with other governmental agencies, educational institutions, and private organizations in the coordination or conduct of its activit ies [F.S. 186.505(17)]." FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 334 334.044 Powers and duties of department; Chapter 339 339.155 Tran sportation planning; Chapter 341 341.041 Transit responsibilities of the department. A A

PAGE 53

Purpose of Statutes: The referenced statutes identify the roles and responsibilities of the Florida Department of Transportation with respect to transit coordination. Responsibilities of Department Pertaining to Transit Coordination: The department assumes "the responsibility for coordinating the planning of a safe, viable, and balanced state transportation system serving all regions of the state, and to assure the compatibility of all components, inc luding multi-modal facilities [F.S. 334.044 (1)]." The department is responsible for coordinating ... the planning of the development of public transportation facilities within the state and the provision of related transportation services as authorized by law [F.S. 334.044(12)]." Note: This dovetails into the statute concerning local government comprehensive planning. The department is responsible for cooperating and assisting .. .local governments in the development of a statewide transportation system and in the development of the individual components of the system [F.S. 334.044(21) ]." "The Florida Transportation Plan shall be developed in coordination with affected state agencies, regional planning agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (and] other local governmental entities ... [F .S. 339 .155(3)(a)]. Intergovernmental agreements which set forth the responsibilities of the parties in the planning process may be established between the department and the appropriate planning entities [F.S. 339.155(3)(b)]. The department shall "Coordinate activities between the public entities and private entities on matters relating to public transit [F. S.341.041(5)]." FLORIDA IDGH SPEED RAIL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 341 341.321 through 341.386.

PAGE 54

Purpose of Statutes: The purpose of the statutes is to establish the Florida High Speed Rail Transportation Commission, identify the commission's powers and duties, and identify the process for the implementation of a high speed rail system in Florida Responsibilities of Commission Pertaining to T ransit Coordination: The commission is empowered "To execute intergovernmental agxeements consistent with prevailing statutory provisions, including, but not limited to special benefits on tax-increment financing irutiatives (P.S. 341.325(6) ] and "To enter into agreements for the joint development of properties contiguous to, and necessary or convenient for the operation of, the high speed rail line [F.S 341.325(11)]." The high speed rail law also requires extensive local governmental input [F.S. 341.347 and 341.348]. It can be assumed that this local governmental input will identify the transit coordination needs of local governments for potential intergovernmental agreement. However, the statute is not explicit, and there is no mechanism for division of cost between the high-speed rail system and the local governmental entity concerning feeder bus service. TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED COJ\OOSSION Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 427 Purpose of Statutes: The purpose of the statutes is to establish a Transportation Disadvantaged Commission "to accomplish the coordination of transportation services provided to the transportation disadvantaged [F.S. 427.013] R esponsibilities of Commission Pertainillg to Transit Coord ination: The Commission shall "Develop policies and procedures for the coordination of local government, federal, and state funding for the transportation disadvantaged [427.013(3)] and "Identify barriers prohibiting the coordination and accessibility of transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged and aggressively pursue the elimina?on of these barriers [F.S. 427.013(4)]." A t:

PAGE 55

The Commission shall "Coordinate all transportation disadvantaged programs with appropriate state, local and federal agencies and public transit agencies to ensure compatibility with ex isting transportation systems [F.S. 427.013(20)) and local transit plans. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Reference: Florida Statute C hapter 334 334.044 Powers and duties of department; Florida Administrative Rule 14.94-Statewide Minimum Level of Service Standards for Roads. Purpose of Statutes: This statute enumerates the powers and duties of the Florida Department of Transportation which includes the responsibility for developing and adopting "uniform minimum standards and criteria for the desi gn construction, maintenance, and operation of public roads [F.S. 334. 044(10)(a)]." Specific Topics Related to Transit Coordination: The purpose of the administrative rules is to provide a general planning base for design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public roads It is important to real ize that level of service on highways may be inte ractive with various transit options. As a result, the coordination of level of service standards relates to the coordination of transit services. While level of service as a concept is important to both transportation and transit planning, level of service planning which involves transit will only work if transit is considered as a workable alternative in level of service planning. As an example of how level of service and transit might be interactive in growth management: strong carpoollvanpool programs could be established in lieu of capital improvements to highways in order to retain the desired level of service rating for the highway. Such transit-level of service trade-offs require le gal tools such as may be found in a strong system of transportation coordination. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES Reference: Florida Statutes Chapter 163 Part V Regional Transportation Authorities. A '7

PAGE 56

Purpose of Statutes: The purpose of the statute is to allow politica l subdivisions to join together to establish Regional Transportation Authorities Such an authority "is granted the authority to purchase, own, or operate, or provide for the operation of, transportation facilities; to contract for transit services; ... [F.S. 163.568(1)]. Specific Topics Related to Transit Coordination: Regional Transportation Authorities established pursuant to Part V are empowered "to develop transportation plans, and to coordinate its planning and ptagram with those of appropriate municipal, county, and state agencies and other political subdivisions of the state. All transportation plans are subject to review and approval by the [Florida] Department of Transportation and by the regional planning agency, if any, for consistency with programs or planning for the area and region [F.S. 163.568(2)(i)]." Jurisdictional inhibitions to coordination are inherent in th. e statute The authorities to be established are transit specific for both bus and rail common carrier Because of the common carrier term in the defmition, the authorities have no legal responsibility for non-traditional transit wh i ch is non-common carrier. Non-traditional transit most commonly refers to vanpooling and ridesharing ptagrams. The structure of the statute also appears to exclude school bus operation from the purview of the authorities. No highway planning interaction, such as is discussed in level of service planning, is formally built into the statute, although it cou ld occur informally with cooperation from the appropriate local highway authorities Initial planning and administration deri ved from member jurisdictions are capped at an aggregate $300,000 per annum, and contributions for planning and administration cease after five years This is in addition to tax and operating funds dedicated to planning and administration After five years, presumably system revenues and property taxes are intended to supplant the member jurisdic t ion contribution. Because coordination by its nature is primarily administration and planning, this initial, arbitrary statutory funding cap for administration and p lann ing in itself may be a barrier to coordinatio n Any established authority is deemed a special tax district and is authorized to levy an ad valorem property tax of up to 3 mills subject to county commission approval and to referendum. h Q

PAGE 57

A committee appointed by municipal governing bodies establishes a charter, which is approved through procedures. Jurisdictions below 50,000 in population may be discouraged from entering into a regional transportation authority due to some statutory barriers approved in F.S. 163.567(6) This limitation may have a negative impact on coordination. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 163 Part VIMetropolitan Transportation Authority Act. Purpose of Statutes: The p urpose of the statutes is to establish intergovernmental agencies for the purposes of creating and administering a regional ground transportation plan crossing municipal and other jurisdictional lines. A regional ground transportation system is said to include bus systems, the State Highway System, and other county "agreed-to" roads [F.S. 163.803(1)]. Specific Topics Related to Transit Coordination: There is no charge per-se to "coordinate, or to plan to coordinate. While F.S. 163.812 authorizes the MTA to "cooperate, by entering into intergovernmental agreements, there is no charge which could be considered pro-active. Because the statute places severe limits on planning, financing, and jurisdictional boundaries, it is unlikely that much coordination will occur. Expressway authorities and any transit authorities may be consolidated with MTA's within 3 years of passage of the regional ground transportation plans, upon approval by referendum [F.S. 163.818]. As with the RTA, money for planning is capped at a one year, aggregate appropriation of $100,000. This money is to be used to create the initial ground transportation plan. The regional ground transportation plan must be adopted by the MTA board after input from cities, counties, and the MPO. No Florida DOT clearance appears to be required, and the affirmative

PAGE 58

vote of the MTA Board appears to be final [F.S.163.804(14)]. This may be a barrier to coordination. No tax revenues raised by the taxing authority of the MPO may be allocated to finance a bus system. They are to be used for road purposes only. Revenues to finance bus systems must thus come out of "rates, fares... and other charges for... serv ice s and facilities The prohibition on tax use for bus systems is found in both F.S. 163 .806 (1) and F.S. 163 .807(6). Taxes to be levied include both fuel tax and ad valorem (property) tax, and are implemented through referendum. Boundaries are to be contiguous with the boundaries of tbe Metropolitan Planning Organization, and a skeleton authority is required where an ?vlPO exists. However, in order to extend beyond an advisory capacity, and to have r ea l power, the authority must be triggered" by the governing boards of two counties, includin g the largest cou nty in the 1vlPO, or by special legislation. In an 1vlPO which is only one county, the assumption of powers must be triggered by the county governing body, or by special legislation. No county or municipality may be part of more than one MTA, however, the statute appears to allow a county or municipality to be part of both an MTA and an RTA [F.S. 163.813]. Active powers of MTAs can take on strange boundaries because boundaries of authority are f urther defined by which jurisdictions ratify the regional transportation plan [F .S. 163.804]. The structure of the statute can lead to anomalous situations where a jurisdiction is a member of a "hollow" MTA due to refusal to ratify the regional transportation plan and is prohibited from joining another MTA. This may be why the law specifically gives the Jacksonville Transportation Authority extra-territorial powers into adjoining counties which are within the Metropolitan Planning Organization [F.S. 163.819]. The statute governing the establishment of MTA's has supremacy over all other transportation law where there is a conflict [F S 163.817] This would include any special legislation used to establish an MTA. COMMUTER RAIL AUTIIORITIES Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 343 Part I Tri County Commuter Rail Authority. A-10

PAGE 59

Purpnse of Statutes: This special legislation was passed to establish the 'Iii-County Commuter Rail Authority which is charged with the operation of a commuter rail facility in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Specific Topics ReL1ted to Transit Coordination: The governing board of the authority consists of nine members representing Dade County, Broward County, Palm Beach County, private citizens, Florida Department of Transportation (ex-officio), and the High Speed Rail Transp ortation Commission (ex-officio) [F.S. 343.53(2)] In contracting the operation or management of any part of the commuter rail system, the authority shall consider .... (6) "The imp act on other transportation modes, including the ability to i nterface with other transportation modes and facilities [F.S. 343.54(3)(i)(6)]." The authority is also charged "To cooperate wit h other governmental entities and to contract with other governmental agencies, includ ing the Department of Transportation, the Federal Government, counties, and municipalities [F.S. 343.54(3)(m)]." The authority is also empowered "To develop and provide feeder transit services to rail stations [F.S. 343.54(3)(g)] Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 343 Part II Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority. Purpose of Statutes: This special legislation was passed to establish the Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority which is given the power to "own, operate, maintain, and manage a commuter rail system in the area of Seminole, Orange, Osceola, and Brevard Counties, ... [F.S. 343.64(1)(a)]." A-11

PAGE 60

Specific Topics Related to Transit Coordination: The governing board of the authority consists of nine members representing Seminole County, Orange County, Osceola County, Brevard County, a mayor within the area, private citizens, and the ffigh Speed Rail Transportation Commission (ex-officio) (F.S. 363.53(2)]. In contracting the operation or management of any part of the commuter rail system, the authority shall consider .... (6) "The impact on other transportation modes, including the ability to interface with other transportation modes and facilities [F.S. 343.64(2)(h)(6)]." The authority is also charged "To cooperate with other governmental entities and to contract with other governmental agencies, including the Department of Transportation, the Federal Government, counties, and municipalities [F.S. 343.64(2)(1)]. The authority has no authorization to directly provide feeder bus services. This provision in effect will require the Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority to negotiate with local public transit systems for the provision of feeder bus service. Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 343 Part IllTampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority. Purpose of Statutes: This special legislation was passed to establish the Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority which is given the power to "own, operate, maintain, and manage a commuter rail system and commuter ferry system in the Tampa Bay area of Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Pasco Counties, ... [F.S. 343.74(l)(a)]." Specific Topics Related to Transit Coordination: The governing board of the authority consists of nine members representing the Metropolitan Planning Organizations of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, private citizens, the Florida Department of Transportation (ex-officio), the High Speed Rail Transportation Commission (ex-officio), and the local transit authorities (ex-officio) [F.S. 343. 73(2)].

PAGE 61

In contracting the operation or management of any part of the commuter rail system, the authority shall consider .... (6) The impact on other transportation modes, including the ability to interface with other transportation modes and facilities [F.S. 343.74(2)(i)(6))." The authority is also charged "To coope r ate with other governmental entities and to contract with other governmental agencies, including the Departmen t of Transportation, the Federal Governme n t, counties, municipalities, and seaport and airport authorities [F S 343. 74(2)(m)] The autho ri ty is also empowered "To develop and provide feeder transit s ervices to rail and commuter ferry stations [F S 343 74(2)(g)]. INTERGOVERNMENTAL P R OGRAMS Reference: Florida Statute Chapter 163 Pa r t 1 -Intergovernmental Programs, Misc. Purpose of Statu te: The purpose of the statute is to codify a number of in t ergovernmental programs, some of which have a direct impact on transit coord i nation Specific T opics Related to Transit Coordination: Interlocal agreements are generally authorized for almost any purpose, including for any transit purpose where the transit administrator is a public agency. All interloca l agreements are contingent on volunteerism on the part of participating public agenc i es [F.S.l63 .01 Florida Interlocal Cooperations Act of 1969]. Public Rail Systems created pursuant to F.S. 163.01 set fares and fees pursuant to F S. 341.3025 Councils are authorized to be established, to meet, confer and promote cooperative arrangements in any area of public interest [F.S. 163.02]. The Secretary of Communi ty Affairs shall "Cooperate w ith other state agencies m the preparation of statewide plans relating to housing, redevelopment and renewal, human resources development, local planning and zoning, transportation and traffic .. [F.S. 163.03(l)(j)." A-11

PAGE 62

SUMMARY There are clearly numerous references to coordination. They were instituted at different points in time and in different contexts and is some instances result in competing, duplicative or unclear assignments of responsibility. In some instances, the statutes use an excessively narrow definition of mass transit which tends to exclude non-traditional transit options in the planning process. Non-traditional options would include ridesharing, vanpooling, transportation systems management (TSM) options The statues, while noting several responsibilities and opportunities for coordination frequently leave the in terpr etation and implementation of coordination activities to the target governmental entity. Education and training of boards and staffs relative to coordination responsibilities would be appropriate. A -14

PAGE 63

APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL DATA ON EXISTING 1RANSIT ORGANIZATIONS INTRODUCTION This Appendix consists of several relatively independent sections that provide data on existing public transit Authorities, transit planning processes and requirements, transit agency organizational structures, and related materials. Summary of Florida Transit Systems There are twenty-three transit systems/authorities currently established in the state of Florida The organizational structure of each Florida transit system can be placed into one of three categories: county affiliation, city affiliation, or independent authority. Ten systems are departments or divisions of a county, four systems are departments of a city, and nine systems are independent authorities. The organizational structure of each of the Florida transit systems is provided in Table B-1. Nineteen systems provide fixed-route motorbus services. Of these nineteen systems, thirteen also offer some type of demand-response service either directly or through a contract with an outside vendor. Two of the nineteen systems (Metro-Dade Transit Agency and Jacksonville Transportation Authority) operate an automated guideway system (peoplemover) while a single system (Metro-Dade) operate s a rapid rail system. A twentieth transit system (Space Coast Area Transit i n Brevard County) is unique when compared to the other systems around the state. Space Coast provides demand-response services only. Finally, three commuter rail autho riti es have been established in the state, one of which is currently operating a commuter rail system (Tri-County Commuter Rail). The remaining two authorities have been legally established and charged with the implementation of a commuter rail system in their region (Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority and Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority). A breakdown of the modes operated by each transit system is provided in Table B 2. The remainder of this appendix provides a profile of each Florida transit system inc luding a description of system organizational structure, governing body and composition, service area, modes operated, and recent significant events. B-1

PAGE 64

TABLEB-1 Organizational Structures of Florida Transit SysUIIIs SYSTEM COUNTY ClTY Central Fl. Commuter Rail Authority B 2 AUTHORIT y

PAGE 65

TABLEB-2 Modes Operated by Florida Transit Systems SYSTEM MB Suwannee Valley Transit Authority KEY: MB -fiXed-route motorbusAG -automated guideway CR -commuter raiiDR -demand-response RR -rapid rail B-3 CR RR AG DR

PAGE 66

:METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY Of2anl2ational StructureMetro-Dade Transit Agency is a department of Dade County, which is charged with the operation of a unified public transit system. The agency was created on October 28, 1986, a result of the restructuring of the fonner Metropolitan Dade County Transportation Administration. MDTA is managed by a Director appointed by and direcUy responsible to the County Manager. The Director is responsible for the management, construction, and operation of Metro rail, Metrobus, Metromover, and special transportation system. Governina: Body and Composition MDTA is governed by Dade County which is, in effect, a super-municipality with governmental powers effective in the 27 cities in the county and the unincorporated areas. Dade County has a two-tier, commission-manager, type of government. The Board of County Commissioners is comprised of a mayor and eight commissioners, each of whom are elected officials serving four -year terms. The County Manager is appointed by this governing body. Service Area-MDTA operates within the geographic boundaries of Dade County; however portions of three bus routes extend into Broward County. Modes Fixed-route motorbus services, purchased motorbus services, purchased demand responsive services, rapid rail transit services, and automated guideway transit services. During the 1989 fiscal year, MDTA began the construction of a 2.5 mile extension of the existing downtown Metromover system, which is expected to be completed in March 1994 at an estimated total cost of approximately $248 million. Recent Major Events RecenUy, a county referendum failed to pass which would have provided Metro-Dade with needed funding. As a result, fare levels have increased with more increases expected in the near future. BROW ARD TRANSIT DIVISION Ora:anizational Structure The Broward County Mass Transit Division is a division of the Broward County Public Services Department. (,loyernina: Body and Composition The Transit Division is governed by the Board of County Commissioners for Broward County, which is comprised of seven elected district representatives. Service Area The service area covered by the system includes Broward County, North Dade County (North Miami Beach, Carol City), and South Palm Beach County (Boca Raton). B-4

PAGE 67

Modes -The system currently provides fixed-route motorbus service as well as contracting for some services such as social service transportation which provides door-to-door transportation for qualified elderly and handicapped persons in the area and Tri-Rail Commuter Rail feeder bus service. Recent Major ChanwfSI&nificant Major changes in service facilities from 1984-1988 include a new bus garage and opernting facility located in Pompano Beach (operational 1984) and a new transfer facility in downtown Fort Lauderdale (opel"31ionall990). Other major events that may have affected system performance include the reconstruction of Interstate 95 which began in mid-1989 and the start-up ofTriRail Commuter Trai n Service which began opernting in January 1989. JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTIIORITY Organizational StntctureJackso nville Transportation Authority is an independent authority. Governing Body and Composition -The Authority is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of seven members: three are a ppointed by the Governor of Florida; three are appointed by the Mayor of Jacksonville; and the Florida Department of Transportation District Deputy Secretary is automatically appointed. Service Area -The Jacksonville system provides transportation services in Duval County. Modes This includes fixed-route motorbus services, demand-response services, and, most recently, the first phase of the Automated Skyway Express {operational June 1989) The second phase of the guideway system is scheduled for completion in 1995. Recent Major Chan&es/S ien! ficant Events -In 1984, Jacksonville underwent a major route restructuring, the purpose of which was to increase the speed of services. Despite an intense marketing and education campaign, it is believed that the route restructuring has played a contr ibuting role in the decline of system ridership. HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT Organizational Structure Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) is an independent authority. B-5

PAGE 68

Governing Body and Composition HART is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of ten members, four representing Hillsborough County, three representing the city of Tampa, one representing the city of Temple Terrace, and two representing the state of Florida. Service Area HART serves all of Hillsborough County excluding Plant City. Modes HART provides only fixed-route motorbus to the service area indicated above. Contracted services include some vehicle and facility maintenance, janitorial service, and other minor services. Recent Major Changes/Sienificant Events From November 1985 to October 1989, HART was in the process of constructing the Marion Street Transit Parkway. Route expansion and refinement has been postponed in anticipation of a comprehensive review of services. PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Structure Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) is an independent authority created by special act of the Florida Legislature (Chapter 70-907, House Bill No. 5465). Govemine Body and CompositionPSTA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of appointees from the member municipalities who are either elected officials or private citizens. Senice Area PSTA generally serves Pinellas County with the exception of Kenneth City, Bellair Beach, Bellair Shores, Treasure Island, and St. Petersburg Beach. The service area includes 24 municipalities and all unincorporated areas with no major Central Business District. PSTA provides fixed-route motorbus services, demand-response services, and purchased demand-response services. Recent Major Chanees!Sienificant Events On October 1, 1984, PSTA and the St. Petersburg Municipal Transit System merged to form a single county-wide authority. In a separate referenda, Gulfport and South Pasadena also joined PSTA. All assets of the municipal system were transferred to PSTA from the city of St. Petersburg. As a result of this merger, PSTA began operating out of two separate facilities with its headquarters located in Clearwater and former municipal employees located in leased facilities in St. Petersburg. On July 13, 1988, the St. Petersburg Division relocated from the city offices in St. Petersburg to a new maintenance garage and operations center built and owned by PSTA. In April 1989, service was expanded to include 150 additional A.M. and P.M. trips. Also, a new electronic farebox system was installed in the PSTA bus fleet. B-6

PAGE 69

TRI COUNTY TRANSIT Or2an!zationa! Stmcture -Tri County Transit (TCT) is an independent authority created by inter!oca l agreement to provide public transportation se rvices. Govern i ng Body agd Compos i tion -Tri County Transit's Board of Directors is comprised of members appointed by parties involved in the interlocal agreement including Orange County, Seminole County, Osceola County, the City of Orlando, the East Central Regional Planning Council, and the F l orida Department of Transportation. Service Area -TCT p r ovides service to Orange County (including Orlando, Winter Park, Maitland and others), Seminole County (includ i ng Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, and Sanford) and Osceola County Modes -Tri County p r ov i des fixed r oute mo t orb u s services, purchased motorbus services, and purchased demand response services. Recent Major ChangesfS!gnificant Events A new downtown term i nal was built and began operating in 1985 I n addition, ma jor bus purchases took p l ace in 1985 (8 buses), 1986 (2 buses), and 1987 (40 buses) These purchases were necessary to replace some 12 year old buses and to expand the fleet. A major market research study was conducted in 1984 w h ich resu l ted in the recommendation that several changes were necessary for the system to become a viable transportation alternative. The most significant change was the reorientation of Tri County's routes to eliminate the need for transfers in the Central Bus iness District (CBD). TCT staff developed a service plan to transform TCT from a radial route system to a timed-transfer system with outlying transfer centers as well as a downtown hub As a re s ult, some crosstown routes were also introduced. Finally, a full-scale operational analysis was performed in 1988, which included recommendations for the implementation of a full timed trans f er system. PALM BEACH COUN T Y TRANSPORTATION AUTII ORITY Organizationa l Structure Palm Beach County Transportation Authority is owned by Palm Beach County. However the system management and employment are provided under contract by Florida Transit Management, Inc Governin g Body and Composition -The five-member Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners oversees the transit system and must approve CoTran's budget as well as major projects undertaken by the system. Service Area CoTran provides transit services to Palm Beach County B 7

PAGE 70

Modes Fixed-route motorbus services. CoTran also provides some purchased transportation services including a feeder bus service for the Tri-County Commuter Rail system that is operated by National Transit Services, Inc. under contract with the County. In addition, the Spectran Dial-A-Ride service is provided thro ugh a contract with Yellow Cab. Recent Major Chana:es/Sienificant Events-The plant, property, and equipment of CoTran are owned by Palm Beach County. However, the system management and employment are provided under contract by Florida Transit Management, Inc. TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Oreanizatlonal Structure Tallahassee Transit Authority (Taltran) is a department of City government. Governing Body and Compos it ion The City Commission serves as the Board of Directors for Taltran and has five elected members. Service Area Taltran provides service to Leon County. Modes The system provides fixed-route motorbus services and demand-response services to the community. No fued-route services are contracted to private operators. Recent Major Changes/Significant Events The downtown transfer term inal, C.K. Steele Plaza, was constructed and began operating in August 1985 At the same time the basic route system underwe nt extensive modification. Ridership has increased very little over the last few years and is j ust now recovering from the series of fare increases indicated above. REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM Structure Regional Transit System (RTS) is a department of the City of Gainesville. Goyernina: Body and Composition The City of Gainesville has an elected commission made up of five members, all of whom are responsible for policy decisions regarding RTS as well as other c ity departmen t s. In addition, RTS has an advisory board comprised of citizens from the community which provides input to the commission regard ing the transit system and its structure. Service Area RTS serves the city of Gainesville and parts of Alachua County. 'R-R

PAGE 71

Modes fixed-route motorbus services. RTS also provides all of Alachua County with demand response services. R!!(;ent Major Changes/Significant -none. EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Organizational Structure East Volusia Transit Authority (VOTRAN) was established by county ordinance and is therefore a division of the county. Governing Body and Composition VOTRAN is governed by the Volusia County Commissioners who all serve as members on the seven-member Board of Directors. The seven member Board includes five district members and two at-large members. Service AreaVOTRAN provides public transportation services in eastern Volusia County. Modes VOTRAN concentrates its efforts on providing fixed-route motorbus services to the community. In addition, VOTRAN contracts for demandresponse services. Recent Major Changes/Significant Events In December 1985, Transit Casualty ftled for bankruptcy, causing the cost of liability insurance to increase significantly. This event greatly affected fiscal years 1986 and 1987 figures. Also, significant modifications were made to routes and schedules when service was expanded in March 1986. B-!1

PAGE 72

ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Oreagjzatlonal Structure Escambia County Transit System (ECTS) is a department of the county governmen t Governlne Body apd Composition ECTS is governed by the Board of County Commissioners, which is comprised of five members who are elected by district in staggered two-year terms. Service Area ECTS service area is the urbanized area of E scambia County. Modes EC TS provides fixed-route motorbus service and contracts to provide demand-response transportation services. Recent Major Events none. LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTIIORITY Qrganizatlonal Structure Lee County Trans it (LeeTran) is a divi s i on of the Lee County Department of Transportation and Engineering. Gov erning Body an
PAGE 73

SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT Qrganizational Structure Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) is a department of Sarasota County government. G9vemin2 Body and Comgosltjon SCAT is governed by the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, which is comprised of five members representing districts and elected in county-wide voting. Sroice Area SCAT serves the urbanized portion of Sarasota County including the cities of Longboat Key, Sarasota, Venice, Englewood, and North Port. Modes SCAT provides fixed-route motorbus service and a downtown trolley service (operational November 1987) Recent Maior Chanees/Sienificant none. >LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Organizational Structure Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (Citrus Connection) is an independent authority (special taxing district). Governing Body and ComuosJtlon Citrus Connection is governed by a five-member Board of Directors comprised of three City Council members and two County Commissioners. Service Area -Citrus Connection serves the Lakeland urbanized area. Modes Services provided by Citrus Connection include fixed-route motorbus services and demand-response services. Recent Major Changes/Significant Events Major changes over the specified time period inClude several new vehicle acquisitions including 11 fixed-route buses in 1983, four demand response vehicles in 1985, three fixed-route buses in 1986, four new demand-response vehicles in 1988, and five fixed-route buses in 1989. In addition, a three-and-two-thirds-acre site was recently acquired for a new administration and maintenance facility. B-11

PAGE 74

Oaanjzational Structure Manatee County Transit is a division within the Department of Public Works of Manatee County. Governing :Body and Composition Manatee County Transit is governed by the Board of County Commissione r s. Service Area -The system provides service to the urbanized parts of Manatee County. Modes Mana tee operates fixed route motorbus services as well as demand response transportation services. Recent Major ChangeslSignificant Events During the 1984-1988 time period a new administrative complex was con s tructed and the courthouse transfer station was refurbished. SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM Organizational Structure Smyrna Transit System is operated as a department of the City of New Smyrna Beach. Governing Body and Composition -The system director appointed October 1 1989, also oversees the airport and manages the City Industrial Park. T he system operated without a director fro m October 1987 to October 1989 Because Smyrna Transit System i s a department of the City, it is governed by the Board of City Commissioners. Service Area STS was created to provide public transportation services to the residents and v i sitors of New Smyrna Beach Modes-The system provides fixedr oute motorbus services and demand-response services which require prior notification because the fixed-route vehicles alter their routes to accommodate this service. Recent Major Changes/Significant Events Smyrna Transit System contracts internally with the city municipal garage for bus maintenance. B 12

PAGE 75

SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT (BREVARD COUNTY) StructureSpace Coast Area Transit is a department of Brevard County Body and Composition The system is governed by the Brevard County Commission which is comprised of four elected commissioners. Service Area Space Coast provides transit services to Brevard County. Modes-Space Coast directly operates demand response service as well as contracting to provide additional demand response and vanpool serv i ces. Recent 1.\
PAGE 76

SUWANNEE VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Ore,anlzatlonal Structure Suwannee Valley Transit Authority is classified as a special district byFDOT. Governine, Body and Composition-The governing body of Suwannee Valley Transit consists of a seven member Board. The composition of the Board includes two county commissioners from the following counties: Suwannee, Hamilton, and Columbia. The seventh member is the District Engineer who is now titled Assistant Secretary of Transportation. Service Area-Suwannee Valley Tran sit serves Suwannee, Hamilton and Columbia Counties. Modes -The authority provides directly-operated motorbus, purchased motorbus, demand response, and vanpool services. Recent Major Chom:cs/Sh:nilicant Events Approximately three years ago, a new $700,000 maintenance facility was constructed. PASCO AREA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE On:aniz.ational Stn1cture Pasco Area Transportation Service is division of Pasco County government. Governine, Body and Comcosjtion The transportation service is governed by the Pasco County Commission which is comprised of five county commissioners. Service Area -The Pasco service is provided to the West Pasco Urbanized Area. Modes Since June 30, 1990, only demand-response services have been provided. Prior to that time, limited fixed-route motorbus was provided. Recent Major Cbane,es!Sje,nificant Events Previously known as the Pasco Shuttle, the system operated fixed-route service in Pasco County After realizing limited success, the service was recently changed and now provides demand-response service only. The new service appears to be doing well as demand is greater than expected. The system is now receiving federal funding through UMTA. B 14

PAGE 77

TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY OrganizatioiUI! Structure -The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority is an independent authority established by the Florida Legislature for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining a commuter rail system in the tri-county area of Broward Dade, and Palm Beach Counties. Governlne Body and Composition Tri-county Rail is governed by a nine member board of directors: four representing Broward County, two representing Palm Beach County three representing Dade County. In addi tion, there are two ex-officio members, one representing the FDOT District and one representing the High Speed Rail Transportation Commission. Service Area -The Tri-Co unty Commuter Rail Authority is charged with operating and managing a commuter rail system for the area defined by Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties. Modes Commuter rail, feeder bus. Recent Major Chanees/Significant Events none TAMPA BAY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY Ol'J!apizational Structure The Tampa Bay C om muter Rail Authority is an independent authority and therefore an agency of the state of Florida established for the purpose of planning, developing, maintaining, operating, and managing a commuter rail system in the Tampa Bay area. Governin& Body and Composition The governing board of the Authority consists of seven voting members and four nonvoting members. The Metropolitan Planning Organizations of Hillsborough Pinellas, and Pasco Counties each select a member as their rep resentative on the board. The county commissions of Hillsborough, Pi nellas, and Pasco Counties each appoint a citizen member to the board who is not a member of the county commission but who is a resident of the county from which he is a appointed. The Governor shall appoint one member to the board who is a resident in the area served by the Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority. In addition, ex officio nonvoting members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, the Florida High Speed Rail Transportation Commission and the local t ransit authorities. The terms of the county commissioners on the governing board are two years while all other members serve staggered four year terms. Service Area -The Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority is charged with developing a commuter rail system for the area defined by Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. B-15

PAGE 78

Modes Commuter rail, ferry, feeder bus. Recent Major Cban&es!Sienlficant Events Governor Chiles' administration recently cut the funding for the Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority. Therefore, the status of the authority is uncertain at this point. CENTRAL FLORIDA COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY Oreanizatl ona! Structure The Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority is an independent authority established by the Florida Legislature for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining a commuter rail system in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, and Brevard Counties. Goyernine Body and Composition The governed body is comprised of nine members: one commissioner each from Orange, Seminole, Osceola, and Brevard Counties, and the Governor appoints five members who are residents of the area served by the authority. An ex-officio member is also included to represent the High Speed Rail Transportation Commission. Service Area The Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority is charged with creating and operating a commuter rail system in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, and Brevard Counties. Modes Commuter rail .Recent Major Chanees/Sienlficant Events none. B-16

PAGE 79

STATE OF FLORIDA MPOs AND THE COUNTIES THEY SERVE MPO COUNTIFS SERVED Lee County MPO Lee County Naples-Collie r County MPO Collier County Polk County MPO Polk County Sarasota-Manatee County MPO Sarasota and Manatee Counties Gainesville MPO Alachua County Jacksonville MPO Duval and northern half of St. Johns and Clay Counties Fort Walton Beach MPO Walton and Okaloosa Counties Panama City MPO Southern two-thirds of Bay County Pensacola MPO Southern half of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties T a llahassee.. Leon County MPO Leon County Bro ward County MPO Eastern half of Broward County Palm Beach County MPO Eastern portion of Palm Beach County St. Lucie MPO Eastern balf of St. Lucie County Brevard County MPO Brevard County Ocala-Marion County MPO Marion County Orla n do Urban Area MP0 Seminole, Oran ge, and Osceola Counties Volusia County MPO Volusia County MlamiMPO Dade County Pasco County MPO West Pasco County urban area Pinellas County MPO Pinellas County Hillsborough County MPO Hillsborough County B-1'7

PAGE 80

DISTRIC T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 STATE OF FLORIDA RPCs AND TilE CO UNTIES THEY SERVE RPC COUNTIES SERVED West Florida RPC Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Holmes, Washington, and Bay Counties (7) Apalachee RPC Jackson, Calhoun, Gulf, Franklin, Liberty, Gadsden, Leon, Wakulla, and Jefferson Counties (9) Nortb Central Florida RPC Madison, Taylor, Dixie, Lafayette, Suwannee, Hamilton, Columbia, Gilchrist, Alachua, Union, and Bradford Counties (11) Northeast Florida RPC Baker, Nassau, Duval, Clay, Putnam, St. J ohns, and Flagler Counties (7) Witblacoochee RPC Levy, Marion, Citrus, Sumter, and Hernando Counties (5) East Central Florida RPC Volusla, Lake, Seminole, Orange, Osceola, and Brevard Counties (6) Central Florida RPC Polk, Hardee, Sarasota, Desoto, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties (6) Tampa Bay RPC Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Manatee Counties (4) Southwest Florida RPC Cbatlotte, Glades, Lee, Hendry, and ColUer Counties (5) Treasure Coast RPC Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties (4) Soutb Florida RPC Dade, Broward, and Monroe Counties (3) B-18

PAGE 81

Florida Commuter Rail Authorities -Board Composltlon Appointed By Tampa Bay Central Florida Tri-<:ounty Governor's Appointee Robert Hays, Jr. J Dudley Bates, Mayor Ed Kennedy Buell Duncan Thomas Steveoson Oscar Juarez Frank Serpico, Jr. Membe r Bill Donegan, Charles Dusseau Representatives OtarJge Co Comm. Dade Co. Commissioner Selected by Sue Sebmidt, Lori Nance Parrish County Commissions Brevard Co. Comm Broward Co. Commissioner Charles Owen, Carol A. Roberte Osceola Co Comm Palm Beach Co. Commissioner Pat Warren, Seminole Co. Comm. Member Bonnie Zimmer, Representatives Pasco Co Comm. Selected by Pam Iorio, MPO Hillsborough Co. Comm George Greer, Pinellas Co Comm. Citizen Dick Johnson, Allen C Harper Representatives Pinellas Co. Citz. Rep. Dade Co. Citz. Rep. Selec ted by Wallace Bowers, Temnce J. Mullin County Commissi ons Hills. Co. Ci tz. Rep. Broward Co. Citz. Rep. Tim Hays Albert J. Travasos Pasco Co. Citz. Rep Palm Beach Co. Citz. Rep. Ex-officio FDOT Sec. Selection Bill McDaniels TomBany Rick Chesser Traosit Authority Helen LaCount, HART Gene Down s PSTA High Speed Charles Mende z Donald Disney David Rush Rail Commission No., Officiai/Exofficio 7/4 912 7/2 March data com d ed b1 .. p y B-19

PAGE 82

:p :s Transit Development Plan .. Transit Planning Process State of Florida Local Government Comprehensive Plan Dev. by Loca i GQvemment 20yr. -, lo Comprehensive Long-Range Transportation Plan Dev. byTranaitAgeney 5yr. Dev.byMPO 20yr. Transportation Improvement Program Dov. by MPO 5 yr. Us1 ol PJOjocts F.D.O.T. . Work .Program Dov. by F.D.O.T. 5 yr. Us1 of Plojocts

PAGE 83

COORDINATION OF PLANS LOCAL GOVERNMENT LONGMNGE TRANSIT TMNSI'OII'J'AUON COMPREHENSIVE PIAN TRANSPORTAUON DEVl!LOPMBNT IMPROVEMENT TRANSIT ELEMENT PIAN PROGRAM PROGRAM TI1U! VI RESPONSJL& PAR'IY Gc.De:ral MPO Traruit provljccu .DocwDeats COfD.pliuot. to .... PIAN COMMOIIAUIY 'ID Pcould ....... ruus,.... 'IDP could IC
PAGE 84

1;1:1 I N N Portland METRO (Portland Metropolitan Services District) 3 counties handles significant regional issues designated recipient for federallstate long-range transportation planning funds forum for local government coordination administers land use p lan regional transportation planning METRO Council 12 elected officials 1 elected executive officer Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation local government officials 3 METRO councilors TRI-MET (Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District) operates bus and light rail levies fares & taxes and can sell bonds prepares the TIP service planning conducted cooperatively with Oregon DOT and cities/counties adjacent to the district METRO and TRIMET staff work together and serve on each other's technical committees TRI-MET Board 7 members appointed by Governor

PAGE 85

= 8 Atlanta MARTOC (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Oversight Committee) link between state legislature and MARTA MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) funds and operates bus & rail Implements bus & rai l operations planning taxin(2)counties MARTA Board Atlanta (4) DeKalb County (4) Fulton County (3) Clayton County (1) Gwfnnett County (1) 3 State ex-officio ARC (Atlanta Regional Council) MPO (7 counties) designated recipient regional planning & intergovernmental coordination review responsib ility transportation planning land use planning environmental planning -human services planning ARC Board 16 l ocat elected officials 15 private citizens

PAGE 86

Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Council 16 members & chairman; 7 counties authority l i mited to regional issues only maintains region land use plan conducts long-range transit needs study approves RTB budget reviews & approves RTB's transit implementation plan appoints 8-member RTB board coordinates light rail transit planning & development MTC (Metropolitan Transit Commission) solely an operator provides service under contract with RTB designated r ecipient for federal funds state operating assistance flows through RTB detailed transit service planning RTB (Regiona l Transit Board) 8 member board designated recipient of state assistance responsibilities mid-range transit planning poficy making fiscal analysis coordination in 7-<:aunty area reviews and approves MTC budgets appoints 3-member MTC board presents transit needs to leg islature prepares implementation plan final review & approval of all now route evaluations MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY: transit service needs assessment has authority to sot MTC fare policy, but has not ye t exercised this respo n sible for planning light rail transit between Min neapolis & St Paul County Regional Railroad Authorities primary authority to Implement light rail transit

PAGE 87

= "' U\ Miami MPO (Metro-Dade M e tropolitan Planning Organ i zation) responsible for shon-, mid-, and long-range planning for Dade County includes: transportation planning land use plann in g MPO Board 11 members Tr a n s portation Pl a nning Council 1 1 voting members 6 nonvoting members MOTA (Metro-Dade Tra n s it Agency) department of Dade County operates bus, rail, peoplemover, and demand response in Dade County govemed by Board of County Commissioners which is comprised of 8 commissioners and a mayor TCCRA (Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority } independent rail authority responsible lor management and operation of commuter rail system in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counti es TCCRABoard Feeder Bus Coordinating Committee 9 members 7 voting 2 ex-officio oversees provision of Ieeder bus for commuter rail members from MOTA, PBCT, BROW, and TCCRA


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 2200301Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 028432546
005 20110804173432.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110804s1991 flu o 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00188
035
(OCoLC)745119061
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE4487.F6 (ONLINE)
0 2 245
A study of coordination of local and regional public bus transit and fixed guideway transportation systems in Florida
h [electronic resource] /
the Florida Transportation Commission.
260
Tallahassee, FL :
b Florida Transportation Commission,
1991.
300
1 online resource (42, [39] p.)
500
Title from cover of e-book (viewed Aug. 4, 2011).
5 FTS
"April 1991."
FTS
650
Local transit
z Florida.
710
Florida Transportation Commission.
1 776
i Print version:
t Study of coordination of local and reginal public bus transit and fixed guideway transportation systems in Florida.
d Tallahassee, FL : Florida Transportation Commission, 1991
w (OCoLC)53062883
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.188
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001906744;
FTS