USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Bay County transit development plan

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Bay County transit development plan final report
Cover title:
Bay County transit development plan, 1996-2001
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:
Frequency:
annual

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Planning -- Florida -- Bay County   ( lcsh )
Transportation -- Planning -- Florida -- Bay County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for, Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Panama City, Florida by, Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"December 1996."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 026638814
oclc - 123342699
usfldc doi - C01-00198
usfldc handle - c1.198
System ID:
SFS0032298:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

BAY COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Final Report Prepared for: Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Panama City, Florida By: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Eng!neering University of South Florida December 1996

PAGE 2

Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3435 North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32503 (904) 444-8910 SunCom 69HI910 Fax(904)444-8967 Project Managers: Mary Bo Robinson, Senior Transportat ion Planner Gary Kramer, Transportation Planner Director: Center for Urban T ransportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 {813) g]4-3120 Suncom 57 4-3120 Fax {813) 974-5168 Project Managers: Gary L. Brosch laura C Lachance Victoria A. Perk Dennis P. Hinebaugh Michael R Baltes Greg Fer rara P r oject Staff: David Gillett Chris Billingsley Jason Winoker

PAGE 3

TABLE OF GONT&NTS List of Tables ....................... ... .... . . .......... vi List of Figures .................... ..................... ... .... ..... x Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Chapter One: Base Data Compilation ..... .............................. .... 1 Introduction .......................................... .................. 1 Bay County Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Population Population Growth Rates, and Population Densities ............ 2 Demographic Characteristics .............................. ............ 7 Summary of Demographic Characteristics . ......... . ............. 49 Transit -Depende nt Census Tract Analysis ....... ... .... ...... . ........ 50 Major Trip Attractors and Generators ..... ........... ............. ... 55 Other Demographic Information ....... .......... . . ..... ......... 65 Land Use and Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Roadway Characteristics . ........... .............. .. .......... 70 1995 Deficiencies . . . . ...... . ................. ............ 70 Projected Year 2000 Deficiencies ............ .............. .......... 70 Bay County Public Transportation System Improvements ..... ............ ..... 71 Transit Services .... ........ .... ... ......... . . .... ........... 71 Paratransit Services ................. ............ ................. 71 Interviews with Key Officials . .......................................... 73 Perceptions . . . . . . . . . ................ :. . . . . . . . ... 73 Improvements ........ ... .... ........... . ...... ... ... ... .... 77 Policy Is sues . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ........ ......... 78 Summary of Public Meetings ......... ..... .. ....... .... ............ 79 Bay Town Trolley On-Board Survey ....... ... ...... ................ 80 Overview of the Bay Town Trolley System ....... ......... ..... ... ... 80 Survey Methodology .... . ................. ......... ........... 81 BTT On-Board Survey Analysis ...... .......... ......... . .......... 85 BTT Rider Demographic Information ........... ..... . ....... ...... 86 BTT Rider Travel Behavior Information .......... ..... . ........... 89 BTT Rider Satisfaction . . . . . . . . ....... .. ................ 94 Rider Comments and Suggestions .... ........ .... ............. 100 Bey County Transit Development Pfen IIi

PAGE 4

Conclusions ..... .... ............................. ... .......... .. 101 Bay Coordinated Transportation On-Board Survey ... ... ......... ...... .... 102 Demographic Information .. ........... ............................. ... 102 Travel Behavior ............ ........ ..... .... .......... ..... 106 User Satisfact i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 BCT Service Awareness ..... ........ ... .... .................... 111 Passenger Comments and Suggestions ... . . ..... .......... ... .. 113 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Bay Town Trolley Operator Survey ... .. ............. ..... . ... .. .. .... 1 16 Chapter Two: Inventory and Evaluation of Existing Public Transportation Services .. 119 Introduct ion ............... ......... ... ....... ................. ....... 119 Inventory of Public Transportat ion Providers .. ........................... 1 19 Evaluation of Existing Public Transportation Services ....... .. .... ...... 120 The Purpose of Performance Review ..... ..... . ....... ... . ...... . 121 Performance Review Data ..... ... ................. ....... 122 Bay Town Trolley Performance Review ........................... ..... . 123 Bay County Council on Aging (Paratransit) Performance Review ....... .... .... 146 Review of BCT's Organizational and Management Structure ... ............ ... . 169 Review of BCT Marketing Services . ....... ... ....... ....... ....... ...... 169 Chapter Three: Goals and Objectives ... . . ..... ..... .... ....... 173 Introduction ..... ... ............ ........ . ... .......... ........... 173 Public Transportation Goals and Objectives ...... ........... ....... .... ... .. 173 Fixed-Route Transit Goals and Objectives .......... .. ........ . ... 173 Goals and Objectives ........ .......... . ... ........ 175 Transit-Related Goals from Other Plans ...... . .... ........... . . ....... 184 1992 Bay County Trans i t Development Plan . ..... ..... ................ 184 Loca l Comprehensive Plan ......... .......... ... ........... ... .... 185 Long Range Transportation Plan ............... .... .... ... ..... ... ... 187 West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan ...... ....... ...... ........ 188 Florida Transportation Plan .............. . .... ...... .... . ..... ... 189 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Chapter Four: Demand Estimation and Needs Assessment ....... ........... 191 iv Introduction .......... ... ... ................... ....... ..... ....... 191 Current and Future Demand for Public Transportation ... . ......... . .. .. ... 191 Demand for Fixed -Route Transit Service .... ....... .... ... .. . ... 192 Demand for Paratransit Service ............ .. ...... ................ . 204 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 5

Needs Assessment ............. ..... ............ ...................... 205 Existing Public Transportat i on Services ...... . ......................... 205 Unmet Need ..... .............................................. 205 Chapter Five : Transit Alternatives and Recommendations ...... . ... ... ..... ... 211 lntroductlon .......... . .................................. .......... 211 Public Transportation: Past and Present ... .......... ........... ....... 211 Future Directlon for Public Transportation ................................ .. 212 Recommendations ........ .............. .' ................ ........... . 213 Public Transportation .................. .... ................... 213 Bay Town Trolley ... ........... .................... .............. 215 Bay Coordinated Transportation .............. ... ....... .......... 224 FiveYear Transit Development Plan: Financial Plan ........................ 226 Additional Funding Sources ... ... ....................... ............... 230 Future Potential Public Transportation Corridors ... ........ ...... . ... .. .. 231 Bay Town Trolley ................................. ............. 231 Bay Coordinated Transportation ....... ........ . ................... 231 Conclusion .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 232 APPENDICES Appendix A: Bay County Census Data Tables ................ .... ....... A-1 Appendix B : Bay County Census Tract: Distribution & Scores .... .... ...... .. B-1 Appendix C: Trip Generators and Atlractors in Bay County ............ .... ... C-1 Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: AppendiX H: Appendix 1 : Appendix J: Appendix K: Appendix L: Public Input: Interv iew Guide and Citizen Comments ... ........... D-1 Survey Instruments ............ ... ................ ...... E-1 Inventory of Transit Pro viders in Bay County ............ . ...... F-1 List of Definitions, Performance Indicators, and Measures ...... .. G-1 Transit Peer Tables .............................. ...... .. .. H-1 Paratransit Peer Tables . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . 1-1 Route and Schedule Changes ......... .... ... ... .... .... J-1 Proposed Bus Shelter Locations ......... ... .... ......... K-1 Route Performance Analysis .......... .................. L-1 County Transit Development Plan v

PAGE 6

T a bl e ES-1 Tabl e E5-2 Table 1-1 Tabl e 1-2 Tab l e 1 3 Tab le 1-4 T a b le 1 5 Table 1-6 Table 1-7 Tab l e 1-8 Table 1-9 T able 1-1 0 UST OF TABLES Thres h olds for Fixed-Route Trans i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi Bay County Transit Developme n t Plan Estimated Cost of R ecommendations (in 1996 dollars) .............. . ............. .... ......... ... xxxiii General Populations G r owth Rates, and DensH i e s ... ...... . , ...... 2 Highest Popu l ations by Census Tract (1990) : Bay County .... .......... 3 Highest Dens i ties by Census Tract (1990): Bay County ..... ............. 4 1995 Bay County Transportation D i sadvantaged Populations ... .......... 8 1995 Bay County Potential Transportation D i sadvantaged Population . ...... 9 1995 Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged (TO) Populat ion ........... 9 1995 2000 Bay County Potential TD Popu l ation Projections . ............ 10 1995-2000 Bay County TD Populat ion Proje ct ions .......... . ..... 10 Population Age D i stribution (1990) ...... .. .. ..... ............ ....... 1 1 Percentage of Populat ion 0-17 Years of Age by Census Tract ( 1990) : Bay County ... . ............. .... ... ................. . ...... 12 Table 1 11 Percentage of P opulation 60 Years a n d Over by Census Tract (1990): Tabl e 1-12 Tabl e 1-13 Tabl e 1-14 Table 1-15 Table 1-16 Table 1-17 Table 1-18 Table 1-19 T able 1-20 Table 1 -21 Table 1-22 Table 1-23 Table 1 -24 Table 1-25 Table 1-26 Table 1 -27 vi Bay County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Household Income Distribution (1990) .... ........... ................ 14 Annual Household Income Below $10,000 by Census Tract (1990): Bay County ......... ... .............. ... ... ........... ...... 14 Vehicle Availability Distribut ion (1990) .... ........................... 21 Occupied Housing Uni t s with Zero Vehicle Available by Census Tract (1990): Bay County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ............ 22 Highest Average Number of Vehicles Per Occupied Housing Unit by Census Tract (1990) : Bay County . ....... .. ................ ..... ........ 22 Highest Housing Unit Densities by Census Tract (1990) : Bay County ....... 27 Persons per Housi n g Unit by Cen sus Tract (1990): Bay County . ........ 27 Highest Employment Densities by Census Tract (1990) : Bay County ....... 33 Labor Force Characteristics (1990 ) ........ ....... ................. 34 Work Commuting Pattem D istribution (1990) ... ... ....... . .... 34 Bay County Worker Destinations (1990) ........... .............. 37 Journey-to-Work Mode Split ( 1990) .. .. ... . ............. ... . . ... 38 Persons Who Use Public Transit for the Work Trip by Census Tract (1990): Bay County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 38 Persons Who Carpool for the Work Trip by Cens u s Tract ( 1 990): Bay County 39 T ravel T ime to Work (1990) ....... ............. ........ ........ .. 45 Travel T ime to Work 30 Minutes and Over by Census Tract (1990): Bay County ................................... ................ 45 Bay County Trans;t Development Plan

PAGE 7

Table 1-28 Table 1-29 Table 1-30 Table 1-31 Table 1-32 Table 1-33 Table 1-34 Table 1-35 Table 1-36 Table 1-37 Table 1 -38 Table 1-39 Table 1-40 Table 1-41 Table 1-42 Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 2-6 T able 2-7 Table 2-8 Table 2-9 Table 2-10 Table 2-11 Table 2-12 Table 2-13 Table 2-14 Table 2-15 Table 2-16 Table 2-17 Table 2-18 Table 2-19 Bay County's Transit-Dependent Census Tracts (1990) ....... ... ..... 52 2000 Land Use Densities: Bay County ............................... 66 2020 Projected Land Use .ii\d Characteristics for Panama City UZA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ......... 66 Bay County Parking Requirements . . . . . . . . .. ..... ..... 69 Panama City Parking Requirements ........ ... ................. 69 Question 6 Trip Purpose, BTT Survey .. ... .......... .... . .... 90 Numerical Values, BTT Survey ..................... .......... 99 Typical BTT Rider Profile .................................... 101 Question 7 BCT Awareness, BCT Survey .......................... 111 Question 7 Nonsponsored Program/Ride Line Awareness, BCT Survey ... 112 Typical BCT Rider Profile ....................................... 115 Most Frequent Passenger Complaints About Bay Town Trolley Identified by Trolley Operators, BTT Operator Survey ............................ 117 Improvement Areas for Bay Town Trolley Identified by Trolley Operators, BTT Operator Survey .............................................. 117 Bay Town Trolley Safety Problems Identified by Trolley Operators: BTT Operator Survey ................................................. .... 118 Response to Questions 7 and 8: BTT Operator Survey . . . . . . . 118 Inventory of Transportation Providers: Bay County ............ ...... 120 F actors Affecting Public Transportation Pe rformance .......... ... .. .. 122 Performance Review Indicators and Measures: Fixed-Route Analysis ...... 123 Summary of Selected Operating Statistics: Bay Town Trolley ...... ..... 124 Peer Systems Operating Between 1 and 9 Vehicles in Maximum Service ... 125 Summary of Selected Operating Statistics (1994): 1 to 9 Vehicles ........ 126 Peer Systems Operating Five or Fewer Vehicles in Maximum Service ..... 132 Fixed-Route Peer Analysis-Performance Indicators (FY 1994) ....... ... 133 Fixed-Route Peer Analysis Effectiveness Measures (FY 1994) . . . . . 138 Fixed-Route Peer Analysis Efficiency Meas u res (FY 1994) ........ .... 140 Fixed-Route Peer Analysis-Efficiency Measures (FY 1994) ............. 143 Performance Review Indicators and Measures: Paratransit Analysis ....... 146 Overview of BCCOA Performance (1995) ........................... 14 7 Paratransit Trend Analysis-Performance Indicat ors ...... ... .......... 149 Paratransit Trend Analysis-Effectiveness Measures: Service Supply ...... 149 Paratransit Trend Analysis Effectiveness Measures: Service Consumption 150 Paratransit Trend Analysis-Effectiveness Measures: Quality of Service ... 151 1995 BCCOA Fleet Composition by Model Year ..................... 151 Paratransit Trend Analysis Efficiency Measures: Cost Efficiency and Revenue Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Bay County Transit Development Plan vii

PAGE 8

Table 2 20 Table 2-21 Table 2-22 Table 2-23 Table 2-24 Table 2-25 Tabl e 2-26 Table 2-27 T ab l e 2-28 Table 2-29 Table 2-30 Table 2-31 Table 2-32 Table 3-1 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4 3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5 Table 4-6 Table 4 7 Table 4-8 Table 4-9 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 5-5 Table 5-6 Table A-1 Table A-2 Table A-3 TableA-4 viii Paratransit Trend Analysis Efficiency Measures: Vehicle Utilization .. ... 153 Par alransit Trend Analysis Efficiency Measures: Labor Productivity . ... 154 Bay Coordinated Trans p o rt ation System Peers .... ....... ... ......... 155 Paratrans i t Peer Analys i s Population, Ridership, Service Leve l s, and Vehicles (1995) .... .... .... . ....... .... .... . . . ....... 156 Paratransi t Peer Analysis-Revenue and Expense ( 1 995) ... . .... . 156 Paratransit Peer Analysis-Service Sup p ly (1995) . .... . . . .... . . 159 Paratransit Peer Analysis Service Consumption (1995) ...... ........ 161 Paratransit Peer AnalysisQuality of Service (1995) .................. 161 Paratransit Peer Analysi s Cost Efficiency (1995) . . .... ..... . .... 163 Para l ransit Peer AnalysisOperating Ratios (1995) ... ....... . ...... 164 Paratransit Peer Analysis-Vehic l e U t ilization (1995) . ............. . 164 BCCOA Performance Strengths and Weaknesses, Trend Analysis ....... 167 BCCOA Performance Strengths and Weaknesses, Pee r Review .... ... 168 Transportation D i sadvantaged Goals and Obj e ctives ....... ......... 176 Fixed-Route Peer Systems Operating Five or Fewer Vehicles ....... .... 192 Comparison o f Peer System Averages for Fixed-Route Systems Operating Five or Fewer Vehicles-FY 1994 ................... .............. 193 Fi x ed Route Demand Estimates Bay County ..... .... . ... .. . 194 Fixed-Route Start-Up for Four Florida Transit Systems . .... . .... . 195 Start-Up for Small Florida Systems and Peer Systems .... ....... .... . 196 Impacts of Fare and Service Scenarios .......... ...... .... . ... 199 Transit-Dependent Census Tracts Bay County . . . .......... ..... 200 ADA Paratransit Population and Trip Estimates : Bay County .... ..... . 202 Esti mated TO Population, Paratransit Demand, and Paratransit Supply: Bay County . . . ...... ..... ..... . ......... . ......... ..... 204 Thresholds for Fixed-Route Transit ....... .... ....... ............. 214 Bay County Transit Development P lan: Estimate d Cost of Recommendati o ns (in 1996 dollars) ........................ ... ............... .. ... 227 Expense Summary-Ave-Year Transit Development Plan: Bay Town Trolley 228 Revenue Summary Five-Year Transit Develo pment Plan: Bay Town T r olley 228 Operating Expense and Revenue Projections: Bay Coordinated Transportation .... . ............ ....... .... ... .. 229 Transportation Improvement Program Cap ital Expenses: Bay Coordinated Transportation ...................... ... ...... 230 Population and Populat i on Dens i ty: Bay County 1990 . . . .... ... A 3 Age Distributi o n: Bay County, 1990 ....................... ...... A-4 Household Income : Bay County 1990 ............ ..... . ......... A-5 Vehicle Availability: Bay County, 1990 .............. ................ A-6 Bay County Transit DevelOpment Plan

PAGE 9

Table A-5 Table A-6 Table B-1 Table C-1 Table H-1 Table H-2 Table H-3 Table H-4 Table L-1 Table L-2 Table L-3 Table L-4 Table l-5 Travel Time to Work: Bay County 1990 .......... ............... A-7 Means of Travel to Work: Bay County 1990 ...... ... ................ A-8 Transit Dependent Census Distributions and Scores, Bay County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3 Major Generators and Attractors Identified in Figure 1-1 5 ....... ....... C-3 System Total Performance Indicators: 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category ..... H-3 Sys tem Total Effectiveness Measures: 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category .... H-5 System Total Efficiency Measures: 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category . . . H-7 Alternative Fixed Route Peer Analysis : 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category .... H-9 VOTRAN FY 1995 Route Statistics: October 1, 1994 through March 31, 1995 VOTRAN FY 1996 Route Statistics: October 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . L-3 L-4 1990 Census Characteristics by VOTRAN Route (1/4-Mile Buffer) ........ L-5 Ridership Estimation VOTRAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-6 1ggo Census Characteristics by Bay Town Trolley Route (1/4-Mile Buffer) .. L-7 Bay County Transit Developmerrt Plan lx

PAGE 10

Figure ES-1 Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 1-4 Figure 1-5 Figure 1-6 Figure 1-7 Figure 1-8 Figure 1-9 Figure 1-10 Figure 1 -11 Figure 1-12 Figure 1 -13 Figure 1-14A LIST OF FIGURES Bay Town Trolley Routes and Transit Dependent Census Tracts: Bay County, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxv Population Density by Census Tract: Bay County Florida .............. .. 5 Persons Under Age 18 by Census Tract: Bay County, Florida ....... .... 15 Persons Over Age 60 by Census Tract: Bay County Florida .............. 17 Household with Annual Income Under $10,000 by Census Tract: Bay County. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Percent of Occupied Housing Units with No Vehicles Available by Census Tract: Bay County. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 23 Vehicles per Occupied Housing Unit by Census Tract: Bay County F l orida . 25 H ousing Unit Density by Census Tract : Bay County Florida .... .......... 29 Persons per Housing Unit by Census Tract: Bay County, Florida .... . .... 31 Employment Density by Census Tract: Bay County, Rorida ..... .. ...... 35 Percent of Labor Force with Over 30 Minutes Travel Time to Wor1< by Census Tract: Bay County, Florida ........ .... .... . . . ....... .......... 41 Percent of L abo r Force Us ing Public Transportation by Census Tract: Bay County, Florida ...... ...................... ......... .... . 43 Percent of Labor Force Us i ng Carpoo l s by Census Tract: Bay County, Florida 4 7 Bay Town Trolley Routes and Transit Dependent Census Tracts: Bay County, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Trip Generators/Attractors i n Western Bay County, Florida ...... ...... ... 57 Figure 1 14B Trip Generators/Attractors in West Centra l Bay County Florida ..... .... 59 Figure 1-14C F igure 1-14D Figure 1-15 Figure 1 16 Figure 1-17 Figure 1-18 Figure 1-19 Figure 1-20 Figure 1-21 Figure 1-22 Figure 1-23 Figure 1-24 Figure 1-25 Figure 1-26 Figure 1-27 X Trip Generators/Attractors in East-Central Bay County, Florida ......... . 61 T rip Generators/Attractors in Eastern and Southeastern Bay County, Florida 63 Bay 2000 Future Land Use Map ................................... 67 Bay Town Trolley Routes . . . . . . ............ ..... ... 83 Question 13 Gender BTT Survey ... . ... ....... ... .......... 87 Question 16-Vehicle Ownership, BTT Survey ........... ............ 87 Question 15 Annual Household Income, BTT Survey .......... ... .... 87 Question 14-Ethnic Origin, BTT Survey . ..... . ................... 88 Question 12 -Age, BTT Survey ... ... ... ........................ 88 Question 9 Frequency of Use B TT Survey .. ... ..... .......... 91 Question 7-Fare Category BTT Survey . .............. . ........ 91 Question 8 Fare Type, BTT Survey ....... ...... .. ..... .......... 91 Question 11 -Alternative Transportat ion, BTT Survey ....... ......... 92 Question 10Reason for Riding Trolley BTT Survey ........ ........ 92 Question 3 Mode of Access, BTT Survey ............... ......... 92 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 11

Figure 1-28 Figure 1-29 Figure 1-30 F i gure 1-31 Figure 1-32 Figure 1-33 Figure 1-34 Fig u re 1-35 Figure 1-36 F i gure 1-37 Figure 1-38 Figure 1 39 F i gure 1-40 F i gure 1-41 Figure 1-42 Figure 1-43 Figure 1-44 Fig u re 1-45 Figure 1-46 Figure 1-47 F i gure 1-48 F igu r e 1 -49 Figu r e 1 -50 Figure 1-51 F i gu r e 1-52 F i gure 153 Figure 1-54 Figure 1 -55 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figu r e 2 5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 F igure 2-9 Figure 21 0 F i gure 2-11 Question 5 -Mode of Egress, BIT Survey ...... . . ... ...... . 93 Question 17 A Days of Service, BIT Survey ..... . ...... .. ...... 95 Question 178 Hours of BTI ... . ....... . .. .... 95 Qu e stion 1 7 C Frequency of Service BIT Survey .... ... ............ 95 Question 17D Convenience of Routes, BIT Survey .... ..... .... 96 Question 17EDepe n dabi l ity (on-time) BIT Survey .... . . ...... 96 Question 17F Travel T i me, BIT Survey ....... . ...... ..... . .... 96 Question 17GCos t of Rid ing Trolley, BIT Survey ..... ...... ......... 97 Question 17H Availability of Trolley Information, BIT Survey .. ... ... .. 97 Question 171 Cleanl i ness and Comfort, BIT Survey . . . . . . . . 97 Ques t ion 17JOperator Courtesy, BIT Survey .... ................... 98 Question 17K Safety on Trolley and at Stops, BIT Survey ............. 98 Question 17L Overall Trolley Service, BIT Survey ............. ..... 98 Rider Satisfact i on Mean Scores, BIT Survey . . .... ...... ........ 99 Question 10 Age, BCT Survey .................... .. .. . . 104 Questio n 1 1 Gender BCT Survey . ....... . . ....... . . .... 104 Question 12-Ethnic Origin BCT Survey . ............ . . . . 104 Question 13 Ann u al Househo l d Income, BCT Survey .. ...... ........ 105 Quest i on 14Automobile Availabi l ity BCT Survey ... .... . ..... .... 105 Question 1 F requency of Use, BCT Survey . . . . . . . . . 1 07 Question 2 Fare Payment BCT Survey .... ...... . ............. 107 Question 9 Alternate Modes BCT S u rvey .... . ......... ........... 1 07 Question 5On-Time Performance, BCT Survey ... . ... .... .... 109 Question 6A Driver Assistance, BCT Survey ................. ...... 109 Question 68 D river Assistance, BCT Survey ... ............ . . . 109 Question 4Vehicle Quality BCT Survey .......... ..... . ........ 110 Question 3 Overall Qual i ty, BCT Survey ......... . . ......... ... 110 Question 8-Nonsponsored Program/Ride U ne, BCT Survey . .......... 1 12 1 9 Motorbus Veh i cle Category: Service Area Populat i on . . .... ..... 127 1 9 Motorbus Vehicle Category : Passenger Trips ... ...... ........ 127 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Vehicle Miles . . ..... .... ....... 127 1-9 Moto r bus Vehicle Category: Revenue Miles .................. ... 127 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category: T otal Operat i ng Expense ...... ..... 127 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Passenger Fare Rev . ........ ...... 128 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category : Total Emp l oyees ................ ... 128 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Vehicles Available for Maximum Service . 128 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Vehicles Operated in Maxi m u m Service ... 128 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Vehicle Miles per Capita ...... ......... 129 1 9 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile . ..... 129 Bay Coun ty Transit Devolopment Plan xi

PAGE 12

Figure 2-12 Figure 2-13 Figure 2-14 Figure 2 -15 Figure 2-16 Figure 2-17 Figure 2-18 Figure 2 -19 Figure 2 20 Figure 2-21 Figure 2 22 Figure 2 23 Figure 2-24 Figure 2 25 F igur e 2-26 Figure 2 -27 Figure 2 -28 Fi gure 2-29 Figure 2-30 Figure 2-31 Figure 2-32 Figure 2-33 Figure 2-34 Figure 2-35 Figure 2 -36 Figure 2-37 Figure 2 -38 Figure 2-39 Figure 2-40 Figure 2-41 Figure 2-42 Figure 2-43 Figure 2-44 Figure 2-45 F i gure 2-46 Figure 2-47 Figure 2-48 Fi gu r e 2-49 Figure 2-50 xii 1-9 Motorbus Veh i cle Category: Average Age of Fleet ........... ...... 129 1-9 Motorbus Veh i cle Category : Revenue Mil es Between I ncidents ....... 129 1 9 Motorbus Vehi cle Categ o ry: Revenue Mi l es Between Interruptions ..... 129 1 9 Motorbus Vehicle Categ o ry: Operating Expense per Capita ...... .. .. 130 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ... 130 1-9 Moto rbus Veh i cle Categ o ry: Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ..... 130 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Maintenance Expense per Revenue M i le .. 130 19 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Farebox Recovery Ratio ... .. ... . ... 130 1 9 Motorbus Vehic l e Category: Vehicle Mi les per Peak Vehicle . ..... 131 1-9 Moto r bus Vehic l e Category : Revenue Hours per Employee . ........ 131 1 9 Motorbus Vehicle Category : Passenger Trips per Emp l oyee ... ... 131 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category : Average Fare ....... ..... . . ... 131 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Service Area Population . .... .... .... 134 1-5 Motorbus Vehic l e Category : Service Area Population Density ....... 134 1 5 Motorbus Veh i cle Category: Passenger Trips ........ ............. 134 1 5 Motorbus Vehicle Category : Passenge r Miles .... .... ... ..... 135 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Veh icle Miles .... .... . ..... 135 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category : Revenue Miles .............. ... 135 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Revenue Hours ... . . .... .. ...... 135 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category : Total Operating Expense ............ 136 1-5 Moto rbus Veh i cle Category: Tota l Expense . . ............. 136 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Passenger Fare Revenue ...... ... ... 136 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Total Vehicles in Fleet ... .. ... .... ... 137 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service ... 137 1 5 Motorbus Vehicle Category : Vehicle Miles per Capita . .... .... ... 139 1-5 Motorbus Vehic l e Category: Passenger Trips per Capita ........ .... 139 1 5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Passenger Trips per Revenue Mil e ...... 139 1 5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hours .... 139 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Operating Expense per Capita .... ... ... 141 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Ca t egory : Operating Expense per Peak Vehicle ..... 141 1-5 Motorbus Vehic l e Category: Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ... 141 15 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Operating Expense per Passenger Mile ... 141 1-5 Motorbus Veh ic le Category : Operat ing Expense per Revenue M i le .... 142 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Operating Expense per Revenue Hour ... 142 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... ........ 142 1-5 Motorbus Veh ic le Category: Veh i cle Miles per Peak Vehicle .......... 1 44 1 5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Revenue Mi l es per Total Vehi cles ........ 144 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category : Revenue Hours per Total Veh i cles ... ... 144 1-5 Motorbus Vehicle Category: Average Fare ........ . ............. 144 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 13

Figure 2-51 Figure 2-52 Figure 2-53 Figure 2-54 Figure 2-55 Figure 2-56 Figure 2-57 Figure 2-58 Figure 2-59 Figure 2-60 Figure 2-61 Figure 2-62 Figure 2-63 Figure 2-64 Figure 2-65 Figure 2-66 Figure 2-67 Figure 2-68 Figure 2-69 Figure 2-70 Figure 2-71 Figure 2-72 Figure 2-73 Figure 2-74 Figure 2-75 Paratransit Peers: County/S\lcrvice Are, a population ... ........... . 157 ' Paratransil Peers: TO Population ... .. ... ........... ..... ....... 157 Paratransit Peers: Passenger Trips ........ .............. 157 Paratransit Peers: Vehicle Miles .... . .......................... 157 Paratransit Peers: Revenue Miles .................... .. . .. 157 Paratransil Peers: Fleet Size ... ............... .... ............ 158 Paratransit Peers: Operating Revenue . .... ........... ........ 158 Paratransit Peers: Operating Expense .............. .... ....... 158 Paratransit Peers: Vehicle Miles per Capita ................ ..... ... 160 Paratransit Peers: Vehicle Miles per TD Capita ..... ... ... .. ..... . 160 Paratransit Peers: Passenger Trips per Capita ........ ...... ....... 160 Paratransit Peers: Passenger Trips per TO Capita ..... .... ....... 160 Paratransit Peers: Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile ................. 162 Paratransit Peers: Vehicle Miles Between Accidents ..... .. .. ....... 162 Paratransit Peers: Vehicle Miles Between Roadcalls ........ ......... 162 Paratransit Peers: Average Fleet Age .............................. 162 Paratranslt Peers: Operating Expense per Vehicle . . . . . . . . . 165 Paratransit Peers: Operating Expense per Passenger Trip ..... ....... 165 Paratrans i t Peers: Operating Expense per Vehicle Miles Paratranslt Peers: Operating Expense per Capita ............ . ...... 165 Paratransit Peers: Operating Expense per TO Capita ......... ........ 165 Paratransit Peers: Operating Revenue per Operating Expense .......... 166 Paratransit Peers: F arebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Paratransil Peers: Vehicle Mites per Vehicle .......... ............. 166 Paratransit Peers : Revenue Miles per Vehicle Miles .... .. ...... ... 166 Bay County Transit Development Plan xiii

PAGE 14

Bay County Transit O.volop,.,nt Plan

PAGE 15

PREFACE The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) ha s contracted with the Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to p roduce a major update of a five year Transit Development Plan (TOP) for Bay County. Each transit property in Florida that reoeives State Transit Block Grant funding is required to prepare a TOP. This requirement is intended to ensure that the provision of public transportation service is consistent with the travel needs and mobility goals of the community. In establishing a strategic context for transit planning, the TDP can serve as a guide in the development of a transit system. Five chapters were developed for this TOP. The first chapter includ es the demographic base for Bay County, summaries of interviews with key local officials and public meetings, and the results of on-board surveys The second chapter evaluates the existing public transportation services in Bay County and also contains an inventory of existing transit providers. Chapter Three identifies goals and objectives, and demonstrates their connection with goals specified in other plann ing documents Chapter Four cont a ins ridership and demand projections, as well as a needs assessment. The fifth and final chapter presents an evaluation of alternatives and an implementation plan for public trans portation in Bay County. Bsy Covnty Transit Development Plan xv

PAGE 16

xvi Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has contracted with the Panama City Urbanized Area Metr opolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to produce a major update of a five year Transit Development Plan (TOP) for Bay County Each transit property i n Flor i da that receives State Transit Block Grant fund i ng is required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT), to prepare a TUP. Th i s requirement is intended to ensure that the provision of public transportation service I s consistent with the travel needs and mobility goals of the community I n estab li shing a strategic context for transit planning, the TUP can serve as a guide in the development of a transit system. Bay County has a long history of public transportation Including transit and paratransit. Fixed-route transit was operated by the C i ty of Panama City within its city limits from after World War II until May 1982 The service was d i scontinued partia l ly due to a continuing decline in public participation and a trend of decreasing ridersh i p In the fina l fu ll fisca l year (1980/1981) the system proVided 94,008 passenger trips. The m ajority of the regular riders were domestic help fo ll owed by senio r citizens and lower-income residents. The B ay Town Trolley (BTT), a new fiXed-route system in the urbanized area of Bay County, began operations in December 1995 II is operated under the Bay County Council on Aging for a three year trial period w ith four trolleys (one spare) on five r outes Paratransit service has been coordinated by the Bay County Counci l on Aging Inc ( BCCOA) since 1983 when it was selected as t he Community Transportation Coordinator for Bay County In 1995, Bay County Council on Aging provided or contracted for 170,230 passenger trips for 7 4 73 persons. TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERVIEW CUTR directed and undertook several actions in the course of preparin g this TOP. Demographic and economic data were gathered using 1990 U.S Census data and other sources Attitudes and op i nions on publ i c transportation were sought from key local officia ls, Bay Town Trolley passengers Bay Coordinated Transportation passengers and the general publ ic Existing trends in ridership and service for BTT and BCCOA were reviewed and performance measures for these two sys tems were also compared to those for similar systems in Florida and the Southeast United States. Public transportation goals and objectives were established. Estimates of fixed route and paratransit demand were developed using several techniques. Unmet needs were assessed, and Bay County Transit Development Plan xvrl

PAGE 18

recommendations to meet these needs were prepared A total of five chapters were prepared that contain the results of this TOP. The first chapter examines the distribution of relevant demographic and economic characteristics of Bay County such as population, density, age, income, vehicle availability, employment, and work travel behavior. In general, Bay County residents tend to be younger when compared to the Florida population The level of affluence in Bay County is somewhat less than that of the state as a whole with the greatest percentage (60 percent) of the county's households having annual i ncomes less than $30 000. However, overall, the county's residents have more vehicles available than those in Florida as a whole. The majority of workers in the county drive alone for their commutes, when compared to statewide figures In workers in Bay County are slightly less likely to carpool and utilize transit. Find ings from interviews with key local officials are also summarized in Chapter One. The overall feeling Is that there is at least some level of public interest in public transportat ion in the urbanized area of Bay County. Those that indicated a very low level of public support cited reasons such as the costs, the lack of traffic congestion, the sprawled development and the lack of major employment center. Several interviewees commented on the excellent service provided by Bay Coordinated Transportation Concerning the Bay Town Trolley, some negative perceptions stemmed from the relatively low level of service provided and the low ridership. Also included in this first chapter are the resuHs of on-board passenger surveys on BTT and BCT; and the results of a survey of the BTT vehicle operators. The objective of the on-board surveys was to collect rider demographic inform atio n, travel behavior, and satisfaction w"h the public transportation services In the case of BCT, the informat i o n was compared, when possible to the resu lts obtained from the on-board survey of BCT riders in 1992. The typical rider profile for BTT and BCTwas Identical. The typical rider is a female over the age of 60, whose househo l d has zero vehicles available and an annual income of less than $10,000. In she rides the system four or more days per week. Riders of both systems were generally satisfied with the overall quality of service and facilities Chapter Two focuses on an inventory and eva lu ation of the existing public transportation service. An inventory of all public tran sportation providers in Bay County is compiled in Appendix F of the TOP. Further, a multi-year trend analysis was conducted to follow BCTs performance based on several selected performance indicators and measures. The trend analysis revealed that BCT has a number of strong performance areas including vehicle expense per capita, passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per vehicle. In addHion, a peer analysis was conducted to compare both BTT and BCT to peer transit and paratransit systems, respectively. The peer analysis of BTT xviii Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 19

illustrated the potential for service as the system matures. The peer analysis of the paratransit system revealed that BCT has few weaknesses in comparison to its peers. The specification of goals and objectives is a major element of the TOP. Chapter Three develops system goals based on input from the TOP review c ommi ttee, the MPO and BCCOA s taffs, findings from the on-board and operator surveys, interviews with key loca l offic i als, and public meetings with the general public. Some areas and issues addressed by the goals are establishing transit service as a v i able trans p ortation option intensifying marketing efforts, maintaining low capital and operating costs, securing adequate funding, and establishing a proactive public involvement/ infonnati on process. The fourth chapter discusses mobility needs within Bay County and provides several estimat e s of current and future public transportation demand. Metho d s of estimated fixed-route demand include peer group comparisons fare and service elast i ci ties, and resuHs of interviews, p ublic meetings, and surveys. Demand for complementary paratransit trips was also projected according to the Americans with Disabilities Act {ADA) requirements Finally, paratransit demand was projected using estimates of the Potent i al Transportati o n Disadvantaged Popu l ation and the Transportation Disadvantaged Populat i on in Bay County. FOOT has continually stressed the importance of accounting for all m o bil ity needs within a transit system's service area when prepa ring a TOP. An analysis of the county s census tract data was undertaken in Chapter One and Chapter Four to compare demographic info nnation parti c ularly those characteristics that are highly correlated with transit-dependency with BIT' s exist ing transit network configuration. Based upon thi s analysis, it has been detennined that, at present all primary transit-dependent tracts are served by BTI. Figure ES-1 illustrates BITs routes along with an overlay of transit-dependent census tracts. However, the l evel of service provided to the transit dependent areas varies depending on the location. A l s o in Chapter Four, several mobility needs are addressed. These issues are associated with th e co o rdination of service, span of serv i ce, days of serv i ce, frequency of service, serv i ce area, d a ta collection and analys i s, public outreach and marketing, and ADA complementary paratransit service. The final chapter, Chapter Five, looks forward over the next five years to the future direct ion of public transportation in Bay County. Recommended short-term priorit i es focus on enhancing the service currently provided by Bay Town Trolley and Bay Coordinated Transportation with Increased marketing efforts, i n fonnation dissem i nation, public involvement efficiency of the use of current facilities and vehicles. Bay CQunty Transit Development Pian x;x

PAGE 20

Chapter Five also includes the five-year imp lemen tat ion plan for public transportation. The plan is a culmination of all previous chapters and contains deta i led recommendations to help the system achieve its goals. Follow ing these recommendations, this chapter a lso contains a five-year financial plan. RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents recommendations for public transportation in Bay County over the next five years (through fiscal year 2001). The three sections of the recommendations pertain to issues related to both the fixed-route system and system, issues unique to the fixed-route system, and issues unique to the paratransit system. Each section is f urther arranged into recommendations on service, management, and marketing. All of the rec omme ndat ions relate to either immediate actions, actions over the next one to two years, or actions over three to five years. A table (Table ES-2) is also included t hat itemizes expenses associated with these recommendations. Public Transportation Service Recommendations Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next Three to Five Years 1. The MPO should investigate the potential for vehicles after useful life being leased or sold to local governments for use as a feeder seNice for the fixed-route service. In other counties of Florida, when vehicles are replaced by newer vehicles these vehicles are then operated by county or city governments as a feeder (demand-responsive) service that is coordinated with the fixed -route service. For example, in Broward County, Broward County (BCl) leases its vehicles to local municipalities for them to provide a community circulator service that feeds into one or more of BCT's fixed routes. Management Recommendations Actions To Be Initiated Immediately 2. Consistency with Local Comprehensive Plan Transit Element. Efforts should be made to increase densities along major corridors so that improved transit efficiencies and increased usage will result. The MPO should work with the Bay County municipalities to accomplish this. Table 5-1 shows suggested minimum residential densities and downtown nonXX Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 21

residential floor space requirements for varying levels of fiXed-route b us service as an example of an alternative policy for the Mass Transit Element. Table ES-1 Thresholds for Fixed-Route Transit Headway' Minimum Residential Dens-ity Minimum Downtown1 Type of Service (minute$) {dwelling unit&Jaere} Non-Res. Floor Spaoo (millions of sq. ft.) M inimum Local Bus 60 4 3.5 Intermediate Local Bus 3() 17 7 Frequent Local Sus 10 15 17 Exprass Bus Walk Access 3() 15 50 (avg. over 2 sq. mi.) Express Bus Drive Access 20 3 20 (avg. """' 20 sq mi. ) '"Headway" is defined as the time between transit vehicle arrivals. is defined as a c:ontiguous cluster of non-residential use and Is larger than the more narrowly defined CBD. Source: lmpltunetlting Eff6cllve TnWel OemMd Msnt1gemenf Measures, report prepared by Comsis CorpOfation forth& Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (Washing1on D.C.: ITE, June 1993), 1. 3. Provide additional passenger assislance techniques training for fiXedroute operators. With the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, there are more people with beginning to use public transit. Special assistance may be necessary on the part of the bus operator depending on the nature of the disability. It is recommended that the BCCOA should arrange for additional driver training for bus operators that focuses on how to handle/deal with persons with disabilities. Additionally, training should be continued with bus operators that focuses on passenger assistance techniques for persons with impairments in order to ensure the safety and comfort of all passengers and operators. Training of this sort will be necessary to assist in moving persons from the more expensive paratransit service to the less costly fixed-route bus system. 4. BCCOA should provide operations and planning training for Bay Town Trolley adminislrative employees. Employees with good know ledge of state-of-the-art operations planning for transit agencies would provide a great benefit for Bay Town Trolley. BCCOA should encourage administrative/operations employees to attend training in operations planning. 5. The MPO should pursue the evaluation of the establishment of long-term dedicated local funding sources for public transportation. Bay Town Trolley currently does not have a local dedicated funding source. Examples of local funding sources for transit from other Bay County Transit Development Plan xxl

PAGE 22

communities include local option gas taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, specia l assessments, and public/private partnerships (e.g private match to publ i c funds). According to the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, July 1996, a one-cent gas tax would generate approximately $790,000 of annual revenue in Bay County and a one-cent sales tax would generate approximately $21,100,000. 6. BCCOA should cross-train all administrative employees to perform duties for both Bay Town Trolley and Bay Coordinated Transportation. Dispatching and other administrative functions performed for BlT and BCT are currently performed by different staff members To adequately cover all administrative needs these employees should be trained to perform duties for both of the transportation systems. Actions To Be lnftiated Over the Next One to Two Years 7. Increase the MPO' s involvement in the review process for infrastructure Improvements, land use development, and the comprehensive planning process in the county and the cities. Decisions regarding infrastructure are often made without regard to transit needs (e.g sidewalks, curbcuts, bicycle fac i lities) The MPO should be involved in reviews to ensure that appropriate infrastructure is available a l ong streets on which the trolley r outes operate This could be accomplished by ensuring that the county and cities address public transportation related issues in their site plan reviews. These issues include the adequacy of transit access, location of bus stops, and pedestrian connections As an extra check the MPO should request to review site plans of Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). xxii In addition, land use patterns have a major impact on the effectiveness of a transit system. Neotraditional p l anning and trans i t-{)riented development are some of the recent concepts affecting the design of subdivisions and large developments The MPO should, also, seek to become involved in the review of land use and development plans so that it can offer its views on elements that help pub lic transportation to work effectively This may be accomplished through membership on relevant county and city committees that deal with l and use and infrastructu r e issues. Bay CQunty Tf81Jsit Developmenl Plan

PAGE 23

Bay Town Trolley Service Recommendations Actions To Be Initiated Immediately B Implement suggested changes in route frequency schedule, and configuration. A detailed analysis of the current Bay Town Trolley routes and schedules was perfo r med with suggestions from the BIT and MPO staffs and input from the public The suggestions are detailed in Appendix J The suggested changes attempt to lime transfers at Target (the ma i n transfe r point) so that the three trolleys meet at specific times I n the day. In addition, the routes we r e modified to better serve the exist i ng service area and provide additiona l transfer po i nts (that are presently unofficially used by riders of the system). 9. Re-establish the fixed-route serv i ce (Bay Town Trolley) as a deviated route servic e In a route-deviated service, a vehicle operates along a fixed route, making scheduled stops along the way. Vehicles will deviate one to two blocks from the route, howeve r to pick up and drop off passengers upon request After deviating, a vehicle then immediately returns to the fixed route at the point at which it departed to accommodate the request for deviation Route deviation is described as a hybrid configuration with features of fiXed-route, fixed-schedu l e transit service and demand responsive curb to-curb service the driver will not hel p the passenger to the door). This service is defined as demand-responsive, therefore, Bay Town Trolley would not be requi r ed to offer complementary ADA paratrans i t service accord i ng to the ADA Paratransit Handbook: Implementing the Complementary Paratransit Service Requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act o f 1990, by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (now the Federal Transit Admin i stration) of the U.S. Department of Transportation It is recommended that the deviated service be open to the general publ i c, and that only one to two deviations per trip be allowed, or as the schedule perm i ts. The veh i cles will deviate one to two blocks off of the fixed route And, requests for deviation from the fixed route would be made one day in advance and would be on a first-come, first-serve basis. 10. Modify the size and color of bus stop signs. The interviews with local officials revealed that the current s i gns displayed at BIT stops are not distinctive to the surroundings and are too small. One comment was that they blend into the backg r ound because they are "too" attractive. The background color of the signs should be changed to white while maintaining the same l ogo. The signs also should be bigger (using requirements for l ettering size as mandated by ADA) and face on-coming traffic rather than facing the road. From a marketing Bay County Transit Dev elopment Plan xxlli

PAGE 24

point of view, each bus stop sign represents a miniature billboard, and its promotional effect should be maximized. 11. Install bus stop signs with route schedules Once new route schedules are implemented, the specific schedule should be displayed on a separate smaller sign directly below the bus stop sign. These signs should be separate in anticipation of changes to the route schedules in future years. 12. Provide information kiosks at major transfer centers (e.g., Target). These kiosks should contain information on routes schedules fares, and the transit system as a whole. A full system map should be posted along with maps of routes serving the transfer center. Informa tion on payment options should also be included. One i nformation kiosk is planned for installation in the first year of the plan Lack of information on a transit system is w idely regarded as a barrier to use, and must be countered at every reasonable opportunity. 13. Install and privatize bus shelters at key locations. Key bus shelter locations have been identified by the MPO and BTT staff, as shown in Appendix K. The MPO has letters of interest for bus shelter permitting, construction, maintenance and sale of advertis i ng on the shelters, and is currently working to make the plan consistent local regulations. (Local sign ordinances need to be amended to allow for installation of bus shelters.} The install ation of these bus shelters must be pursued. Insufficient protection from Florida's sun and rain is a clear deterrent to transit use. To pay for these bus sheHers the MPO and BTT staffs have i nvestigated the possibility of privatizing shel t ers. Many transit systems in Florida hav e opted to imp lement the privatization of their sheHers and their advertising This program is usually run by an advertising company that would be responsible for the purchase and maintenance of the shelters as well as for the marketing/selling of advertising space. The MPO staff believes that be a net gain i n revenue for Bay Town Trolley Actions To Be Initiated Ove r the Next One to Two Years 14. Evaluate the need for additional bus stops and bus shelters based on comments and suggestions in the first two years of service. Once the reconfigured routes have been imple mented, the MPO should evaluate the need to establish additional signs and shelters. Generally signs should be placed every other block or approximately every 2110 mile An appropriate goal for BTT would be to have bus stops every one-quarter mile Shelters should xxiv Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 25

be placed at intersections where routes transfer, or areas of high transit ridership such as ret i rement centers, apartment complexes, etc. 15. After two years of service (one year after the major route and schedule changes), the MPO and BCCOA staffs should evaluate the overall success of Bay Town Trolley based on many factors. It is important to note that every urbanized area has a variety of factors that influence the su c cess of a transij system including demographics of the population, central business distr i ct size, the number of tourists, geographic features, and the characteristics of the transit service ijself In addition, ij must be emphasized that any new trans" service requires at least one to two years to establish itself in the community 16. After two years of service (one year after the major route and schedule changes) and again at three years of service, the MPO and BCCOA staffs should also evaluate the success of Bay Town Trolley against the performance measures of its peers. The performance of other systems with five or less vehicles was shown in Chapter Two. The average of certain measures for these peer systems sho uld be used as one method of eva l uating the performance of BTT. The key performance measures that should be us e d a r e : p assenger trips per revenue mile, passenger trips per revenue hour, and operating expense per passenger trip. The goal of BTT should be to attain 50 percent of the peer average after two years of service and 75 percent of the peer average after three years of service for passenger trips per revenue mile and passenger trips per revenue hour. For operating expense per passenger trip, the goal after two years of service should be to attain 175 percent of the peer average and 150 percent of the peer average after three years of service 17. The MPO and BCCOA staffs should periodically evaluate the success of Bay Town Trolley individual routes based on many factors. For Bay Town Trolley the first step in evaluating the success of the individual routes would be to eva l uate each of the routes based on a scoring evaluation process using six performance measures (riders per mi le riders per hour, revenue per mile, revenue per hour, operating ratio, and cost per rider). A score is calculated for each route by equally weighting these measures for each route to derive an overall route score. A route's score for a particular measure is based on a comparison of the measure as a percentage of the system average for that particular measure These individual measure scores are added together and divided by six to get a final aggregate score. This final score is an indication of a route's performance for all six measures when compared to the system average for those measures. A higher score represents batter overall performance when compared to other routes. The final step is to rank-order the routes based on their aggregate s c ores. Unfortunately, all of the data necessary to derive these measurements are not Bay County Transit Development Plan XXV

PAGE 26

currently collected on a route by route basis for en. However, an example of this analysis done for the transit agency in Vol usia County (VOTRAN} is contained in Appendix L. Another method of examining success by route is to examine the 1990 Census data for a 1/4mile buffer around all of the en fixed routes Census characteristics which historically have a significant effect on transn system performance include population densijy, zero-vehicle households, low income areas, and areas with higher levels of the very young and very old These characteristics make up what are known as transit dependent census tracts and are described in more detail in Chapter One The results of this analysis are contained in Append i x L. Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next Three to Five Years 18. Expand serv i c e to e arlier in the morning and late r in the evening On-board surveys and i nterviews wnh loca l officials indicated a need for this additional service particularly for the prov i s i on of work trips It i s recommended that service start approximately one h our earlier at 5:30 a m and run approximately one hour later in the evening until 7:30 p.m This expansion of serv ice would not requ i re any vehicles, however, it would increase annual operating costs by approximately 17 percent. This relatively small increment in service will make a d i fference in transit's attractiveness and r elevance. 19. Improve frequency of routes. comments and results of the on-board survey ind i cate a potential need for increased frequency on all of the routes Given the current fleet size of en, increased frequency on a l l of the existing routes could not be accomplished at present. However, with the addition of 1 vehicle the frequency of all routes could Increase by approximately 33 percent. 20 Provide Saturday service that would be nearly the same, ff not the same, as weekday service xxvi Interviews with l ocal officials and comments from cnizens revea l ed a potential deman d for fixed-route service on Saturday. Many service workers in Bay County do not work the traditional Monday th r ough Friday work week. Saturday service could provide transportation for these wor kers. Service would be the same as that provided during the week. The expansion of service to Saturday would not require any add i tional vehicles, however this service, if operated the same hours as on weekdays, wo u ld increase operating costs by approximately 20 percent. Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 27

21. In the next major update of the TDP {in three years), the MPO should evaluate the need to modify the service currently being provided to the existing service area. a) Replace loop routes with tum-around routes. BTT currently offers routes that loop around a geographic area, due to the limited vehicles available and the large geographic area to cover. The MPO should inv est igate in the future, the possibility of reconfiguring the routes to turnaround routes rather than loops to potentially decrease the ride times of its patrons. This reconfiguration, however, would require additional vehicles. b) Split the East Route into two routes. The current East Route is approximately 1-1/2 hours in length. c) Eliminate or modify the North Route. The North Route currently maintains the lowest ridership of all of the routes. In addition, the service area covered by this route was not shown to be transit dependent by the Census Tract Analysis. If ridership does not improve on this route before the next major update of the TOP elimination of the route should be considered. 22. In the next major update of the TDP {in three years), the MPO should evaluate the need to expand service to Tyndall Air Force Base, and other major employment centers not currently served by BTT. This evaluation should be based on the need demonstrated by suggested vanpool services and/or feeder services and reflected in comments and suggestions from citizens. The MPO should explore for funding partnerships with the Air Force Base, shopping centers, or other business centers. 23. Working with the MPO's Commuter Assistance Program {CAP), the MPO should evaluate the potential for a vanpoo/ service and/or feeder service to meat the needs of Tyndall Air Force Base and industrial parks. Input from citizens revealed that there could be a need for public transportation from Tyndall Air Force Base to destinations in Panama City. In the immediate future fixed-route service should not be extended to the base, however, the suitability of vanpool service or feeder bus service to meet the needs of base residents should be further evaluated. BTT vehicles that are replaced by newer vehicles could be used for this service. 24. Evaluate the ADA accessibility of Bay Town Trolley bus stops. The MPO should determine If any physical improvements need to made to BTT bus stops (e.g., sidewalks, curbcuts). The MPO should work with the appropriate local government to make these physical improvemen ts. Bay County Transit Development Plan xxvii

PAGE 28

In recently completed bus stop inventories for Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority and Hillsborough Area Regional Transit, physical improvements needed to meet ADA accessibility were analyzed. Management Recommendations Actions To Be Initiated Immediately 25. The MPO should ensure that the fixed-route service is in compliance with provisions of the American's with Disabilities Act. I n addition to prov iding lift-equipped fiXed-route service, a fixed-route service is required to provide other amenities for passengers with disabimies such as announcing major stops and transfer points along routes, and making schedule information available for visually imp aired persons and others, and providing ADA complementary paratransit service if the service remains a fixed-route service rather than deviated-route service. 26. Formally collect all required data for National Transit Database (formerly known as Section 15) reporting. Bay Town Trolley is a small enough system whe re requ ired data cou ld be collected on a continuous basis. The staff of BTT should coordinate with the MPO to follow the requirements outlined in FTA Circular 2710.1A which detai ls sampling procedures for obtaining required fixed route bus operating data. 27. Report monthly revenue expenditures in a format understandable to the MPO Board and other organizations with similar accounting knowledge. The current method of reporting revenue expenditures for operating expenses is difficult for the average person to follow. Simplified monthly data should also be reported. This is necessary to calculate data for monthly MPO reports. 28. BTT should wort< with the MPO to expand the formal monitoring program to track the performance of individual routes and formalize internal performance measures. This in f ormation is the basis for making decisions on the routing and fnequency of buses. Although some data are currently being collected, a more formal data monitoring and analysis program should be set up and followed {One option is to use RSVP volunteers to ride the trolleys and collect a sample of the necessary information.) This program would require a significant amount of person hours. In addition, formal guidelines or performance measures to be used in measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of transit service should be established. Certain measures such as riders per hou r or per vehicle mile are used to evaluate overall system performance. These performance measures are, also, required by the F lorida Department of Transportation for recipients of Block Grant monies xxvHi Bay County Tnmsit Development Plan

PAGE 29

29. Coordinate with the MPO's CAP to meet the seNice needs of major employers on the beach. As mentioned above, some employers have shown an Interest In Bay Town Trolley services. Major employers in Bay County are listed in Appendix C. Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next One to Two Years 30. Explore the potential for advertising on the trolleys Advertising has proved to be a major source of revenue for many transn agencies across the state. They have successfully allowed tasteful adVertising on both the inside and outside of vehicles. One example is the specially painted supergraphic transit vehicles around the state that have proven to be an extremely popular method of advertising. These tYPas of vehicles can get the transit system noticed Similar advertising is used on vehicles in Pensacola, Orlando, Tampa, and Fort Myers. If pursued, BTT should ensure a consistent visual identification is placed on all of its vehicles. The advertiser would pay the full cost to supergraphic the vehicles. In addition to leasing advertising space on vehicles, the potential advertisers would bear the initial cost of painting the vehicles and returning them to their original state once the agreed upon advertising term had concluded. 31. MPO staff, with assistance from BTT staff, should conduct an on-board sutYey in 1997. An on-board survey using the same survey instrument as in the 1g96 BTT survey should be used. This Information would be useful to evaluate how BTT is improving and where changes need to be made. Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next Three to FiVe Years 32. For new vehicle purchases the MPO should investigate alternatiVe vehicles and ensure that the warranty information Is clearly defined. Existing vehicles have incurred many mechanical problems. Diesel vehicles as well as other vehicles that look like trolleys should be investigated for Mure vehicle purchases. In addition, for past vehicle purchases for Bay Town Trolley, the warranties for the vehicles were split between t hree different manufacturers/converters. The result was confus ion about which organization covered the warranty on which parts Marketing Recommendations Actions To Be Initiated Immediately 33. Produce improved route and schedule information After the new reconfigured routes and schedules are finalized this Information should be published in a new "Ride Guide. A Bay County Transit Development Plan xxix

PAGE 30

companion information card should also be produced. This card should be small enough to fit in a wallet and conta in minimal information. The cost of printing these ride guides could be covered if a company is found that wishes to advertise in the guide. 34. Set up tables/booths at special events for places such as Gulf Coast Community College or St. Andrews Towers for the purpose of promoting the sale of reduced fare passes on Bay Town Trolley. Bay Town Trolley currently offers discounts on bus fa r es when riders purchase the "Twenty Ride Ticker, a weekly pass, or a monthly pass. These passes should be marketed at special events in which BTT staff can set up a booth with in formation about the Trolley BTT staff should utilize existing marketing tools, such as the previously mentioned video at these events 35. Continue presentations in front of various groups, including town meetings social service agencies, churches, the downtown merchant association and civic associations. BTT and BCT staffs have consistently sought speaking opportunities to further educate groups about both BCT and BTT A video has been produced and already has been shown to various groups, which has proved to be a great tool to introduce the trolley to the public. The benefrt of these presentations has been invaluable and should continue by the staff of BTT. With assistance from the MPO, BTT staff should pursue presentations to groups that have particular transportation needs (e.g., previous presentations to people who have sustained head injuries). 36. The MPO should jointly promote bicycles on buses wfth the MPO's bicycle coordinator and Bay County Bicycle Clubs. All BTT vehicles have easy-to-use b icy cle racks. Bicycles on buses would help to address some of the concerns for bicycle safety at such locations as going across the Hathaway Bridge. Information about this service should be disseminated to bicycle riders and enthusiasts 37. Arrange for bus system map information to be included in the telephone directory for Bay County. This is an easy way to make in formation on the transit system available to the general public in their homes. Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next One to Two Years 38. Worl
PAGE 31

and able to provide the charter service wh i ch the recipient desires to provide If there is at least one private provider wiUing or able to provide the charter service the organizat ion is prohibited from providing the service themselves The inten t of these rules is to ensure that publicly funded equipment i s not to compete with private enterprise Bay Coordinated Transportation Setylce Recommendatjons Actions To Be lnltleted Immediately 39. Continue the vehicle replacement program and purchase new vehicles while invesligeting other sources of vehicles other than CUIT8nt/y used because of maintenance problems The TO capita l i mprovement program i s co n ta i ned i n T able S.5. Manaaement Recommendations Actions To Be Initiated Immediately 40. Continue to pursue a method of more effectively serving the Mexico Beach area of Bay County through an lnter-CTC agreement with the Gulf County ere. 41. BCCOA should continua to pursue the inclusion of Medicaid under coordinated transportation service in Bay County. Medicaid has not operated within the coordinated system since September 30,1995. It is not within the control of the MPO or BCCOA to require them to operate under the coordinated system, and BCCOA has worked diligently to assist Medicaid I n finding solutions to meet the i r budget reductions However with the start of Bay Town Trolley Bay County Counci l on Aging could suggest add iti onal solutions to Medica i d such as monthly passes as an option for transportation . Other transit programs in Florida have developed bus pass programs for clients of particular agencies (e.g., Medicaid). ln some programs, agency clients who have three or more appointments per m o nth are eligible to receive a monthly pass good for any number of trip s on the fixed-route bus service The clients who take advantage of this program give up their para translt rights, unless for some reason the fixed-route bus service is not able to accommodate their needs. These programs have resulted in cost savings for the system because the fixed-route system is more cost-efficient than paratransit servi ce Where mobility limitations do not restrict cli ents from uslng fixed-route service arrangements Transi't Development Plan

PAGE 32

with agencies should be made for the MPO in coordination with Bay County Council on Aging to attempt to shift trips from BCT overto BTT. 42. Increase education to clients and agencies about the ne>-show policy. BCCOA staff members meet annually with purchasing agencies and work on a daily basis to communicate and reinforoe the no-show policy. However, as indicated by the on-board survey of BCT, many riders commented that the ne>-show policy was too harsh BCCOA should investigate where the breakdown in communication as to the no-show policy takes place and work to increase education so that riders understand the necessity of the strictness of the no-show policy in influenc ing behavior and cost-effectiveness 43. The MPO should promote the dollar voluntary contribution license tag renewal forms. The BTTIBCT Marketing Director should work with the community to sponsor awareness of TO programs and specifically the voluntary dollar. 44. BCT should review and monitor vehicle maintenance record keeping. From fis ca l year 1992 to fiscal year 19 93 reported roadcalls for BCT increased from 10 to 40. Efforts should be made to monitor future record keeping for BCT. Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next One to Two Years 45. BCT should monitor the petformance of BCT on a route or zonal basis. On a system-wide basis BCT compares favo rably with its peer systems as was shown in Chapter Two. However, BCT should also be effectiveness and efficiency of service on a zonal basis to determine if any future modification of service will be needed. 46. BCT should continue to monitor petformance measures identified as weaknesses in their trend analysis The weaknesses reflected in BCT's trend ana lysis were partially related to the system's rapid growth in service from FY1992 to FY1995. However, BCT must ensure that future growth in vehicle miles and passenger trips is consistent with the agency's goals and objectives xWi Bay County Transff Oeveloptl'Hlnl Plan

PAGE 33

10.111 S/gnogo 1 2 Kloa:k t 1 8 Exlendod S.rvloe Houro 19 Improved Frequency 20. Saturday SeNice 33. New Btochures TobleES-2 Bay County Transit Development Plan Estimated Cost of Recommendations {in 1 996 dollaro) Number AnnuaJ Unit Cost Opemlng ofUnftl: Cost S35faign 90 11/a $200/kioak 1 11/a $27.43/tevenu& hour 2,496 $68,465 $96,758/v e hk:le 1 $96,758 $27 .43/revenue hour 2,392 $65,613 $0.401btodlute 6 000 11/a Bay County Ttll>$i! Development Plan Annual Capftal FIICII y..,. Revenue Cos.t Allocr.ct 11/a $3,150 FY 97 n/a $200 FY97 $407 nta FY911-0I $611 $135,000' FY99-0I $469 nta FY911-01 n/a 52,000 FY9 7 !OOCiii

PAGE 34

xxxiv Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 35

Figure ES-1 Bay Town Trolley Routes and Trans it Dependent Census Tracts Bay County, Florida Sus Routes :===Beeeh Rooto Oownt
PAGE 36

XXXVI Bay County Tl8nslt Development Plan

PAGE 37

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER ONE BASE DATA COMPILATION To better p lan for the continuing development, i mprovement, or expansion of a public transportation system, H is necessary to gain an understanding of the environment within which the system operates. To achieve this end, Chapter One analyzes the demographic and economic condi tions of Bay County and its population utilizing 1990 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) data as well as information collected from interviews with key local elected officials, community leaders, and local citizens, as well as from on-boa r d passenger surveys from the Bay T own Trolley and the Bay Coordinated Transportation service. Also, additional information has been prov ided by the West Florida Regional Planning Council, the Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and other municipalities in Bay County. Bay County has a long history of public transportation inc luding transit and paratransit. Fixed-route transit was operated by the City of Panama City within its city limits from after World War II until May 1982. The service was discontinued partially due to a continuing decline in public participation and a trend of decreas ing ridership In the final full fiscal year (1980/1981) the system provided 94,008 passenger trips. The majority of the regular riders were domestic help followed by senior citizens and lower income residents. The Bay Town Trolley a new fixed-route system in the urbanized area of Bay County, began operations in December 1995. It is operated under the Bay County Council on Aging for a three year trial period with four trolleys (one spare) on five routes. Additional information on the trolley is provided in Chapter Two. Paratransit service has been coordinated by the Bay County Council on Aging, Inc. since 1983 when they were selected as the Community Transportation Coordinator for Bay County. In 1995, Bay Coun\y Council on Aging provided or contracted for 170,230 passenger trips for 7,473 persons. Additional informati on on paratransit service is provided In Chapter Two. BAY COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS Bay County is a coastal community located in the Panhandle of Florida, bounded by Washington and Jackson Counties to the North, Calhoun and Gulf Counties to the East Walton County to the West, and the Gulf of Mexico to the South The county encompasses approximately 764 square land miles. In the 1990 Census, the population was estimated at 1 26,994 Panama City is the largest city and the county seat with a 1990 population of 34,378. Surrounding towns and their B<>y County Transit Development Plan 1

PAGE 38

popu l at ions i nclude : Callaway (12,253) lynn Haven (9,298), Springfield (8,71 5), Parker ( 4 598) Panama City Beach ( 4,051 ), Cedar Grove (1,479), and Mex ico Beach (992) The rema in ing population (51,230) live in unincorporated areas of Bay County The current (1995) population of Bay County is 138,798 (as projected by Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of F l orida) This section summarizes demographic and economic data for Bay County Specifically, characteristics related to potentia l transit use are presented Data used i n this chapter were obta ined f rom the 1980 and 1990 USCB s Census of Popu l ation and Housing databases and where applicable from April 1 1995 county population estimates provided by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) located at the Uni versity of Florida Finally Appendix A includes tables that denote in detail, the demographic and economic data examined herein for all census tracts in Bay County. Population, Population Growth Rates, and Population Densities As shown in Table 1-1 the 1990 popu l ation of Bay County Is 126 ,994 perso ns. According to the USCB s population est i mates, the county's population i ncreased from 97 ,740 persons in 1980 to 126,994 persons in 1990 ; a 10-year growth rate of nearly 30 percent. During thi s same t im e period, Florida's population gre w at a slightly higher rate (33 percent versus 30 percent) Based on estimates provided by BEBR the county's population was projected to be 138,7981n 1995, and is estimated to grow more than eight percent to 150 ,605 by the year 2000. Population densities were also examined, since higher densities are generally more conduci ve to transit use Table 1-1 shows that Bay County's 1990 popu l ation density of 1 66 persons per square mile I s significantly l ess than the sta t e s population density of 2 4 0 persons per square mi l e In addition according to 1990 Census data the population density of Bay County is significantly greater than that of its neighboring counti es of Walton (26 persons per square mile), Washin gton (29 persons per square mile), Calhoun (19 persons per square mile), and Gulf (20 persons per square mile). Table1-1 General Populations, Growth Rates and Densities Aroo 1tl0 1990 Populotlon Pop
PAGE 39

Table 1-2 outlines the nine most populous census tracts in Bay County. These nine tracts all have populations greater than 5,000 persons. According to 1990 Census data, tract 008 isthe most populous with 14,332 total persons residing within its physical boundaries. This particular census tract encompasses the area surrounding the City of Callaway. Tract 014 primarily containing the City of Lynn Haven, is the second-most populous with 11,407 persons and, finally, the third tract with a population greater than 10,000 is tract 026 (11,045 persons), in the eastern portion of Panama City Beach. Tract 002, with a population of 5,406, is, by far, the largest tract in the county with approxJmately 282 square mOes of land area. Nearly all ofthe census tracts in Table 1-2 are contained within the boundaries of the Panama City Urbanized Area Table 1-2 Highest Populations by Census Tract (1990) Bay County Census Tract Area 1990 Population 008 ca11away 14.332 014 lynn Haven 11,407 026 Panama City Beach 11.045 015 Panama City 8,055 013 Hiland Parle; 7,665 027 Panama City Beach 6,565 002 Southport 5 ,405 011 Cedar Grove 5,065 004 Bayou George 5.032 Source: 1990 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) of Population and Housing. There are also nine census tracts within Bay County with population densities greater than 2,000, as measured by total persons per square mile of total land area (less water area), and these are listed in Table 1-3. The tracts with the highest densities tend to be located in the south-central pert of the county along the gulf coast, as illustrated in Figure 1 -1. These census tracts encompass areas within Panama City and the surrounding municipalities such as Cedar Grove and Parker. Census tract 023, in western Panama City, is the most dense tract In the county with approximately 3, 718 persons per square mile. As expected, tract 023 is one of the smallest of the tracts within Bay County, in terms of land area size: this particular census tract has only 1.11 square miles of total land area, and is located in southwest Panama City, along St. Andrew Bay. A wide range of population densities was evident among the census tracts in the county. More than one-half of the 27 tracts in Bay County have densities greater than 1 ,000 persons per square Bay Courrty Transit Development Plan 3

PAGE 40

mile, while four census tracts have population densities of less than 50 persons per squa re mile of tota l l and area. Only one census tract is listed in both Tables 1-2 and 1-3: tract number 011, encompassing the Cedar Grove area, which is the eighth most populous (5,066 persons) and the sixth most dense (2,590 persons per square mile) tract withi n the county. 4 Census Traet 023 019 017 022 024 011 009 018 025 Table1-3 Highest Densities by Census Tract (1990) Bay County Density Area Square Miles of land Area (persons per squa.re mile} PonomaClty 1 .11 3,718 Panama City 1 .33 3,672 Panama City 1.18 2,685 Panama City 1 .64 2,638 Panam11 City 1. 6 1 2 626 Cedar Grove 1 96 2 690 Parker 1.94 2 375 Panama City 0.77 2 208 Panama City 1.61 2 028 Source: 1990 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) of Population and Housing, Bay County Transit Devefopment Plan

PAGE 41

Figure 1-1 Popu l ation Density by Census Tract Bay County, Florida Population Densrty by Cetl$1,,.'$ T roct 2.300 TO 3 .SCO (7) 1.300 To 2.300 (8 ) 7C0 to 1 ,300 (4} 0 IO iOJ (8) ... ... .... Mitt ... -"' -... . ---

PAGE 42

6 BIJy County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 43

Demographic Characteristics To investigate the transportation needs of a given area, certain distinct segments of the population must be examined. One step i n the development of a TOP requires analyzing segments of the study area's population that consist of persons who a r e defined as being dependent on public transportation for their mobility requirements. In Florida these persons are referred to as either transH-dependent or transportation disadvantaged, a narrowe r definit i on from Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes. These groups are commonly referred to using the acronym "TO." Examination of the transportation-disadvantaged population is especially i mportant in developing the TOP for Bay County due to the county's large concentration of young and elderly persons The categories that comprise the transportation dependent segments of Bay County's population include : Youth {persons under the age of 18); Eldet1y (persons 60 years of age and older); Low income (persons with incomes below the f ederally-established poverty level) ; and Zero -car households (households in which no car is available) Data from the 1990 Census were used to obtain the number of persons in each of the TO categories. The following sections provide a description of the demographic characteristics of Bay County in terms of the TO categories listed above. Transportation Disadvantaged Population Chapter 427 of the Florida Statues defines transportation disadvantaged (TO) persons as: ... those persons who because of physica l or mental disability i ncome status, or age are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping social activities, or children who are handicapped or high -risk or at risk as defined in s. 4 1 1 202." The Florida Coordinated Transportation System serves two population groups. The first group, n ow being referred to by the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (C T D) as the Potential" TO population (also known as Category I TO population ) includes persons who are disabled, elder1y, low-income and children who are high-risk" or "at-risk." These Potential TD persons are eligible for trips that are sponsored by social service or other governmental agencies. The second population group, referred to by the CTO as the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) population (also known as Category II), is a subset of the Potential TO population. The TO population i ncludes those persons who are transportation disadvantaged according to the definition Bay CoufTiy Transit Deveropr116nl Plan 7

PAGE 44

in Chapter 427 F.S. (i e., they a r e unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation). These persons are el i gible to receive the same subsidies as those persons in the Potent i al TD group, plus they are eligible to receive trips subsid i zed by the TD Trust Fund monies allocated to local transportation coordinators (CTCs) by the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, as funding permits Table 1-4 shows the 1995 estimates for persons who are included in the Potential TD populat i on. This figure, 48, 553, r epresents approximately 35 percent of the county's 1995 population. Table 1-4 also i ncludes the 1995 estimate of TD population in Bay County. Approx i mately 11,554, or 8.3 percent of the county's population, are estimated to be included in the TD population and, therefore, would meet the criteria for be ing considered transportation disadvantaged and eligible to receive trips subsidized by the TD Trust Fund. Table 1-4 1995 Bay Co unty Transportation Disadvantaged Populations Population Segments Popu1atlon Estimates Pereent of County Pop. Potential TO Population 48.55-3 35.0% TO Population 11.554 8.3% Souroe: Estimates obteined by CUTR using the methodoiogy described in MethOdology Guld6/ines for Forecasting TD DtmMd at the COunty Level. Table 1-5 contains a detailed breakdown of the different categories of population within Bay County's Potential TD population. The two la r gest subgroups are the non-disabled, elderly, non low income ; and the non-disabled, non-elderly, low income who comprise approximately 27 percent and 32 percent of the 1995 Potentia l TD population, respectively Table 1-6 shows a detailed breakdown of the 1995 population estimates for the TD population which is a subset of the Potent ial TD population. The largest subgroup of the estimated 11,554 persons in the TD population is the subgroup comprised of the transportation disabled, elderly, and non-low income. This subgroup contains approximately 49 percent of the TD population. 8 Boy County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 45

Tablo1-5 1995 Bay County Potential Transportation Disadvantaged Population Population Segments Population Estimates Percent of Potential TO Disabl ed Non-Etdetly,Low Income 1 ,259 Disabled, Non-Elderly, Nunty Transit Development Plan 9

PAGE 46

Table 1-7 1995-2000 Bay County Potential Transportation Disadvantaged PopuLation Projections Population Segments 1996 1996 1997 1998 i Disabled, Non-Eiclerty, Low Income 1 259 1,2n 1.295 1.314 I Disabled Non-Eidetfy, Income 7 42Z 7,529 7,637 7,746 [l;sabled Elderly, Low Income 1,308 1.34 2 1.3n 1,413 Disab led Efdetly, I ncome 7 905 I 8 ,111 8,323 8,540 Non-Disabled, Elderty, Low Income 2 .18 1 2,238 2.296 2,356 Non..()iubled, Ekferfy. Non.Low Income 13 174 13,518 13,87 1 14,233 Non-Disabled, Non-Eiderty, Low Income 15,304 15,524 15,747 15,972 Total Potenti91 Trans.portation Disadvantaged 46 553 49 .53 9 50,546 51.574 Source: Estimatt4 obtained by CUTR using the m6t hodology described m MethOdology Guidelines for Forecasting TD Tf8nsportation Demand et the County L.ewl. Table 1995-2000 Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Population Projections Population Segments 19i5 1996 19i7 1998 Transportation Disabled, NonEiderty, Low Income 464 470 4n 464 T111nsportation Ofsabled, Non-Eide.rty. Non-l.Qw Tnoome 2,734 2 774 2,814 2,854 Trans.portJ!tion Oi:sabled, Eldetly. low Income 935 959 984 1,010 Transportation Ois,abled. Elderly. Non-low Income 5,649 5.797 5 946 6,103 N-on-Transportation Disabled. Low Income. 1,772 1 799 1,826 1,854 No Auto,No FixedRoute Transit Total Transportation Disadvantaged 11,554 11,799 12,049 12,305 1999 1,333 7,857 1,450 8,763 2,417 14,604 16,201 52,625 1999 491 2 895 1 038 6,263 1,882 12,567 2000 1 352 7,970 1,488 8,991 2 .480 14,985 16,434 53 700 2000 498 2,937 1,063 6,426 1,911 1 2.835 Souroe: Estimates prepared by cum. using the in Methodology Gui<:Selines for FofeGasM9 TO Tran.sportatlon Demand at the COunty LewH. Table 1-9 shows the percentage distributio ns for all age groups in Bay County and Florida. As mentioned, the age groups of primary interest in this TOP are those segments of the county's population that are considered to be TO. Specifically these segments are the age groups that comprise the county's youth and elder1y populations. It is evident from the data in Table 1-9 that Bay County's population is somewhat younger, overall, than that of the state. The county's age distribution indicates greater percentages for each of the 10 Bay Counzy Transit Development Plan

PAGE 47

age group categories under 59 years iti the category (60 years and over) does the state's percentage exceed that of Bay County with a difference of approximately seven percent. As with the state, the lar gest population age group within the c ounty is comprised of persons in the category of 25-44 years. However, the youth category (0-17 years), an important segment of the county's TD population, is the second-largest population group within the county It should be noted that no data were available for census tract 02699. According to 1990 Census data, the median age in Bay County is 33.2. This value reflects a 13 percent increase from the 1980 Census, when the median age was calculated to be 29.3 years. The county's median age is projected to increase more than 1 0 percent to 36.7 by the year 2000. The aging population within Bay County should be a consideration in the strategic planning and continuing development of public transportation I n the region. Table 1-9 Population Age Distribution (1990) Ana Age Group ( in years) G-17 18 2544 45-64 Ss-59 60+ Bay COunty 25.4% 9.7% 32 .3% 11.0% 4.6% 17.0% Florida 22.1% 9.2% 30.5 % 10.1% 4.5% 23.6% Source: 1 990 U S. <;ens,us Bureau (USCB) of Population and Housing. As discussed previously the age groups of under 18 and over 60 are of particular interest in this study. Those under the age of 18 are either too young to drive or do not have access to an automobile. Similarly, the elderly often do not have adequate access to automobiles and, due to limitations resulting from their age (poorer eyesight and reflexes), sometimes are no longer able to drive. Therefore, persons in these two age groups usually rely more on public transportation for their mobility. Tables 1-10 and 1-11 present those census tracts in Bay County with high concentrations of persons unde r 18 years old and persons over the age of 60, respectively. Examination of the county's population distribution by census tract utilizing 1990 Census data shows that the youth segment of the population (0-17 years) is distributed fairly evenly throughout the county, accounting for at least 15 percent of the population in all census tracts except 021 and 020 which include the central area of Panama City. The areas in which young persons are the most heavily concentrated, according to Table 1-10, are Tyndall Air Force Base (33.6 percent), Cedar Grove (31.1 percent), and the Hiland Park area (29.1 p ercent) Table 1-10 lists each census tract with a youth population measuring greater than 25 percent of the total tract population. Five of the tracts in the table below are also reported in Table 1-2 as being among the most populous in the county. They include tracts 004, 008 (which has the highest population with 14,332 persons), Bay County Transit Development Plan 11

PAGE 48

011, 013, and 014. In tracts 011, 017, and 018 are among the most dense in the county, with 2,590, 2,685, and 2,208 persons per square mile, respectively. Figure 1 pinpoints the loca t ions of t hese census tracts in Bay County. Table 1 denotes the census tracts a 20 percent or higher concentration of citizens over the age of 60. As evidenced in the table, three census tracts the county have an elderly population greater than 30 percent. Specifically, these census tracts are 020, 006, and 027, and inc lu de the areas of south-central Panama City Mexico Beach and Panama City Beach, respectively. Figure 1 -3 helps to demonstrate that the elderly popu lat ion is mainly concentrated within the boundaries of Panama City and along the beaches Census tract numbers 026 and 027, in addition to high percentages of elderly also have high general populations, relative to other tracts in the county. Also tracts 017, 022, and 023 have high population Interest i ngly tracts 016 and 017, in Panama City, are also evident in Tables 1-10 and 1-11 as having relatively high percentages of both youths and elderly. 12 Table 1-10 Percentage of Population 0 17 Years of Age by Census Tract (1990) Bay County Census T r;M;t A ..a Pereent 0-17 Years 007 TyndaJ I AFB 33 .6% 011 Cedar Grove 31. 1% 013 Hllond Park 29.1% 017 Panama City 28.8% 010 Springfiefd 28.8% 002 Southport 28.7% 016 Panama City 28.2% 014 Lynn Haven I 28.1% 008 callaway 28.0% 022 Panama City 27.7% 003 North Say County 27.4% 004 Bayou George 27.4% 018 Panama City 27.3% 025 Panama City 25.8 % Source: 1990 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) of Population and Housing. Bay County Development Plan

PAGE 49

Income Table 1 Percentage of Population 60 Years and Over by Census Tract (1990) Bay County Census Tract Aru Percent 60 YNrs and Over 020 Panama City 44 .8 % 006 Mexico Beach 30.8% 027 Panama City Beach 30.3% 021 Panama City 29.9% 019 Panama City 27.2% 023 Pan.Jma City 24.5% 022 Panama City 23.8% 016 Panama City 23.6 % 017 Panama City 21.7% 026 Panama City Beach 20.1% 0 1 8 Panama City Beach 19.2% 025 Panama City 18.9% 010 Sppment Plan 13

PAGE 50

Census tracts wherein at least 25 percent of the households have annual incomes of less than $10,000 are presented in Table 1-13 One such tract, number 020 in Panama City, has a 78 percent concentration of low-income households. Tract 020 also has the largest percentage of elderly residents in the county Again, tracts 016 and 017 containing high percentages of both youths and elderly are listed in Table 1-13 A l so, many of the relatively dense tracts shown in Table 1-3 are also presented in this table. As the map in Figure 1-4 demonstrates most of the lower-income households a r e located Panama City, Ceda r Grove, and Springfield Once again, no data were avai lab le for census tract 02699 Table 1 12 Household Income Distribution (1990) Income Level Area i s o 9,9119 $15,000 -19,9911 s20,ooo n,999 $30,000 + Bay County 17. 5 % 22.3% 20.5% 39.7% Floride 1 5 .1% 20.1% 18.8% 4 6 0% $o(.tr<;:e; 1990 U.S Census Bureau (USCB) o f Population and Housing. 14 Table 1 13 Annual Household Income Below $10,000 by Census Tract (1990) Bay County Census Tract Area Perce-nt Below $10,000 020 Panama City 77.6% 016 Panama City 46.3 % 0 1 8 Panama City 3&.5% 017 Panama City 35.9% 022 Panama Ci1y 34.8% 011 Cedar G10ve 29.5% 010 Springfteld 28.3% 021 Panama City I 26.7% Source: 1990 U.S. census Bureau (USCB) of Population and Housing. Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 51

Figure 1-2 Persons Under Age 18 by Census Tract Bay County, Florida Popul ation Under Age 18 by Census Tract (percent of population ) 31%1D34% II 27%"' 31% B 19%to27% 0% k119%

PAGE 52

16 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 53

Figure 1-3 Persons Over Age 60 by Census Tract Bay County, F lo rida Population Over Age 60 by census Tract (percent ot population) '' 29%to4$% li!l 18% 10 29% 0 8%1018% 0 0%10 8%

PAGE 54

18 By Ccunly Development Plan

PAGE 55

Figure 1-4 Households with Annua l income Under $10,000 by Census Tract Bay County, Florida Percent of Households with Annuallnoome Under $10,000 by Census Tratl 77% 11>78% (1) 26% "' 77% (7) 8 15% "'26% (9) 0% to 15% ( 10 } '

PAGE 56

20 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 57

Vehicle Avai l abili t y Table 1-14 outlines the distributions of veh i cle availability among o c cup ied h o using uni ts (used as a proxy for households) in Bay C o unty and Florida. In Bay County, nearly seven percent of the occupied h o using units do not have access to a vehicle, compared to the Florida s t atistic of nine percent. In addition, a l most 37 percent of housing units in the county have one vehicle available. From the t able, it is evident that Bay C o unty has more vehicles available on average, than the state of F l orida as a whole. Again, no data were available for census tract 026g9. Census tracts where i n at l east 13 percent of the occupied housing units do not have a vehi c le a re included in Table 1-15. As might be expected, each of the tracts l isted in the table also has a high concentration of low income households (a s shown in Table 1-13). Tract 020, in s outhcentral Panama City a long St. Andrew Bay (which contai ns St. Andrew Towers), not only has t he largest proportion of zero-vehicle housing unijs in the county (61 percent) but als o contains the hi g hest percentages of elder l y p ersons (45 percent) and low-income househo l ds (78 percent) in the county. Figure 1-5 graphically d epicts the distribut ion o f occupied housin g units wijh n o vehicles available. Tabl e 1-14 Vehicle A v ailability Dist r i b ution (1990) Number of Vehicles AvaiJabJe Area Zero One Two Th'"+ Bay County 6.6% 36.7% 41.1% 1 5 .6% Florida 9 .2% 41.0% 36.8% 12.9% SOurce: 1990 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) of Poputation and HaU$ing. Bay County Tmnsit Development Plan 21

PAGE 58

Table 1 -15 Occupied Housing Units with Zero V eh icles Available by Census Tract (1990) Bay Cou nty Census Traa: Area Zero Vehicles Available 020 Panama City 60 6% 016 P a namaCfty 27.7% 018 Panama City 2 1 .0% 022 Panama CCty 18.2% 017 PanamaCi1y 16.9% 010 Springfield 13.9% 02 1 Panama City 13. 6% 011 CedatGrove 13.4% Source: 1990 U .S. Census Buteau (USCB} of Population anct HOU$lng. Table 1-16 lists the census tra ct s with the greatest average number of vehicles per o ccu p ie d hou s ing unit. In Figure 1-6 shows the distribution of the number of vehicles per o ccu pied housi ng una. As the table indicates tract 025 in northwestern Panama has the highest n umber of vehicles pe r housi ng unit with 2.1. O t her areas with hi g h vehicle density include Callaway, Parker Southport and the northern and eastern portions of the county. 22 T able 1-16 Highest Averag e Number of Vehicles Per Occupied Housing Unit by Census Tract (1990) Bay County CentUS Tract A rea Vehicles p&r Occupied Housing Un it 025 Panama City 2 1 015 Panama City 1 9 008 Callaway 1.9 005 Eas t Boy County 1 9 009 Palker 1 .8 007 TyndatiAFB 1.8 002 Southpo
PAGE 59

Figure 1 5 . : Percent of Occupied Housing Units with No Vehicles Avai lab l e by Census Tract Bay County, Flo rida Occ u p ied Housing with No Vehicles Ava i lab l e by CeMU$ T ra<:C. 50%1060% ( \ ) l5l 20% I<> 50'/ (2) 0 10%to20% (5) 0 0% to 10'% ( 1 9 ) : . ... : . . : .. . . ... ..

PAGE 60

24 Bay County Trunsit DBve!opment Plan

PAGE 61

Figure 1-6 Vehicles pe r Occupied Housing Unit by Census Tract Bay County, Florida 0 Vehi cles Available per Occupie<:l H ousin g Unit by census Tract 1.8102.1 (9) ili;l 1.5 10 1.8 (8) 0 1 to 1.5 (8) Oo 1o 1 (<) :t:> ... ... ;,.,.. ...... _,_

PAGE 62

26 Ba y County Tl8tlsil O.velopmenl Plan

PAGE 63

Occupied Housing Unit Density and Persons per OCcuPied Housjna Uojt Housing unit density is defined as the number of occupied housing untts per square mile. Table 1 -17 presents the census tracts with more than 1 ,000 housing units per square mile. As the table and Figure 1-7 show, these tracts are located main ly in Panama Ctty and the cities of Parker and Cedar Grove Census Tract 023 0 1 9 024 022 017 009 018 011 Table 1-17 Highest Housing Unit Densities by Census Tract (1990) Bay County Area Squa"' Miles o f Land Housing Unit Density (housing units per square mile) Panama City 1.11 1,800 Panama City 1 .33 1,746 Panama City 1.61 1,299 Panama City 1.64 1 ,2 04 Pan ama City 1 .18 1 187 Parker 1 .94 1,160 Panama City o n 1, 135 Ced3rGrove 1 .96 1,015 Souroe: 1990 U S C ensus B ureau (USCB) of P<>pulalion and Housing. Table 1 -18 presents the census tracts wtth an average of at least 2.6 persons per housing unH. Tract 007, encompassing Tyndall Air Force Base, has the greatest level of housing dens ity in the county wtth 4.6 persons per housing unit. As can be seen in Figure 1-8, a significant maj omy of tracts (20 out of 27 tracts) have an average of between two and three persons per housing unit and are locate d in the eastem portion of Bay County Table 1-18 Persons per Housing Unit by Census Tract ( 1990) Bay County Census Tract Mea P ersons pe-r Housing Unit 007 TyndaD AF8 4.6 005 East Bay county 2.8 014 Lynn Haven 2.6 015 Panama City 2.6 Souroe: 1 990 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) of Population and Housing. Bay County Transit Development Plan 27

PAGE 64

28 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 65

Housing Unit Figure 1-7 Housing Unit Density by Census Tract Bay County. Florida by C&nS1J$ Tr;).Ct (hou$\ng \ln l tslsq.mi) 1.100"' 1 800 (7) 1!1 600"' 1 100 (8) 0 300"' 600 (5) 0 0 "' 300 (7) : . . . . ... .. co, . ... .. ..

PAGE 66

Bay County Tfllnsit Development Plan

PAGE 67

Figure 1-8 Persons per Housing Unit by Census Tract Bay County, Florida Persons per Ho using by Census Tract 3.4, 4.6 (1) II 2.3, (9) 0 1.2 "'2.3 (13 ) 0 0 "'1.2 (4)

PAGE 68

32 Bay County Trsnsff Development Plan

PAGE 69

Labor Force Part icipa tion and Commuting Patterns This section outlines information related to labor force participation and commuting patterns in Bay County. Specifically, H addresses data that pertain to work trips to determine if public transportation could better provide these types of trips to the res idents of the county. Table 1-19 outlines employment density by place of resid ence in Bay C o unty. Census tracts in which the proportion of the population in the labor force per square mile is at least 32 percent are shown in the table These tracts are alsb shaded in red on the map in Figure 1-9, and are locat ed primarily in Panama City. Census Tract 018 020 021 023 019 Table 1 Highest Employment Densities by Census Trsct (1990) Bay County Area Squaro Milos of Employed Persons LandAJN Age 16+ Panama City 0.77 594 Panama City 0.33 68 Panam$ City 121 632 Panama City 1.11 1.804 PanamaCily 1 33 2, 113 Source: 1990 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) of Population and Housing. Percent in Labor Force per Mile 45.5% 41.5% 40. 0% 39.2% 32.6% Table 1-20 displays the percentage of the population 16 years and older in the labor force and the percentage of the civilian labor force who are employed. The proportion of Bay County workers in the labor force is approximately 20 percent less than the state percentage of 60 percent. Both the county and the state exhibit similar proportions of civilian employment. Some of the larger employers in Bay County include Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County School Board, and Bay Medical Center. Bay County Transit Development Plan 33

PAGE 70

Table 1-20 Labor Force Characteristics (1990 ) Area Percentage of Persons Percentage of Age 16+ In Labor Foree Labor Force Empk)yed BoyCo
PAGE 71

Figure 1-9 Employment Density by Census Tract Bay County, F l orida ; Perce n t o f Popu lation i n Lobor For ce\ per SC;uore W ile b y Census Troct 32% to 46 % (6) 1il 15% to 32% (8) [] 3 % t o 15% (5) 0 0 % to 3 % (8) """.,.; """'" . . : . : ; . ; : .. '" ' t

PAGE 72

&y County Tmll$lt C>eveloprmnt Plan

PAGE 73

Table 1-22 Bay County Wort
PAGE 74

public transportation for the work trip are shown in Table 1. The table and Figure 1-10 show that three of the four tracts are l ocated in Panama City, while tract number 003 contains northern Bay County Area Bay County Tab le 1 Journey-to-Work Mode Split (1990) Drive Alone Carpool 81.2% 12.9% 77 .1% 14.1% Travel Mode I Public Transportation 0 1% Z.O% Sourc:e: 1990 U.S. CtnSU$ Sur"u (U$C8) of PopuJjtJOn and Housing Table 1 24 Persons Who Use Public Transit for the Work Trip by Census Tract (1990) Bay County Census Tract ArN Pereent Using Public Transit 022 Panama City 1.2% 018 Panama City 1 .0% 003 Nonh Bay County 0.6% 016 Panama City 0 .$% Source: 1990 U S Census e...reau (USCS) of Population and Housing. Olher 5.8% 6 .8% Table 1-25 and Figure 1-11 provide a further breakdown by census tract of the persons in Bay County who carpoo l to work. Tract number 010 in the Springfield area and tract 003 in the northern part of the county have the largest share of carpoolers with 28 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Five of the tracts listed in Tab le 1-25 (010 011, 017, 018, and 022, covering Panama City, Cedar Grove, and Springfield) were discussed in earlier sections as having high concentrations of low-in come and zero-vehicle households. This is a logical resuH, since those who cannot afford other means of transportation (such as a taxi or private automobi le ) often ride to work with those who have a vehicle 38 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 75

Table 1-25 Persons Who Carpool for the Work Trip by Census Tract (1990) Bay County Census Tract Area Percent Carpool 010 Springfield 28.3 % 003 North Si;y County 23.2% 018 Panama City 18,9% 009 Pariter 18 .3% 004 Bayou George 18 1% 011 Cedar Grove 17 .6% 022 Panama City 16.6% 013 H iland Park 16.1% 017 Panama City 1 5.2% Soutce: 1990 U.S Census Bureau (USCB) of Population and Housing. The largest proportion of workers in Bay County travel between 10 and 19 minute s to work, according to 1990 Census data, as Table 1-26 illustrates. This finding is also true for the state. Overall, workers in Bay County have shorter work commutes than those in the state as a whole. The areas where more than one-third of the workers have commutes of less than 10 minutes are concentrated In Panama City and Panama City Beach. Exp ected ly, a large percentage (43 percent) of workers at Tyndall Air Force Base have work trips under 10 minutes in length. Most of the census tracts wherein the largest percentage of people commute more than t hirty minutes are located In the northern and eastern portions of the county, as Figure 1-12 shows Interestingly, two of the tracts are located in Panama City and Panama City Beach To further illustrate worker travel times, Table 1-27 shows the 7 census tracts in which more than 20 percent of workers traveled 30 minutes or more to work. Three of the tracts in this table also have high percentages of workers who carp ool (tracts 002, 003, and 010). Bay County Transit Development Plan 39

PAGE 76

Bey County Transit Deve!opmflnt Plan

PAGE 77

Figure 1-10 Percent of Labor Force with Over 30 Minutes Travel Time to Work by Census Tract Bay County, Florida Percent of Labor Force Over 30 Minute s Travel lune to Wont (by Census Tract) 38%1<>66% (3) 11,'114% to 3S% (13) B ?'%to \4% {9) O% eo 7'Yo (2)

PAGE 78

4 2

PAGE 79

Figur e 1-11 Percent of Labor Force Using Public Transportation by Census Tract Bay County, Rorida 0 . Percent of Labor Force Using Public T ransportation by Census Tract I.O l%tol.17% (2) I! 0.39% to 1.0 1 % (4} 0.29% to0.39% ( 1 } ___

PAGE 80

44 Bay County Ttall$lt Developmenl Plan

PAGE 81

Tab!& 1-26 Trave l Time to Work (1990 ) Travel Time i n Minutes (percent of wol'tters) Area 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 Bay County 18. 9% 42.7% 20.9% 11.6% Florida 16.0% 33.0% 21.0% 17.0% Souroe: 1990 U.S. Census Bureau {USCB) of Population and Housing. T able 1-2 7 Tra vel Time to Work 30 M i n utes and Over By Census Tract (1990) Bay County Census Tract Area Travel Timo M inutes 003 North Bay County 65.6% 002 Southport 42.9% 004 Bayou George 38.2% 005 East Bay Counly 22.6% 010 Springfiel d 21.9% 027 P anama City Beach 21.7% 008 Mexico Beach 20,6% Source: 1 990 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) of Populat ion and Housing. Bay County Trans;t Development Plan 40+ 5.9% 1 3 0% 45

PAGE 82

46 Bay County Plan

PAGE 83

Figure 1-12 Percent of Labor Force Using Carpools by Census Tract Bay County, Florida Percent of Labor Force Using Carpools by Census Tr act 17%to29% ( 6 ) t 2% to \7% (10) 0 9'Yo to 12% (7) 0 0%to 9% "'

PAGE 84

Bay County Tranoit Developnwnt Plan

PAGE 85

Summary of Demographic Characteristics Information gathered from the Census about the demographic characteristics of Bay County are summarized here. Ove r all between 1980 and 1990 the cou n ty's population grew substantially ( 30 percent}. However the county's growth rate was still slightly b e low Florida's growth rate during the same time period (nearly 33 percent). Bay County's three most populous census tracts, according to 1990 Census data, are contained in Callaway (008), Lynn Haven (0 1 4), and Panama City Beach (026} The th ree most dense tracts are 023, 019, and 017, which are all located within Panama City. The transportation disadvantaged represents a large portion of Bay County's tota l population Using Bay County popu l ation estimates provided by BEBR in 1 995, there are an estimated 48,553 persons in the Potential ID (Category I TD} population and 11 ,554 persons in the TD (Category II} group residing in Bay County. These two groups account for 35. 0 percent and 8 3 percent, respectively, of the estimated 138,798 persons who were residing in Bay County in 1995. The county's age distribution reflects a relatively young population, especially when compared to the state of Florida. It is estimated that approximately 83 percent of the county's popu l at ion is below the age of 60. This could be changing, however, as the median age of persons i n the county is projected to cont i nue increasing through the year 2000 The level of affluence i n Bay County is somewhat less than that of the state as a whole. This is illustrated by the fact that the 1990 Census estimates ind i cate that a greater percentage of the county's households have annual incomes less than $30,000 than does the state (60 percent versus 54 percent}. Further 40 percent of Bay County households have i ncomes of $30,000 o r more compared to 46 percent for the state. However, overall, the county has more vehicles avai lable than Florida in general. In addition, 1990 Census data show that only about seven per cent of households in the county have no vehicles available compared to nine percent for the state. Employment and commut ing characteristics were also examined In Bay County more workers are employed in the central city (Panama City) than in the suburbs, whereas the opposite holds true for the state of Florida. Altogether the percentage of commuters driving alone in Bay County is more than 81 percent, compared to 77 percent for the state. Following from the high percentage of those driving alone, levels of carpooling and public transportation use are lower than state averages. In addition residents in Bay County generally have shorter work commutes than residents in the state as a whole. Areas in the county with longer work trips a r e mostly outside the central city, in the northern and eastern portions of the county Bay County Transit Development Plan 49

PAGE 86

Several census tracts were found to have high percentages of more than one of the characteristics analyzed in this sect i on. Interestingly, tract number 020 in Panama City was found to contain the largest proportions of elderly persons, low-i ncome households, and zero-vehicle households The following section includes an analysis which focuses on transit-dependent characteristics, such as the elderly, youths, low-income households, and households without access to a vehicle. Tracts establ is hed as transit-dependent will be analyzed to detennine whether they are served by the Bay Town Trolley's existing route network, and will be used to show the locations with h ighest potential need for transit. TRANSIT DEPENDENT CENSUS TRACT ANALYSIS Census tract data from 1990 can be used to compare demographic infonnation, part icula rly those characteristics that are highly correlated with a person's or household's need for tra nsit, with the county's existing transit network configuration This type of analysis is useful for determining whether census tracts with transit-dependent characteristics are adequately served by the existing transit networK. For this analysis, the demographic characteristics that were used to indicate transit dependence included the distribution of elderly (60 years or o l der) persons, young persons (under 18 years of age), low-income (less than $10,000 annual household income) households, and zero vehicle-ownership households. The first step in identifying the census tracts that have persons or households with the greatest propensity for transit use involved the calculation of the percent distributions of the four demographic characteristics for each tract. This process resuHed in a table of values indicating the percent of elderly persons, low-income households and zero-vehicle households for 26 of Bay County's 27 census tracts. Tract number 02699, for which no data are available, was excluded from this analysis. The census tracts were then sorted for each characteristic in descending order of percent distribution so that the tracts with higher percentages for each characteristic would appear at the top of their respect ive ranges. From the percentage ran ges an average percent value and a standard deviat i on value were calculated for each characteristic. Statistically, the standard deviation may be thought of as a measure of distance from the average value. According to an empirical rule of thumb, for most moderately-sized data sets with a bell-shaped nonnal distribution, approximately 68 percent of the data values w ill lie within one standard deviation of their average and approximately 95 percent of the data values will lie within two standard deviations of their average. Each of the three characteristic ranges was the n stratified into four segme nts bas ed on the following break points: average percent, average percent plus one standard deviation, and average percent plus two standard deviations. Thus, the census tracts fell into one of the following four categories for each characteristic: below average, above average but below one standard deviation (average). 50 Bay County Transft Development Plan

PAGE 87

between one and two standard deviations above average (above average), and more than two standard deviations above average (far above average). . The next step involved the assignment of discrete numerical scores to each of the four categories established for each demographic characteristic. These scores serve two basic purposes: to provide uniform ranking to all of the tracts within a particular category and to numerically differentiate among the four categories for each character istic. The final scores for each demographic characteristic's categories are presented in tabular form in Appendix B. Finally, composite scores were calculated for the census tracts by summing the individual category scores that they had received for each demographic characteristic. The census tracts were again stratified into four levels using the same methodology use d to develop characteristic categories. The tracts that fell into the "far above average" category were defined as primary transit-dependent tracts, i. e census tracts with the greatest propensity for transit based on the tracts' percentages of the four demographic characteristics. Secondary transit-dependent tracts inc l uded those that fell into the "above average" category; tertiary transit-dependent tracts included those tracts in the "average" category. The fourth level included census tracts that did not fail into any of the above categories ("below average"), and therefore are not transit -de pendent tracts. Table 1-28 presents the results of the census tract analysis. Of the tracts listed in the table, all are served by the existing Bay Town Trolley routes, with the tracts in central Panama City receiving the most service coverage. Figure 1-13 illustrates the primary, secondary, and tertiary transit dependent census tracts with an overlay of the Troll ey's fixed-route network. Based upon this analysis, it was determined that the primary transit-dependent tract (020) is currently being directly served by two routes (the Downtown and West routes). The demographics section of this technical memorandum found that tract 020 has the largest perce ntag e of elderty persons, low-income households, and zero-vehicle households of ail the tracts in the county. Tract 016 contains the Panama City Mall as well as the Target store, which serves as a transfer point. Therefore, tract 016, a secondary transit-dependent tract, Is served by all five routes Bay County Transit Development Plan 51

PAGE 88

Table 1-28 Bay County's Transit-Dependent Census Tracts (1990) 52 Bay County Transit Dovelopment Plan

PAGE 89

Figure 1-13 Bay Town Trolley R o utes and Transit Dependent Census T r acts Bay County ; F lori da Bus Routes :===Beach Rou".e Oo'llntown Route EastRout9 :===North Route Wes t Route T ransit Dependent Censu s Tracts P,imO
PAGE 90

Bay County Transit Plan

PAGE 91

MAJOR TRIP ATTRACTORS AND GENERATORS Figures 1-14A through 1-140 show the locations of selected major trip attractors and generators in Bay County The maps include schools, tourist attractions, hospital and medical centers, shopping centers civic centers, city halls, libraries social service offices, and major employers. The key to the identification numbers in these maps is contained in Table c-1 of Appendix C. Bay County Transit Development Plan 55

PAGE 92

Bay County T ransit Development Plan

PAGE 93

Figure 1-14A Trip Generators/Attractors in Western Bay County, Florida ; Legend ;!! City H all + Hospi;to { & Medical C entec a Utxory er. Moj Cf Employer + S h o;oping <:en101 + Soc i al SG
PAGE 94

58 Bsy County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 95

Figure 1-148 Trip Generators/Attractors in West-central Bay County Florida. Jil Clly Hall + Hospita l & Medical C<>nl er II library an Major mpk)y0:r SChool + ShoppinQ <:enler + Soc ial Service Ot!ice fbTovrist Attract ion 127

PAGE 96

60 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 97

12 4 23rd St 2 0 9th Sf 2_3 -15th St 76 Figure 1 14C 155 Effi 1::: a: (/) I:: a: (/) 1;! Ji! HOI! +1-1oopfta l & Medica1 Cenl e r II l i b rOly eo. M ajor Empl oyer + Shopp<'\g Center + Soekl l SoMe& Offico fuTot.mt Attrac t ion

PAGE 98

62 Bay County TratUir Developmenl Pion

PAGE 99

Figure 1-140 Trip Generators/Attractors in Eastem and Southeastern Bay County, Florida . 25 ... 109 !!. .... . 1 5 L egend Jii! City Hall + H"'Pi!ol &. Modica C
PAGE 100

64 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 101

OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION In addition to the demographic information provided in the previous sections CUTR collected information on the pe r sons who are visually impaired and persons wtlh disabled parking permits in Bay County The Division of Blind Services of the Aorida Department of Education provided information on persons who are visually impaired and persons who are legally blind in Bay County. In 1 990 there were 1 ,600 persons who were visually impaired In Bay County. Not included with i n the visually impai r ed were an additlona1475 persons who wer e defined as legally blind. Therefore, i n 1990, a total of 2 ,075 persons we r e either visually i mpaired or legally blind in Bay County. The Bay County Tax Collector was contacted to obtaln the number of permanent disabled parking permits issued in Bay County. Permanent disabled parking permits are renewed every four years I n Bay County. The tax collector reported that app r oximately 120 permits are reissued or issued per month (the breakdown of issues and reissues is not available). Therefo r e, an approximate estimate of the number of permanent disabled parking permits i s 5, 760 based on the limited information available. LAND USE AND PARKING Exist i ng land uses in Bay County are comprised of ten major land use categories : silviculture agriculture, agriculturelestate residential, residential public / sem i -public commercial industrial, recreational, special development, and conservation Bay County is presently updating its existing land use map, future land uses, however, are illustrated in Figure 1 15. This map produced by the Bay County Planning Department, shows the future land use for 2000 The threshold densities associated w ith this map are contained in Table 1-29. Bay County Transit Development Plan 65

PAGE 102

Table 1-29 2000 Land Use Densities Bay County Land Use Density Agriculture 0..1 Dwelling Unft:sl10 Acres Sitvicu)ture 0..1 Dwelling Untts/20 Acres Residef>tlal 0-25 Dwelfing UnitsJAae Commercial 30-2.0 Aoor Area Ratio .40...80 lmpetvious Surface Ratio Industrial .30-1.0 Floor Area Ratio 45-.80 Impervious Sutfaee Ratio Recreation .20 Floor Area Ratio 10-.20 Impervious Surface Ratio Conservation nla 1 Dwelting Unit J 20 Acres Spelic .30-2.0 Floor Afea Ratio 40..80 ln'!pefVious Surface Ratio Sourc6: Bay Cou n ty Comprehensive P lan, 1991. Contained in the Panama City Urbanized Area Transportation Study: 2020 Plan Update is informat i on pertaining to land use and socioeconomic i n the Panama City Urban i zed Area (UZA) This data has been projected to the year 2020 to reflect future conditions. Data from 1993 and projections for 2020 are shown in Table 1-30 66 Table 1-30 2020 Projected Land Use and Socioeconomic Characteristics for Panama City UZA Variable 19t3 2020 Population 1 32.858 190,664 Single Family Dwellin g Units 37,742 54,059 Multf..Family Dwelling Units 31,079 42,711 Total Oweling Units 68,821 96,770 Industrial E m ployment 6,825 t0,656 Commercial Employment 14,798 21.704 Service Employment 38,736 53,931 Total Employment 60,359 86, 291 HoteliMotel Units 10,022 13,989 SchoOl Enrollment 10,271 14,768 Source: Panama City Urbanized Area Transportation Stucty: 2020 Pln Update, March 1996 Bay County Transit Development P/811

PAGE 103

F igure 1-15 ... ... FUTURE LAND USE MAP . . . 0 $11/nCII'1.1URC: E;] A!:a.leot.TVIII tlll 0 kaTOf:II11.At. I CI:IIO!t'ICIAS. I!!! l!!l ucanno.u.c. f[!J snaAJ. oevct.o...,r:wr .. .. ........ .. ..,_ --"" ... ........... ..... ,.., __ ...... _, .. ........ -.. -.... -. Ill COII$_..,A'UOII li!l ; ; HAY COU::-ITY j i M:.y l?' U loOo"'.. : .. ... :vv; .. .. .. -.. ., ...

PAGE 104

68 Bay County Transit O.V&/opment Plan

PAGE 105

Information on parking supply within Bay County was obtained from the land development codes of Bay County and the City of Panama City. Tables 1 and 1-32 contain selected off-street parking space requirements for Bay County and the City of Panama City. Table 1-31 Bay County Parking Requirements Land Use Spaces Required DweHing: Effioieney, studio, or 1 bedroom 1.5 per unit Dwelling: 2 or more bedrooms 2 per unit Hotel and motel 1.1 per unit room onuite, plus tO per tOOO sq. ft. of other areaa Amuse m e n l Park or Outdoor Attraction 1 0 spaces per a cra HO$pital 1.5 spaces pe r bed General business. eommerdal or personal S spaces per t,OOO sq. ft. of gross floor area service eatablishmMt catering to retai l trade Offices. exduding medica l and health clinics and offtcea 5 spaces per f,OOO sq. ft. of gr0$5 floOf area Eating and drinking establishments 10 spaoos per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area Shopping centers 10 spaces per 1.000 sq ft of gross floor area Source: Bay County Land Development Codes. Table 1.32 Panama City Parking Requirements Land Use Spaces Required duplex, cluster Of town-house 2 pet unit dwelling unitS Apartment or condominium 1.5 per unit (plus 1 pet ea<:h 10 unitS) Hotels:, motels and mobite home parks 1 per unit home (p lus 2 per office) AmU$ement place, clancehaiL, switl\lring poo\, 1 per 4 seating spaces or 1 per 100 sq. ft. or exhi bition hall Hospital 1.75 spaces pe r bed Comme rc ial, retai l business personal services 1 per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area Business and profes;s!onaJ offloes 1 per 300 sq. tt. of gt'O$$ ftoor Restaurant, lounge or estab l ishment tor coll$umplion of be'Verages on-premises 1 pGr 100 sq. ft. of floor area or 1 per 4 seats 1 pe r 300 sq. ft. of floor area up to 15--aae Shopping centers center, and 1 per 200 sq. ft. Gross floor area for over 15--aete center Source: Panama City Land Development Cod6s. Bay ())unty Transit Development Plan 69

PAGE 106

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS The following section reports Bay County roads that are deficie n t or expected to be deficient in the f uture Deficiency is determined by the Level of Serv i ce (LOS) of each road segment which is rated with a score fro m A to 'F' with p being the most deficient. According to i nformation provided to CUTR by the West Florida Regional Plann i ng Council there are three segments of Bay County s sta t e roadways that a r e cu rr ent l y d efic i e n t, one segment that is projected to be defic i ent in 2000 and n o segments are expected to be deficient in 2005. Descriptions of the defi c ient segmen t s and the status of proposed improvements are listed below 1995 Deficiencies The f ourl ane urba n div ided segment of US98 (SR 30A) from Hathaway Bridge (West approach) to Beck Avenue has LOS F. The MPO has identified the need to expand capacity to eigh t lanes on US 98, however, how it will be prov i ded will be determined through the Pro j ect Development and Environmenta l Study process In the in terim, the MPO i s cont inui ng to identify feasible traffic operations improvements for the corridor. In add i t ion, an interchange at 23rd St r eet at US 98 is currently the MPO's number three pri ority Business 98 (SR 30, 6th Street} from Beach Drive to Hamilton Avenue is a two lane urban undivided roadway with a LOS E. There are currently no plans for improvements for th i s roadway segment. SR 77 from the Washington County Line to CR 388 is a twol ane rura l deve l oped undivided roadway with a current LOS Standard D. The MPO has identified the four-laning of SR 77 from the Ba i ley Bridge to SR 20, which includes the deficient segment as Pri ority Number 6 No other i mprovements are scheduled Projected Year 2000 Deficiencies US 98 (SR 30A} from Thomas Drive to Hathaway Bridge (West app r oach) i s a s i xl ane urban divided roadway wit h a current Level of Service Standard C However, it is projected to be a L OS F by the year 2000. An interchange at the i ntersection of Thomas Drive and US 98 is the MPO's current Priority Number 1. However, no construction funds have been programmed i n the FDOT Work Program. In addition a traffic operations improvement has been studied and warranted by FDOT for the co n structio n of an addit i ona l t hru lane westbou n d at T homas Drive. 7 0 Bay County Transi t Development Plan

PAGE 107

BAY COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Transit Services Since the completion of the las t major update of the Bay County Transit Development Plan many improvements have been made to the transn system. The 1992 TOP recommended the establishment of three fixed routes in Bay County. One route would operate fou r limes per day six days per week year-round. This route would serve Panama City and surrounding areas, but would be expanded to Panama City Beach during the summer Two other routes were proposed for the beach area operating from March to Labor Day and November to March, respectively. Bay County began operation of a fixed-route system in December 1995 wnh five year-round routes The Bay Town Trolley operates fiVe days per week with varying frequencies for each of the routes. The routes generally follow the proposed routes in the 1992 TOP with four of the five routes serving Panama City and surrounding areas and one route serving the beach. Paratransit Services In December 1994, the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged performed a Quality Assurance and Management Review (QAMR) of the Community Transportation Coordinator, Bay County Council on Aging. Specific reoommendations were suggested in this review The recommendations and how they have been addressed since the review are listed below (in italics). Develop written monitoring reports for its operators and coordination oontractors, including driver reoords, vehicle inventory, and on-road performance. This has been implemented. Develop a written on-time perfonnance standard and analyze on-time perfonnance of operators on a quarterly basis. This has been addressed. Improve the record keeping of the driver records for training and other requirements listed in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and Service Plan. This has been addressed. Bay County Transit Development Plan 71

PAGE 108

Develop a complaint form that includes the name and address of the complainant with follow-up action to ensure that the complaint is resolved Further, a written complaint prooess should be developed and communicated to the funding agencies. Additionally, the Commission's definition of complaint should be utilized for reporting purposes. BCCOA has developed a written complaint procedure. Complaints that are received are forwarded to the CTC staff and detailed on a standard form. All complaints received will be immediately investigated and every effort made to seek an appropriate and prompt resolution. In addition, a file will be kept of all complaints received, and monthly reports generated in order to identify any patterns of the complaints. A summary of grievances will also be given by the Coordinator at any regular Board meeting. Any grievance that can not be resolved by the coordinator will be taken up by the Grievance Committee. Require that purchase of service agencies provide or fund escorts for transporting of frail and infant clients. Purchasing agencies are responsible for determining client eligibility for transportation as well as the need for escorts or aides to assist clients who are frail impaired or too young to ride unaccompanied. The purchasing agency will provide an escort trained to respond to their clients specific need. The trained and approved escort will be allowed to ride at no additional cost to the agency. Educate funding agencies and riders on the no-show policy. funding agencies' support in enforcing the policy This has been discussed with the local coordinating board. Educate funding agencies on the importance of accurate client information Discussed in annual meeting with purchasers and will worl< on an individual agency basis when needed In addition to the QAMR, the Community Transportation Coordinator also received an Annual Evaluation in September 1995 for the Memorandum of Agreement Year 94/95 In this evaluation, the review committee stated that Bay County Council on Aging was doing a good job in meeting the transportation demands of the servioe area There were no specific recommendations that needed to be addressed. 72 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 109

INTERVIEWS WITH KEY OFF I C I ALS An important e l ement in the preparation of a TDP is the identification of opinions and perceptions of local officials and the general public A community's belief concerning the viability of public transportation in the area is essential to understand A l so, the way in which public transportation is viewed can significantly influence the priority that is given to transit and other related transportation issues. Interviews with key l ocal officia l s and community leaders are seen as a necessary component of the transit development planning process, since such persons usually have inpul to, or are responsible for, policy formulation and the allocation of funding The Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organizat ion (MPO) compiled a list of individuals holding both elected and non-e l ected positions to be interviewed. The interviewees represented all areas of Bay County including Bay County government and the municipafities of Panama City, Panama City Beach, and Lynn Haven. Representatives of the area business c o mmunity and several community service organizations were also interviewed. CUTR conducted a total of 10 individual interviews, with a total o f 14 persons during April and May 1996. All interviews, with the exception of three that were done over the tel ephone, were conducted in p erson. This section, broken into three parts (perceptions, improvements and policy issues), summarizes the results of these Interviews. The discussions covered three basic scenarios : "where we are," "where we want to be," and "how we get there." The first part deals with perceptions of public support for p ublic transportation, of the need for it, community goals, and whether congestion or parking problems were an issue. The second part addresses the exist i ng public trans p ortat ion system and what improvements would be needed to meet community needs and goa l s. The last portion focuses on political support for public transportation and funding issues. An outl i ne of the questions that wer e used f o r these interviews is contained in Appendix D Pei'Cilptions The overa ll feeling is that there is at least some level of public interest in public transportation in the urbanized area Of those that indicated a very low level of p ubli c support, most cited reasons such as the costs, the lack of traffic congestion the sprawled development, and the lack of major employment centers. Many seem to th i nk that publi c transit is a good idea; however, people's "habits have been esta blished," and those without a vehicle manage to find alternate means of transportation, such as carpooling, taxis, bicycling, or even walking Many of the interviewees noted that a fixed-route transit system had existed in the area more than a decade ago, b ut stopped service in May 1982. Bay County Transit Development Plan 73

PAGE 110

Public transportatio n rema i ns an i ssue however especially among the elderly and disabled populations in Bay County The elde rly c l early support public transit, as do other groups with limited mobility. The business oommunity on Panama City Beach seems to be supportive of transit as a way to ease oonge slion during the tourist sea son and as a way to transport its low-inoome se rv ic e workers (although one Interviewee believes that there is not a great number of unskilled labor traveling to the beach from the Panama City area this person believes just as many workers oome from more rural a reas in the north ern part of the oounty). For those who qua l ify and rely on the oounty's paratransit service Bay Coord i nated Transporta t ion is seen as a solid attemative Several interviewees commented on the excelle nt serv i ce prov i ded by the system. The management of the paratra nsit service was also commended by many intervie wees. Concern ing the Bay Town Trolley, some negative perceptions stemm ed from the relatively low level of service provided and the low ridership. Also at least three of those interviewed noted that the Trolley's mark et seems to be the same as that for paratransit and, at possibly less expense, taxi vouchers could be provided t o the riders One interviewee remarked that the Trot ley's oolors were unappealing. Al s o there may be a perception i n the community that the Trolley is an open-air veh i cle Without a ir-condi t ion i ng thus inhibiti ng potential ridersh ip. One int erv iewee fears tha t BTT w ill be unable to sustain itself long enough to ga in necessary community and political support. Positive discussions about th e Trolley also occurred. At least one employer on the beach ( Marriott) has consi dered providing passes for its employees to ride the Trolley. Most of those Interviewed staled the troOeys were quite attractive and could boost the traditional im age of bus transpo rta tion among the county's residents and visitors Some are definitely wi lling to give the fledg li ng system a chance to mature and to secure a ridersh ip base Based on the interviews. support would seem to be high among the elderly as well as some minorities and those with low inco mes Students would also likely support a publi c transportation sys tem, according to some of those with whom CUTR spoke. Nearly every Interviewee ackno wledged the fact that there are some peopl e living in Bay County that need some type of transportation However, one group of interviewees simply did not believe that there a re enough people in need to j us t ify the expense of a fixecHoute public transportation system Others understood the costs involved in such a system but be l ieved that the social (non monetary ) benefit s derived from publ i c transport at ion (fixed-route as well as paratransit) w ould j us t ify the monetary investment. Ma ny in this latter group tended to see public transportation in Bay County as a necessary socia l service that requires subsidy County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 111

As might be expected from the above comments, those interviewed often held very d iffering views on the role of public transportation in the county. Lynn Haven, noted as one of the fastest growi n g areas in Bay County, may be interested In some type of small system of Its own that could connect with BTT or utUize one or two of BITs trolleys. In general, the role of public transportation in the county is seen as providing a way for those with l itt le or no personal transportation (primarily youths and the elderly) to retain their personal mobility. Some see the BTT as a way for beach employees (as well as other low-income workers throughout the county) to get to work, although there are a few who disagree. Finally, some of those interviewed maintained that a r ole (of a public transportation agency) should be fore most as a coordinator between all providers of transportation, especially among agencies that operate service for the transportation-disadvantaged (Bay County Council on Aging, Inc. is Bay County's Community Transportati on Coordinator). The interviewees were queried on whether there exist community needs that could be met, or are currently being met, by public transportation. As discussed pre vious ly, some responded that no need exists due to, among other factors, low density, the lack of a business district, a scatte red elderly population, and dispersed development in general (widely varying mileage estimates for the distance between Tyndall Air Force Base and Panama City Beach were given by two interviewees; howeve r the point was well taken that the county's development is sprawled). For the elderly population, located throughout the county, a need is present. The Bay Town Trolley, however, was cited by some in the interviews as inconvenient for the elderly and disabled Some of this inconvenience may be due to the low service le vels provided due to the fact that it is new service. Bay Coordinated Transportation, as mentioned earlier, seems to be doing well in meeting the needs of its clientele. All of those interviewed agreed that traffic congestion is not a major problem in Bay County. Some saw no traffic or parking problems and mentioned the ready availability of downtown (PanamaXa Qity parking. Certain areas, however were seen as having some levels of congestion. A representative from Lynn Haven would Uke to see SR 77 widened, and would like a four-lane bridge (North of the city) that would alleviate the problem of drivers "racing" to merge to get on the bridge. Some cited SR 79 as a congested road making access to the beach difficult for beach residents. Also, it was stated that hurricane evacuation procedures are in need of improvement, as there is only one way off of the beach. While some interviewees mentioned congestion problems on the beach, most notably during the tourist season, others perceived that very little congestion existed and also cited the free parking. The seasonal shifts in tourism also seem to affect US gs. Interviewees listed other sources of congestion on SR 390, especially during the morning and afternoon peak periods (although the county's Long Range Transportation Plan include s a proposal for widening the road), and 23rd Street. Bay County Transit Development Plan 75

PAGE 112

Several Interviewees cited community goals that could be addressed by public transportation. Some stated that, basically, the county's public transit serv ice should be seen as a necessary social service. Others addressed a quality of life issue in reference to the elderly: the quality of life of older citizens is enhanced by remaining indepe ndent and retaining personal mobility. Other community goals that might be served by public transit include t hose that deal with economic development. Some interviewees contended that more residents will have access to employment through the utilization of public transportation especially in Panama City Beach. From Panama City Beach's perspective, public transportation will boost the number of jobs, as well as the pay scale for unskilled workers on the beach. A viable transit system would keep beach employment high year-round, and not just in the midst of the tourist season Currently, according to one i n tervi ewee, beach employers have very high employee turn-over rates and this is often due to inadequate transportation. Beach service establishments nonnally overbook their help by a la rge percentage according to this same interviewee, to ensure sufficient staff on a given day. Many beach employees (maids and other service workers) carpool to work in large numbers and often in older, unre liable vehicles. It was stated by one of those interviewed that approximately 7,500 workers cross the bridge from Panama City to Panama City Beach daily. A public transit system, such as BTI, could provide dependable transportation for such workers and, as a result, the quality of service on the beach would increase. In addition to achieving these goals of the community, a public transportation system should be tuned to areas of grow)h within its respective service area. In this case, interviewees were asked to discuss what Is happening in Bay County in tenns of residential and commercial development. Concerning residential development, it was noted in the i nterviews that Lynn Haven is the fastest growing city in the county, and tile 67th in the state. There are several new residential subdivisions in the Lynn Haven area (north of US 98) such as Greenfield Village, with 380 homes New relatively affluent, residential development is also occurring along the beach. II is un likely, explained one interviewee, that any new lower-income housing would be built on the beach The remaining l and is mainly wetlands, which is expensive to develop, resulting in higher-priced homes. A new industrial park is presently under construction in the Lynn Haven area. The park has attracted the Trane Corporation (which will manufacture air-conditioning units for Mercedes-Benz automobiles) which will have a 100,000 square foot building, with the capability of expanding an additional100,000 square feet. Initially, more than 200 jobs will be created. Actually, according to one interviewee, only about seven acres of the industrial park are currently unaccounted for. Also, there are plans for an expansive recreational park alongside the new industria l park. Finally additional commercial development continues along 23rd Street in Panama City. 76 Bay County T18nslt Development Plan

PAGE 113

' : . Discussions in the interviews also focused on those groups most likely to utilize public transit Overwhelmingly, the interviewees mentioned youths and elderly as the primary users of public transportation in the county. Both the young and the old who do not drive can use a service such as BTT for shopping at the mall and for other recreational trips. Some interviewees specified retirement communities such as Summer's Landing and St. Andrew Towers as places with a significant nuniber of potential riders. In addition to shopping trips, those elderly who do not require the special services of the paratransit system can use BTT for their medical trips as well. While the young as well as older citizens often have no other choice for their t r ansportation, those with low incomes usually have limited means of personal mobility as well. Areas with low-income housing, such as Foxwood, were cited as having potential transit riders. Although it was generally agreed that BTT would not be widely used for the work trip, an exception was made for lower income workers, especially on the beach. Also, areas in the rural northern part of Bay County were mentioned as having residents that could use transportation. One interviewee suggested trying to serve the outlying areas by grouping trips and only having service on certain days. Other possible transit passengers were clients of social service agencies, beach tourists, and students on Spring Break. Improvements Interviewees were queried as to how a transit system can better serve the needs of its community. By operating dependable service with timely schedules, most agreed, a transit system would have the best chance of attracting riders and meeting community needs. In addition, sufficient infonmatlon on the system and its route network should be clear, concise, and readily available. Most interviewees also concurred that a system must be affordable and convenient in order to sustain a solid ridership base. Specific to Bay County, it was recommended that coordination of transportation services among social service agencies be maintained. Also, the county's public transportat ion system should strive to serve the beach for both the tourists and the service workers. There were a few interviewees, as mentioned eartier, who believed the most effective and efficient method of serving the needs of Bay County was to discontinue BTT service and provide a user-side subsidy program, such as taxi vouchers, for the transportation-disadvantaged population It was detennined that the Target store and the Panama City Mall are among the most Important BTT stops. However, several int erviewees wondered why the Trolley system does not currently serve the airport. Many thought the airport should be a major stop on the system. Again, some mentioned the northern portion of the county, which is mostly rural, as needing some transit service. Those interviewees would like to see some service, not necessarily daily, to these areas. It was noted that BTT currently serves areas of low-income housing and elderly housing, such as St. Andrew Towers i n Panama City. County Transit Development Plan 77

PAGE 114

Several specific improvements to the Bay Town Trolley were suggested in the interviews. Although most were content with the co lo r of the trolleys, at least one interviewee advised that the color scheme be changed Better information for current and potential riders is also needed. Most of the trolley stops are poorly advertised, and the scheduled times are not posted at the stops. Basically most of the interviewees recommended that a marl
PAGE 115

Some noted that, although many in the community seem to be in favor of the idea of public transit very few, if any, are willing to pay for it. Taxpayers are more like ly to support something that would affect everyone in the community. Some say that most people do not feel that public transportation directly affects them; although, a few argued, it does in the form of lessened congestion during the tourist season, a better imag e to outsiders, a more active and mobile elde rly population, and increased economic development. A few interviewees believed that beach establishments would financially support public transportation, especially if H could be proved that the use of such a system could result in increased worker productivHy and fewer absences Such backing noted one Interviewee, could result in a "snowball" effect of support. One of those interviewed was specifically interested in a peer review analysis of funding issues. This person wanted to learn more about how other systems are funded, and what m onies are available It was also mentioned how the City of Lynn Haven has saved money by dual-equipping its public safety {polle e and fire). By discovering innovative ways of saving tax dollars, one Interviewee commented, local governments will have funds available for other pursuits, including transit. In addition to funding, other policy issues were discussed in the interviews While some said that no policies could be changed to better support a system, others noted that progressive cities consider effective public transportation as essential, and are making changes so as to have transit supportive polic ies Some interviewees suggested better coordinatio n between Medicaid and TO funds. Others cited continuity problems, such as the fact that unincorporated areas exist between Panama City and Panama City Beach. However for a viable affordable public transportation system {such as what BTT could become) to succeed in Bay County, many interviewees stated that better coordination and cooperation would be needed among the municipalities, especially those in the urbanized area. SUMMARY OF PUBUC MEETINGS Two public meetings were conducted for Bay Town Trolley and Bay Coordinated Transportation on April 23, 1996 The meetings were aimed at collecting comments and suggestions regarding publi c transportation in Bay County The two meetings were held at the of Parker Community Center and the Frank Brown Park Community Center in Panama City Beach. Notices for the meetings were mailed to the city halls, radio stations, newspapers, social service organizations, review committee members, and anyone who sent in comments regarding public transportation. Notices were also posted in all vehicles of Bay Town Trolley and Bay Coordinated Bay County Transit Development Plan 79

PAGE 116

Transportation. In addition, the meetings were advertised on three occasions in the Panama City News Herald. The meeting in Parker was not well attended with the majority of attendees being employees of social service agencies. The inclement weather (thunderstorms) most likely contributed to the low attendance. The meeting in Panama City Beach was better attended and elicited many useful comments and suggestions from citizens of the area. A third public meeting took place on August 7, 1996 at Bay Medical Center that was specific to proposed route and schedule changes to Bay Town Trolley. The comments and suggestions from this meeting are contained in Chapter Four. All comments and suggestions will be considered in recommendations for route and schedule changes. All comments received are included in Appendix D. BAY TOWN TROLLEY ON-BOARD SURVEY This section of the TOP summarizes the results of a comprehensive on-board survey of Bay Town Trolley (BTT) riders conducted on April24 and April25, 1996. The purpose of this on-board survey was to obtain data about rider demographics, travel behavior, and satisfaction with specific aspects of Bay Town Trolley service. Overview of the Bay Town Trolley System During the time of the on-board survey, BTT operated three trolleys serving fiVe r outes The fiVe routes are designated as the Downtown, East, West, Beach, and North routes For reference, the configuration of the five routes are illustrated in Figure 1-16. The routes extend as far north as lynn Haven, as far west as the intersection of Front Beach (Alt. 98) and Back Beach (U.S. 98) roads on Panama City Beach, as far east as Parker, and as far south as Downtown Panama City. From the beginning of operation in December 1995 until April 1996, the system has averaged about 60 passenger trips per day. Riders were allowed to ride for free during BTT's initial week of operation. During the survey the base tare was $1.00, and students, senior citizens, and disabled citizens payed $0.50. Transfers were $0.25, and there was an additional beach zone fare of $0.50 (when departing Gulf Coast Community College). A special ten-ride ticket cost $5.00, while a twenty-ride ticket cost $17.50. Weekly and monthly passes were also available, and may be purchased for $9.00 and $30.00, respectively. 80 Bay Ccunty Transit Development Plan

PAGE 117

Currently, service is offered Monday through Friday starting at 6 : 15a.m. and ending at 6:30p.m., and the routes have designated stops. Chapter Two contains a more in-depth description of BTT service. Survey Methodology The on-board survey was designed to elicit descriptive information regarding the demographic traits and travel behavior of BTT riders as well as their satisfaction with specific aspects of BTT fixed route service. In addition, a question rating the overall quality of BITs service was included on the survey instrument. This information will enable BTT to focus on relevant transit needs and issues such as modifying trolley schedules, locating trolley stops, modifying fare structure, planning focused marketing campaigns, and establishing historical ridership trends. As mentioned, the on-board survey was administered on Wednesday, April 24 and Thursday, April 25 1996. Trolleys were surveyed s tarting at noon until the end of service on Wednesday and from the beginning of service until approximately noon on Thursday. This approximate 12-hour time frame represents an entire day of BTT service Survey distribution was carried out by CUTR staff. For reference, a copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix E In all cases, one surveyor was assigned to a particular trolley that covered several routes. Surveys were personally handed to boarders along the routes as they boarded the trolley or as they assumed their seats Riders were encouraged to return complete d surveys to the surveyor as they alighted the trolley. In addition, as time permitted, surveyors walked through the trolley asking for completed surveys and assisting riders to complete the surveys. Riders were asked to complete a questionnaire every time they received one. Bay County Transit Devetop100nt Plan 81

PAGE 118

82 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 119

Figu r e 1-16 Bay T own Trolley Rou tes Legend Nor1hRouto East Roote W est Route Oowntcwn Route Beach Route W.ajor + AllPOrt 0 1.5 3 S t a\0 RGero atiOn Area Miles

PAGE 120

84 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 121

BTT On-Board Survey Analysis The BTT on-board survey analysis is composed of three sections: demographics, travel behavior, and rider satisf!lction with specific aspects of BTT service. Each section provides information that will be useful in improving the performance and service of BTT. Demographic data consisted of age, gender, annual household income, ethnicity, and the number of vehicles in the household These demographic data will facilitate identifying current market characteristics of BTT riders. In addition, this information can also assist in determining the need for rider facilities such as the improved design and favorable locat ion of trolley stops and facilities for persons with disabilities. Travel behavior included data such as trip purpose, frequency of use, fare category, fare payment method, alternative transportation, reason for r iding BTT, and mode of access and egress. This information will assist BTT in effective scheduling and general policy-decisions regarding overall service planning. User satisfaction is determined in Question 17. Question 17 asks riders to rate their perception of BTT service via 11 performance characteristics as well as the overall quality of BTT service. Strengths and weaknesses of the system are identified as perceived by patrons from a list of five discrete responses. Riders were asked to rate BTT service from "very good" to ''very poor." The i dentified weaknesses can potentially be addressed through changes in the system. By distinguishing rider sensitivities regarding specific characteristics of the system, BTT is better able to prioritize Improvements in the system. A total of 66 surveys were returned during the 12-hour survey period. Each survey question was analyzed independently and the results of each question are provided in a combination of figures and tables. The figures and tables are accompanied by brief narratives that explain the releva nce of the findings being reported. All questions were included in the analysis regardless of whether or not the survey was completed entirely. lastly, all of the survey results are presented in percentage format therefore, weighting of the survey data to reflect total ridership during the survey period was not necessary. The following are the major findings from the BTT on-board survey. Say County Ttansft Development Plan 85

PAGE 122

BTT Rider Demographic Information A number of questions were asked in order to establish a demographic p rofile of the typical BTT rider Demographic-related questions included gender auto ownership, annual household income ethnicity, and age. Figures 1-17 through 1-21 illustrate the BTT demographic data from the on board survey. Gender-Systemwide, more women use BTT service than men. As Figure 1-17 i ndicates, nearly 70 percent of BTT riders are female and approximately 30 percent are male; a dichotomy that is typical of public transit ridership. Vehicle Ownership -The survey results, shown in Figure 1-18, indicate that nearly 58 percent of BTT riders do not own a vehicle. This finding suggests that a little more than half of BTT riders are 'transi t captives," a typical finding among the ridership of a conventional fixed-route transit system. However, the survey results also indicate that nearly 19 percent of BTT riders reported owning one vehicle and near1y 23 percent own two or more vehicles. Annual Household IncomeThe survey resuHs indicate that approximately 40 percent of BTT riders have an annual household inc ome that is less than $ 10,000 and 35 percent have an annual income between $10,000 and $29,999, as shown i n Figure 1-19 Of all the BTT riders surveyed, about 25 percent reported an annual household income of $30,000 or greater. Ethnicity Systemwide about 69 percent of the riders are white, while 16 percent are black. In addition, seven percent of the riders indicated their ethnicity to be Hispanic, while about nine percent indicated "Other." This ethnic origin infonn ation is illustrated in Figure 1-20. &m For the entire system, about 42 percent of BTT ride rs are between the ages of 18 and 44, while only nine percent are 17 years of age or younger, as presented in Figure 1-21. In addition, about 25 percent of BTT riders are 60 years of age or older. 86 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 123

Flgure1-17 Question 13 Gender BlT Survey Flgure1-18 Question 1 6 -Vehicle BlT Survey Figure 1 19 Question 15-Annual Household Income BlT Survey &iy Co
PAGE 124

Figure 1-20 Ques11on 14-Ethnic Origin, BTT Survey Figure 1-21 Queetion 12-Age, BTT Survey 17year&oruruie< 18 to 24 Y"'"s 2A to 34 yell IS 35 to 44 ye;1rs 60 years or 88 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 125

BTT R i der Travel Behavior Informa t ion A number of questions were included on the on-board survey to obtain infonnation about the travel behavior of BTT riders. Thi s information includes trip purpose, length an d frequency of use, fare category and fare payment method, transportation, reason for riding BTT, and mode of access and egress. Figures 1-22 through 1 28 illustrate the BTT trave l behavior data obtained from the on-board survey. Trjo Pyrpose As shown in Table 1-33, the responses are dom i nated by the home-to-work trip pairing with about 16 percent of all trips taken originating at home and tenn i nating at work. In addition, about 48 percent of all trips originate and nearly 19 percent conclude at home respectively. Other common trip pairings include home-to-school (5 percent), home-to shopping/errands (9 percent), school-to-home (2 percent) and shopp i ng/errands-to-home (3 percent) Freouency of Use Figure 122 i ndicates that approximate l y 46 percent of BTT riders use the system four or more times per week and 21 percent use BTT two or three days per week. Interestingly, during the t i me of the survey, a small percentage (six percent) of BTT riders were ricting the system for the first time, indicating tha t they ride the system once every 52 weeks. Eare Category Systemwide slightl y mor e than 65 percent of the riders indicated their fare category to be the "base" fare and about eight percent indicated their fare cate g ory to be "student," a s sh own in Figure 1 -23. In addition, about 27 p ercent of the riders indicated their fare category to be "special." Fare Tyee -For the entire system about 83 p e rcent of the riders use "cash" as their fare type while nearly three percent use a Specia l 10-Ride Ticket as s h own In Figure 1-24. In addition about nine percent of the riders use a Special 20-Ride Ticket and about five percent use a Weekl y Pass. Alternative Transoortation BTT riders were asked to indicate from six dis c rete choices how they wou l d make their trip if BTT were not available; the results are presented In Figure 1-25 If BTT were not avai l able, about 20 percent of BTT rid e rs would ride with someone, nearly 18 percent would d rive themse l ves, approximately 18 percent wou l d not make the trip 1 6 percent would walk, 18 percent would use a taxi, and 10 percent would ride a bicycle. Reason for Rjdjng li!U-N!. illustrated In Figure 1-26, t he reasons indicated most often for using BTT are: I don t drive (33 percent), car is not ava i lab l e (34 percent), tro lley is more ec o n o mica l (10 percent), and trolley Is more convenient (8 pe r cent). Bay County Transit Development Plan 89

PAGE 126

Mode of Access/Egre ssSystemw ide, about 68 percent of BTT riders walk to access the t rolley while about 53 percent walk t o t heir fina l destina t ion after e g ressing the t r oll e y. In a bout five percent of BTT riders tran s ferred to ac ce s s the trolley, while nearly 6 p ercent trans f erred to egress the tro lley. Su rpri singly, nearly 17 percent of BTT riders both access and egress the sys tem by driving. The access/egress data are i ll ustrated in Fig ures 1-27 a n d 1 28. Tab le 1-3 3 Question 6 -Trip Pu r pose, BTT Survey Destination Home Wof1< School Doctor / ShoppW>g V isiti ng/ Other Total Origi n Dentist !Ettands Recmation Home 4 .7% 1 5.6% 4 .7% 6 .3% 9.4% 3 1% 4 .7% Work 6.3% 3 1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 1% 1.6% 14 .1% Scho o l 1 .6% 0.0% 1 .6% 0.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0.0% 3 1 % Doctor/Oentist 1.6% 0.0% 0 0% 0 .0 % 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0% 1 .6% S hopping E""nds 3 1% 0 .0% 0.0% 0 .0% 1.6% 1.6% 4 .7% 10.9% Visiting/Recreatio n 1 .6% 0 .0% 0 .0 % 0 .0% 1 .6% 6.3% 0.0% 9 4% Other 0.0% 1.6% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0.0% 4.7% 6.3% 1 2.5% Total I 18.9% 20.3% 6 .3% 6 .3 % 12.6% 1&.8% 1 7 3% 100.0% 9 0 Bay County Tra nsit Development Plan

PAGE 127

F igu re 1 22 Question 9 Frequency of Use, Bfr Survey 4 or m0<8 days..,. woek. About 1 day per woo k Onco owry --ks Figure 1 -23 Question 7 Fare Category BTT Survey Fig u re 1A Question 8 Fare Type BTT Survey Spocl ai10.RKIO Spoolai2DRide Tio,kaf.. Bay CocJnzy Trsmil Development Plan 111

PAGE 128

92 Figure 1-25 Question 11 Alternative Transportation, BTT Survey Ride wilt sorneole Par1<1ng Is Trolley .is m<>reeccnomlcal Trolley is mono cor,...,,,.,,t Figure 1 Question 3 Mode of Access, BTT Survey walked more Ilion 3 blocks Was dropped Bay County Transit Development Pfen

PAGE 129

Figure 1-28 Question 5Mode of Egress, BTT Survey WaJk more than 3 blocks Bay County TraMit Oevek>pment Plan 93

PAGE 130

BTT Rider Satisfaction The quality of BTT service was determined through a variety of questions that required ri ders to rate their perception of specific aspects of BTT service as well as overall service quality The strengths and weaknesses of the system were identified as perceived by patrons from a l ist of discrete responses that ranged from "very good" to "very poor." In addition, mean (average) scores were calculated for each service aspect through the assignment of num e rical values. The following aspects of BTT service performance were rated by respondents: A. Days of service; B. Hours of service; c. Frequency of service; D. Convenience of routes; E. Dependability ; F. Travel time ; G. Cost of riding ; H. Availability of route informat ion; I. Cleanliness and comfort; J. Operator courtesy ; K. Safety on trolley and at stops; and L. Overall trolley service. Figures 1-29 through 1-40 indicate user satisfaction responses for each of the above system characteristics. Overall, according to the from the on-board survey, the majority of BTT passengers rated service as very good." Most satisfaction measures rece ived hi gh ratings from passengers. These ratings are unusually high thus, clearly indicating that existing passengers are very satisfied with BTT service. . Rjder Satjsfactjon Ratings In addition to the results rep orted in Figures 1-29 through 1-40 an average (mean) score was calculated for each service aspect using the numerical values assigned to the rating system. To clarify, using the numerical value assignments, an average or mean score of five (5.00 or "very good") indicates a higher degree of ride r satisfaction than a mean score of two (2 00 or poor") The numerical value assignments for determining the averages are shown in Table 1 34. The niean scores that were calculated for each of the system characteristics as well as overall system performance are presented in Figure 1-41. 94 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 131

Figure1 29 Question 17A Days of Service, BTT Survey Very Flg ure1-.30 Question 17B-Hours of Servle e, BTT Survey Very Fagu re1-31 Question 17C -Fr eq u ency of Servlee, BTT Survey Very Very Goad Bay County Transit Oeveicpmenl Plan 95

PAGE 132

Figure 1-32 Question 170Convenience of Routes, BTr Survey Figure 1-33 Question 17E-Dependability (on-time), BTT Survey Very Poor Figure 1-34 Question 17F-Travel Time, BTT Survey 96 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 133

Figure 1-35 Question 17GCost of Riding Trolley, BTT Survey Very Very Goo,d Figure 1-36 Question 17HAvailability of Trolley lnfonnation, BTT Survey Vray Very Figure 1-37 Question 171Cleanliness and Comfort, BTT Survey Bay County Transit Development Pian 97

PAGE 134

Figure 1-38 Question 17J Operator Courtaay BTT Survey Vt>ty Poo<-al"' Ve.-y Good. Figure1-39 Question 17K Safety on Trolley end 11 Stops, BTT Survey Figure1-40 Question 17L Ovenall T rolley Sarvice, BTT Survey Ve.-y 98

PAGE 135

. . Table 1.::14 Numerical Values, BTT Survey SaUsfaetlon Category Numerical Value Very Good 5.00 Good 4.00 Fair 3.00 Poor 2.00 Very Poor 1.00 The graph in Figure 1-41 illustrates that current BIT passengers are very satisfied with every aspect of the system since the mean scores ranged from a low of 3.16 (slightly above a "fair'' rating) for frequency of service to a high of 4.78 (nearly a perfect rating of "very good") for operator courtesy. Given the high overall mean scores for each of the system characteristics and the overall mean score of 4.06 for all satisfaction questions these scores are a positive indication that users are very satisfied with the quality of BIT service. F igure 1-41 Rider Satisfaction Mean Scores, BTT Survey BIT Rider Satisfaction Summary Ecumenically, BIT service received very favorable rating with nearty 86 percent of the survey's respondents rating service as ''very good" and "good In addition to the favorable overall rating of BIT service passengers who responded to the on-board survey also rated operator courtesy (94 percent) dependability of BIT service (86 percent), safety on trolley and at stops (96 percent), and vehicle cleanliness and comfort (95 percent) as ''very good" and "good." These favorable Bay County Transff Development Plan

PAGE 136

ratings indicate that the vast majority of current BTT passengers feel very positive about the overall quality of BTT service. Rider Comments and Suggestions In Question 18 on the on-board survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide an open-ended comment to the following question : "If you could make only one improvement to the trolley system, what would it be?' Numerous respondents took the time to provide a comment or comments in the space provided The majority of the comments were directed toward increased frequency of service (more trolleys) hours of operation, and days of service (weekends). In addition, several riders commented that the wooden bench-style seats were too hard and needed cushions to make the ride more comfortable, particularly for elderly passengers In addition to Question 18, riders were also given ample space at the end of the on-board survey to elaborate further about any other comments and suggestio ns that they might have regarding BTT service Most of the survey's respondents took the lime necessary to provide comments and suggestions about BTT service. Some of the comments were directed towards trolley operators and overall BTT service, and most of them were very positive in nature. In addition a few of the riders commented that the system should increase frequency, hours, and days of service The following is a sample of the open-ended camments that were provided by riders in the space supplied at the end of the on-board survey. The comments make it clear that current BTT riders are pleased with the courtesy of the trolley operators and BTT's overall level of performance. Some of the comments have been edited for content and clarity. "Wonderful service!" "It [the trolley] couldn't be better." "Thanks for your service, hope that you stay!" "Friendly operators, they make trips more enjoyable." "very nice and sweet ope rator. He makes me feel very comfortable and safe." "I think ridership would Increase considerably if the needs of the public were considered and made the priority." "Diffe rent management." "I think it is a very economical and convenient way to travel." 'Longer hours of service extend until midnight." 'It's better than nothing." "Clearly mark [trolley ] stops." 'More beach service." "Please add Saturday (service]." Very good drivers and very dependable." 100 Bay CCunty Transjf Development Plan

PAGE 137

Conclusions The objective of this on-board survey was to collect BTT rider demographic information travel behavior, and satisfaction w i th specific aspects of BTT fiXed-route trolley service. In a typical passenger profile was developed through the use of respo n ses to the questions that pertained to rider demographic characteristics. On average, the typical rider currently using BTT service Is a white female age 60 years and over, has an annual income of less than $ 1 0,000 and does not own a veh i cle. Table 1-35 presents the characteristics of a typica l BTT passenger, according to the resul t s from the on-board survey Table 1-36 Typical BTT Rider Profile Rider Characteristic Rider Profll o Age 60 years or more Gender Female Ethnic Origin White Annual HousehokJ Income Less than $ 1 0,000 Auto Ownership None Last l y the on-board survey results suggest that BTT is offering a convenient and econom i cal transportation alternative to persons in the Panama City area However, information gathered as a resu l t of this on-board survey will undoubtedly contribute to further improvements to BTT. Bay County Transit Development Pian 101

PAGE 138

BAY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION ON-BOARD SURVEY The Bay Coordinated Transportation on-board survey was designe d to obtain information on the demog r aphic characteris ti cs travel behavior patterns and perceptions of current passengers as well as determ i ne these passengers' add i tional transportat i on needs. The survey i nstrument, which was desi gned by CUTR, was distributed and collected on the BC T vehicles by Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) volunteers over a three-day period from Tuesday, April 30, 1996 to Thursday, May 2 1996. A tota l of 45 surveys were co ll ected which i s a fiVe percent response rate based on an estimate of 950 trips provided in the t h ree days A simi lar survey was administered in 1992 for the last ma jor update of the Bay County TOP. All questions from th i s previous survey were used p l us additional questions on demographics and travel behavior. Where possible comparisons between the r esults from the two surveys are included and significant changes in the results are discussed. Demographic Information A series of demographic questions were asked on the 1996 survey of Bay Coordinated Transportation riders. Th i s informatio n is useful for comparison of the demographic characteristics of BCT riders to the characteristics of all persons in Bay County. Demograph i c related quest i ons included age (Question 10), gender (Question 11), ethnic origin (Question 12), annual househo l d income (Quest i on 13) and automobi l e availability (Question 14). For each question, except ethnic origin, the resuHs are compared against demographic information for a ll of Bay County as reported by the 1990 States Census. &mA large majority of BCrs riders are 60 years or more (75 6 percent), as presented i n Figure 1-42. Thi s compares to 17 percent of all residents of Bay County being 60 years or more Gende r -The survey results shown in Figure 1-43 indicate that 80 percent of BCT's riders are female This is a large over representation of females for the whole county which make up 51 percent of the population as reported by the 1990 U.S Census. Ethnic OrigjoSystemwide, about 78 percent of the riders are white while 16 percent are black In addition seven percent of the riders indicated their to be Hispanic. This ethnic origin information is contained in Figure 1-44. Annual Household Income As shown in Figure 1-45, annual household incomes of less than $10,000 represent the households of the majority of BCT's riders at 7 7 percent which is much greate r than the county's share of 18 percent of households having annual incomes less than $10,000. 102 Bay County Transit Developm&nt Plan

PAGE 139

Automobile Availability In Question 14, riders were asked to answer how many vehicles there are available to them in their household. As shown in Figure 1-46, over 73 percent of respondent s stated that they had no vehicles available to them. In the 1990 U.S. Census, only 7 percent of Bay County res idents had no vehic l es available to them, and the largest portion (41 percent) had two vehicles available in their household. Bay County Transit Development Plan 103

PAGE 140

Figure 1-42 Question 10Age, BCT Survey 17 yeano or under 60yeano or Figure 1-43 Question 11 -Gender, BCT Survey Figure 1-44 Question 12 -Ethnic Origin, BCT Survey 19M Survey 104 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 141

. . Figure 1-45 Question 13 Annual Househo l d Income BCT Survey Less than $10, 000 $20 000 10 $30 ,000 and Figure 1-46 l!il Bay Coonty .1998SuNey Question 14Automobile Availability BCT Survey Bay County Transit Development Plan 111 Bay COunty 1996SUOVO)' 105

PAGE 142

. Travel Behavior Three questions were included on the on-board survey to obtain information about the travel behavior of BCT riders. This information includes frequency of use, fare payment, and alternate modes. The results of these questions are shown in Figur es 1-47 through 1-49. Freguency of Use The majority of respondents answered in Question 1 that t hey use BCT five days per week, as Illustrated in Figure 1-47. The results of Question 1 were also compared with a similar question asked on the 1992 BCT on-board survey. This comparison showed that t he frequency of use has not cha nged very much In 1992, the majority of riders used BCT fwe times per week. Fare PaymentIn Question 2 respondents were asked whether they pay a fare to ri de on the BCT vehicles and if they do pay, what the amount of the fare was. As shown in Figure 1-48, approximately 64 percent of respondents payed a fare and the average fare was $1. 1 3 one way, with the majority paying $1. 00. Attemate To find out how people would travel to their destinations if they could not travel by the BCT vehicle, the survey asked Question 9. In this question respondents were given muHipl e choices and could check more than one as illustrated i n Fig ure 1 -49. The most frequent response (55 percent) was that the rider "wouldn't make the trip" if not by a BCT vehicle. In addition, 35 percent of respondents stated that they would "ride with someone as an alternative 106 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 143

Figure 1-47 Question 1 Frequency of Use, BCT Survey Figure 1-48 ............. ........ Question 2 Fare Payment, BCT Survey SUrvey Figure 1-49 Question 9 Alternate Modes, BCT Survey Ride with SOime
PAGE 144

User Satisfaction A series of questions were asked in the BCT on board survey to evaluate quality of service. These five questions were chosen to correspond the questions asked in the 1992 on-board survey The quest i ons asked include informat i on concerning on-time performance, driver assistance, veh i cle quality, and overall quality (The reader should note that quality issues are also addressed in the open-ended questions discussed below in the section on other passenger comments and suggestions.) OnTime Performance In Question 5 respondents were asked how often they arrive at their appointments on time. Illustrated in Figu r e 1-50, a l arge majority (84 percent) of riders answered that they always arrive on time. In the 1992 survey 77 percent stated that they always arrive on time In both surveys none of the respondents answered that they never arrive on time. Priver Assistance-Figures 1-51 and 1-52 show the results of Question 6 which asked about the of driver assistance. In this quest i on, riders were asked to answer whether they require assistance to board the vehicle (29 percent stated that they require assistance) If they answered yes, they were asked to rate the of the assistance An overwhelming majority of respondents in the 1996 survey answered that the quality of the ass i stance was excellent. This was a large improvement over the 1992 survey where only 30 percent responded that the service was excellent. Vehicle Quality Respondents were asked in Question 4 to rate the comfort of BCT s vehicles. As contained in Figure 1-53, 85 percent of respondents, in the 1996 survey rated the comfort of the vehicles as good or excellent. In 1992 84 percent of survey respondents rated the veh i cles' comfort as good or excellent. In the 1996 survey zero respondents rated the vehicle comfort as poor. Overall QualityIn Question 3 respondents were asked to rate the overall quality of BCTs service. The results of thi s question are illustrated in Figure 1-54. The majority of respondents in the 1996 survey rated the overall quality as excellent another 38 percent rating it as good. These results were similar to the 1992 survey where 92 percent rated the overall qual ity as excellent or good. 108 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 145

Flgure1..SO Question 5On-TI""' n ee, BCT Survey Flgure1-51 II199Z Survey 1998 SU!'Wy Question 6A -Driver Assmance, BCT Survey Figure 1-52 1!!11112 s..v.y .18HSUNey Question 68 -Driver Assistance, BCT Survey 1992 SUI'V$)' 1tKSurvey 1011

PAGE 146

110 Figure1-63 Question 4 Vehiele Quality, BCT Figure1-54 ..... ...... HI Survey Question 3-Ovenoll Quality, BCT .1tt2Survey .11M Survey Bay County Ttanslt Development P lsn

PAGE 147

BCT Service Awareness Two questions were asked on the 1996 survey to determine the riders' BCT service awareness. Questions on the awareness of BCT in general and the Nonsponsored ProgramfRide Line were asked. BCT -In Question 7, respondents were asked how they became aware of Bay Coordinated Transportation. In the 1996 survey, as shown in Table 1-36, 49 percent of respondents became aware of BCT's service through family or friends. Another 24 percent l earned about BCT from the Council on Aging. Tab le 1-36 Question 7 BCT Awareness BCT Survey Respon$8 Porcont Family/Friend 48.5% Council O n Aging 2A.2% Word of Mouth 12.1% Another Agency 9.1% other 6.1% Nonsponsored Program/Ride LineIn addition to general awareness of BCT, respondents in both the 1992 and 1996 surveys were asked if they were aware of BCT's Nonsponsored Program/Ride line and if they are, how did they become aware of the service. As shown in Figure 1-55, in 1996 50 percent of respondents were aware of the program. This was an imp rovement of awareness over the 1992 survey where 35 percent of respondents were familiar with the program. In the 1996 survey of those that were familiar with the program 62 percent became aware through family or friends, as shown in Table 1-37. In 1992, the most common response to this question was the Bay County Council on Aging followed by other human service organizations. B ay County Tlllnslt DeveiOPmont Plan 111

PAGE 148

112 Table 1-37 Question 7 Non sponsored Program/Ride Line Awareness BCT Survey ResponH Percent 61 5% WOld of Mouth 1 $ .4% Another Agency 12.1% Other 15 .4 % Figure 1-55 Question 8 Nonspo nsored Program/Ride Line, BCT Survey Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 149

Passenger Comments and Suggestions Passengers of BCT were also given an opportunity to provide open-ended comments to Questions 15 and 16. In addition, they were asked if they had any other comments or suggestions In Question 15, respondents were asked whether they had any suggestions that they feel would i mprove the quality of service Many of the comments were directed at the perceived severity of the "ncrshow" policy other comments indicated a need for weekend service All ofthe comments to Question 15 are listed below. "Do vou have any suqges(jons which you feel would improye the quality of our seNice? Allow cancellations without no-show fees" "No. She does a great job. "Service is fine. "Weekend services and la ter services." "I feel if I get sick I shouldn't fee l I should pay a noshow fee " Run on weekend "The service has been great. I love Miss Thelma." "Yes the maintenance on the bus needs to be i mproved. They never seem to have the equ i pment, the replacement parts available or the mechanic needed. I think the driver should design the needs he should have on the bus. He is the one who does the work with his passengers and has the responsibility." "Take the bumps out of the road." "The people are very nice." "There should be a better and effective way of communicating and coordinating i n the system. Also prioritization." "If someone is taken with sudden Illness they should be able to cancel the!r ride after 5 P .M. and not be charged a ncrshow fee for the following day. Also no-show fee is unfairly high I" I n add i tion to Question 15, Question 1 6 asked riders to comment on theirtransporlation needs that I are currently not met. Many riders responded that more trips need to bel provided for particular purposes such as shopping, medical appointments, and meal site visits Other respondents commented that the service should be more flexible on advanced reservations All of the responses to Question 16 are l isted below. Bay County Transit Development Plan 113

PAGE 150

"Please comment on your transoortalioa needs wltieh are c(J('OOnllv not met Weekend travel to work. I have to walk or Mch a ride." "I feel that a medical emergency should not have to be scheduled a day in advance. "Shopping and VA Clinic.' 'The driver is always here and ready to meet you with a smile or to greet you with a Good Morning It's the inconvenience he has to work with He shouldn t have to be responsible for maintaining the bus." "Tri ps to Wai-Mart Super Center on beach, trips to mall, trips going to different places on the beach." "Sometimes medica l and to the meal sight 'Doctors . COA. shopping." They are all met." "Take Medicaid trips." 'More flexibility for unexpected trips/changes." Rides should be available for Saturday and Sunday needs ." Respondents were also asked to make any other comments and suggestions in an open-ended format. Most of the comments were with many complimentary comments directed at the drivers and the service provided. Numerous comments were made as to the amount of work that the drivers perform with very little compensation. All comments from respondents are listed below. "Other Comments and Suggestions' "Driver might have change for a $5.00 bill. "I am quite comfortable." "Th omas is great with our grandson and very courteous." "Wrthout Bay Transportation I wouldn't have a job. Your services are greaUy appreciated." Thank you very much. I have rea lly appreciated everyone at Bay Coordinaied Transportation. I wouldn't have made it without you. It has been a great peace of mind to know I would always make it to work. I will miss Miss Thelma and her busload of specia l people." 'I think the drivers should have an increase in salary They have too much responsibility and it's an insult what their wages are People carrying out grocery bags at stores get more salary than the drivers. When you have someone who is responsible, caring and dependable, you should t ry to keep them not misuse them. They are hard to find." "Pleasant person and bus driver.' "They are short on drivers. Need more but all in all I am pleased with the service they provide for me. The drivers are very friendly." 'Allis well." 114 Bay County Tmnsit Development Plan

PAGE 151

Most drivers are nice, but one or two are grouchy." 1 appreciate the ability to have a chance to call and get tran sportat ion to places I need to go." "Riders should be allowed to schedule more than more than one trip per day. Also, two stops should be allowed during the course of one trip." Conclusions The objective of this on-board survey was to collect BCT rider demographic information, travel behavior, user satisfaction, and rider service awareness. Where possible and appropriate this information was also compared with U.S. Census information and results of a similar survey in 1992. In addition, a typical passenger profile was developed through the use of responses to the questions that pertain to rider demographic characteristics. On average, the typical rider currently using BCT service is a white female age, 60 years or more, has an annual income of Jess than $10,000 and does not own a vehicle. Table 1-38, also, contains this information. It is interesting to note that the typical rider using the Bay Town Trolley service, as reportep-1 X by its onbo ard slJfVey is exactly the same as the rider of BCT. Table 1-38 T ypical BCT Ride r Profile Rider Charact&ristie Rider Profile NJe 60 years or more Gender Female Ethnic Orlgin White Annual HousehOkt Income ... than $10,000 Auto OWneiSh(l None Also revealed from the on-board survey was the perception by most riders that Bay Coordinated Transportation is providing quality service in regards to drivers vehicles and support service. Important to note Is that most ri ders of BCT appear to not have any other choices for transportation. Bay Coordinated Transportation provides a necessary service for many people in the community. Bay COunty Transit Development Plan 115

PAGE 152

BAY TOWN TROLLEY OPERA TOR SURVEY In addition to the on-board survey completed by the riders, a survey was also prepared for the Bay Town Trolley bus operators. Bus operators are in direct contact with the riders, making them an inva luable source of information concerning the day to day operations of the Bay T own Trolley. A copy of the operator survey is contained in Appendix E. A total of six surveys were returned by the operators. As shown in Table 1-39, all of the drivers who returned surveys stated that the most frequent rider complaint is the need for Saturday service. All of the drivers also report that the riders complained the trolley does not go where they want. The other recurrent complaints are infrequent service, the n eed for evening service the lack of shelters/benches, hard-to-understand schedules, uncomfortable trolleys, and difficult-to-obtain information. Four of the six operators said that all of the complaints are valid, and the remaining two operators stated that some of the complaints are valid. Improvement areas for Bay Town Trolley as identified by the tro lley operators themselves inc luded better coordination of trans fers between routes, the operation of Saturday service, a nd more frequent maintenance of trolleys. All of the responses are contained in Table 1-40. There was only one locatio n identified by the operators as being difficuh and unsafe: the i ntersection at Transmitter Road and Hwy 22, as shown in Table 1-41. In addition, one driver complained that there is no traffic light and it is difficuh to tum left out of the Panama City Mall. One operator did not respond to this question while one operator stated there are no safety problems. The operators were asked if there are any schedules or parts of schedules which are difficult to maintain. Five operators responded that there are no schedule problems. One operator however, stated that the North and East Routes are difficult to maintain. Specifically the driver felt that there is too much headway at several stops Two drivers recommended changes to the system. One operator stated that the Beach Route needs two trolleys at the beach one each for West and East. Another operator suggested that the system needs constant East-West and North-South runs. The operators were also asked i f service should be offered later in the evening and if Saturday service is necessary. As contained in Table 1 -42, five out of the six operators felt that night service is not necessary, while five out of six operators felt that Saturday service is necessary. 116 Bay County Transit Development Pian

PAGE 153

1.39 Most F requent P.assenger Compla ints About Bay Town Trolley Identified by Trolley Operators Bay Town Trolley Operator Survey Most FreQuent Weiohted1 #of Responses Need Saturday service 27 6 Trollev doesn' t oo where I want 21 6 lnfceauent Servic:G 19 5 Need evening &ervioe 18 4 No trolley shelterslbenches 16 5 TroU ey schedule too hard t o understand 15 5 TroUey is not comfortable 13 5 PassenQetS cannot gl!t information 9 5 Rou te or destinatiOn not clear 9 4 Eati n a o r drlnltain trolleys more fiequent l y 23 5 Provide better route and sched u le Wormation 20 4 Put UP shel ler& at trolley stOp$ 14 4 Reduce headwavs 7 3 Lower the fare$ 4 4 Give more time I n schedules 2 2 Five point$ for each first priority ranking, down to one point for fifth p riority ranking. Bay County Transit 6evelopment Plan 117

PAGE 154

118 Table 1-41 Bay Town Trolley Safety Problems Identified by Trolley Operators Bay Town Trolley Operator Survey SafelY Problem Transmitter Road and RtetHwy 22 Transmitter Road and Rte/Hwv 22 Bad intersection no tta1fic lioht Left tu.rn Into and out of P C Mall No safety problems No respon5e Table 1-42 Response to Questions 7 a nd 8 Bay Town Trolley Operator Survey I of Resoonses 2 1 1 1 1 Question Yes No No Res I s night service necessary? 1 5 0 Is Saiulay service ne<:o$$0ry? 5 1 0 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 155

CHAPTER TWO INVENTORY OF TRANSIT PROVIDERS AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING PUBUC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INTRODUCTION Chapter Two contains two main sections. The first section, an inventory of transit providers, contains information on the public and private public transportation services currently provided in Bay County including Bay Town Trolley, Bay County Council on Aging (Bay Coordinated Transportation), social service agencies, and taxi companies. The second section focuses on the performance of Bay County Council on Aging (BCCOA), Bay County's Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC), and Bay Town Trolley (BTT). Temporal trends in performance data for BCCOA are analyzed, and, in addition, measures of. efficiency and effectiveness are compared with similar paratransit systems in Fl orida. For Bay Town T roll ey a limited trend analysis was accomplished in addition to a peer review of small systems in the Southeast and a review of systems that B a y Town Trolley can be expected to grow into in the future. INVENTORY OF PUBLIC TRANSpORTATION PROVIDERS This section provides a descriptio n of the various transportation services offered in Bay County. This inventory Includes all providers coordinated under the transportation disadvantaged coordinated system as well as agencies that are not coordinated but either provide service for the general public, their own clients, or specific program clients. This inventory was developed to serve as the basis for the later demand estimates and needs assessment. The inventory consists of Information on service providers, types of service, users of th e service, service areas, hours and days of service, ridersh ip, vehicle fleet, fare structure, and service agreements/contracts. Appendix F contains detailed information for each of these providers. Tabl e 2-1 contains selected information for each of the transportation providers. Bay County Transit Development Plan 119

PAGE 156

Table 2 Inventory of Public T ra nsportation Providers Bay County Name of Providef Type of Servtee Serviu users Bay COOfdinated T ransportat ion Paratransit TO, !Mabled. E lderly Bay Town Trolley Fixed-Route Transit Gene ra l Pubfic G u l f CNst Patient Trans port Paratransit ro. Medicaid D i sabled Elderly Tendet' Care Medica l Transport Paratransit TO, Medicaid Early Ch.iklhood SeMces, I n c. Para transit Children, Headstatt Bay Conval .. cont center Paratrans.it Elderty i n Rehabilitat ion Blue Haven ACOF Paratransit Medi caid Bay Medical Center Stretcher Emergency Medical Medicaid Services Cathol i c Social Services Pal8transit Low--Income, Homele$$ HRS Developmental Sflrvioea Paratransit Children in Shelters Shaw Adult Cente t Paratransil Students 16 and older Happy Days Early Core & Education Paratransit Children with Center Speci al Needs Rivendell Hospitll Paratransit Hospital Clients Ptofass ionalty Yours Tou!S Charter Sus Soervioe General Public Affordable UmousiM-Service I Paratranslt!Ch.arter G&n eral Public De luxe Coach Tax.i and C ab TaxiiParatrans.it Gene tal Public Executive Taxi & Airport Limousine Taxll?aratransit Genetal Public Sourc:es; Ma il su rvey completed by the West Florida RegioN! Planning Council Telephone conversations with agencies. EVALUATION OF EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORTAT ION SERVICES of Service Vehides Agreements 45 CTC 4 nfa 3 CTC, Medicaid 5 CTC, Medicakt 1 ere, Medicaid 1 Medicaid 1 Medicaid 17 MedM::aid 1 nla 1 Medicaid nla nfa 1 nlo 2 nlo 9 nla 5 nfa 1 0 Medicaid 6 nfa The follow ing sect ion evaluates the performance of the paratra n s it operations of Bay County Counci l on Aging and the transit operations of Bay Town Trolley. These analyses are useful in determining the streng ths and weaknesses of both of these systems. 120 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 157

' The Purpose of Performance Review Since a performance eva luat ion is only one method of evaluating the performance of a given public transportation sys tem, and is limited to only those aspects included in the analysis, the reade r should exercise considerab le caution in interpreting the results These analyses are particularly strong in rev iewing cost effectiveness and efficiency; however, they do not relay the extent to which other objectives of the publi c transportation system are being achieved. For example, the performance evaluation will not directly measure several relevant considerations such as passenger satisfaction regard to levels of service, taxpayer and public attitudes toward the agency employee morale, success in attaining minority hiring or contracting goals, of planning, contributions to community economic development, air quality improvements, or other goals that may be important to the public transportation system and the community. In addrtion, several aspects of of service are not measured in a performance evaluation. These include vehicle cleanliness and comfort, operator courtesy, o n-time performance quality of marketing and passenger information support, and level of satisfaction with hours of operat ions frequency of service, and geographic coverage of the service The resuHs from the on-board surveys of Bay Coordinated Transportation and Bay Town Trolley passengers addresses some of these previously mentioned issues. In addrtion to understanding the limrts of this analysis, the reader should use caution in interpreting the meaning of the various performance measures. The performance evaluation does not necessarily prov ide information regarding which aspects of performance are wrthin control of the agency and which measures are not Table 2-2 denotes selected major factors that ultimately affect a given public transportation agency's performance. Performance reviews are a useful and im portant tool in m o nitoring and improv ing public transportation system performance. However, it shou l d be recogn ize d that the results of trend and peer analyses are only a starting point f or gaining a full and complete understanding of the performance of transit systems. The issues identified as a resutt of the evaluation contained within provide the basis for a series of questions that can lead to an enhanced understanding of the "hows" and ''Whys" of system performance. Bay County Transit Development Plan 121

PAGE 158

Table 2-2 Factors AffecUng Public Transportation Perfonnance Managementi'Staff LoeaJ Policy Decisions Operating Environment Skills and experience Land use Densities Training Urban design Land-use patterns Parkl"'l Traffic oongMUon Morale Zoning Geography Service design Service levels Transit dependency Service quality Fare policy Sou"'*: CUTR Perfonnance Review Data The infonna tion for Bay T own Trolley originated from monthly operations reports for the first four months of service. Because BTT has not operated for a full year, a ll in format ion was annualized for comparison to other system Information taken from Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 15 reports. For paratransit service BCCOA reports a variety of data in standardized formats to both the FTA ( Section 15 reports due to receiving Section 9 funds) and to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) in an Annual Operating Report (AOR). Both reports provide standardized measures of reporting that enable a more accurate comparison of information between properties Because the peer review is based on a comparison other Florida paratransit systems some of which do not file Section 15 reports, data from AORs are used as the benchmark for the trend and peer evaluations BCCOA submitted AORs on a fiscal year basis in the years 1992 through 1995. To complete this chapter, CUTR did not collect a ny original data or conduct any audits or on-site analyses of the data or data collection procedures. The evaluation measures that are used throughout the performance evaluation are distributed among three primary categories: performance indicators effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures. Performance in d icat ors report absolute data in the selected categories of the AOR. These tend to be key indicators of overall transit system performance. Effectiveness measures typically refine the data further and indicate the extent to which various service-related goals are being achieved For example passenger t rips per capita is an indicator of the effectiveness of the agency in meeting transportation needs. Efficiency measures involve reviewing the level of resources (labor or cost) required to achieve a given level of output. It is possible to have very efficient service that is not effective or to have highly effective service that is not efficient. In 122 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 159

. the service can be both efficient and effectille or I nefficient and ineffective in attaining a g i ven objective. Appendix G provides definitions for all Indicators and measures utilized in this section Ba y Town Trolley P erfor m a nce R evie w The substantial amount of data available from Section 15 reports prov ide an opportunity to develop a large assortment of measures Sets of performance i ndicators and effectilleness and efficiency measures have been se l ected that are known to pro vide a good representation of overall transit system performance. Table 2 lists the indicators and measures used in this section Ptrformanee Indicators Pasanaer JriDS P1Hfnqot Mj!es v.--Bmnue Miles Vhide Hours. Route Miles Qli!IUillillSI ExDQIJIC* Malnton a nce Expenses Capjta! Expa!Wfs Total LocaiRBYenue Operating Revenue Ellunoer ReYenue T ocal Employee$, FTEs Vtbtcles Spare Ratio T a ble 2-3 Perfo rman c e Rev iew I ndi c a tors a n d M eas u res Fixed R o ute A n al ysis Effectiveness MNIUI'H Efficiency Mouurn Service Supply COSt Efficiency Miles Oroe!!;til m Rll CiiRhl Service Consumption Ooerat:in,g EmeMe ll!ll fial5 Veh. eJssenaer 12!! OcerJb !;ms;nse liS!: TriP Puungcc T!RJ at B1vrnwcldll Og!ratiog Slit M!!! T dgJ gstr B&!:.!I!UII t!!a!.i[ llcblsi!I.Mi!l Qual:it)' of Servieo O e!;rat i n g EXD, lilt Average Age o f F leet ( I n yoa11) ooerat!og exo. Q:[ Reveow t:121,1r Avecag QIItil (B,M.!B,l:l,l Operating Ratios Number of Incidents Bll!Q Revenue 5erlllce Interruptions Local Revenue ,per Opmtlng exp. Revenue Miles Between lnc::idlnta Opeurti"ll Rev. per Operating Exp. Revenue Mies Between l rrtlm.lpdons VehldeUiilization Vehicle Mile's 12!1:!: fiB Vth!;tl Vehicle Houts per Peak Vt:hfde Revenue MBes per Vehklle Miles Miles Ql[ Imll R e venue HQurs m![ !mil Labor Productivity Revenue HoufS per Employe F'rE Trips per Employee FTE Energy Utilization Vellicle Mios per Galon Fare Ave!:!Qe EaiJ NOTE: All m e a sures i n Tabl e 2-3 are used for the a n aly sis of the 1-9 vehic l e g1oup. w hie the und e rl ined meat urea are u sed in the analy&ia: of t h e 1 -5 g ro up. Soureo: 1994 Performa n ce Evaluation or F l orida's TraMit S ystems, Part 1: Trtnd An.al ysis, CU T R. Talrq)a, MJrd'l1996. Bay Oounly Ttansit Development Plan 123

PAGE 160

Trend Analysis BIT currently operates three vehicles on five routes. A trend analysis for the first four months of BTl's operation provides ridership data from January 1996through April1996 Fare revenues and total vehicle miles are presented for the months of February and March 1996. The data are summarized in T able 2-4. A 1994 population estimate of the Panama City Urbanized Area, based on 1990 U.S. Census Data, was used as a proxy for BIT's service area population. As Table 2-4 shows, ridership on the Bay Town Trolley has grown from 704 trips in January 1996 to 1,405 trips in April 1996, an increase of 100 percent. The average d a ily ridership has increased from 32.00 trips per day in January 1996to 60.29trips per day in April1996. Between February and March 1996, vehicle miles increased approximately 14 percent, resulting in an increase in the number of vehicle miles per capHa from 0.06 to 0.07 Also between the months of February and March 1996 fare revenue decreased slightly and, as a result the average fare per trip declined from $0.84 to $0. 71 Indicator/Meas-ure Service Atea Population' Passenger Trips Average Daily Ridership Total Vehicle Miles Passenger Fare Revenue Vehicle Miles per Capita Table 2-4 SumiTUlry of Selected Operating Statistics Bay Town Trolley January 1996 February 1996 March 1996 72, 630 72,830 72.630 594 1 .098 1 ,286 27.00 54.90 60.29 nla 7 1 87 8 181 nlo $917.00 $899.10 nla 0.06 O.D7 Average Fare per Passenger Trip nla $0.84 $0.71 April1998 72.630 1,405 60.29 nla $1.177.10 nla nla 'BTT service area population is based on the population within a buffer around t he current route network. Source: Bay Town Trolley Monthly Operations Reports. 124 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 161

Peer Group Analvsis A peer review analysis was conducted to compare the performance of the Bay Town Trolley with similar systems i n Florida and throughout the southeastern United States. This section contains two parts : a comparison to an existing peer group contain i ng systems that operate between one and n ine vehicles in maximum serv i ce and a comparison with a smaller, specially-se l ected peer group consisting of systems with five or fewer vehicles in maximum service. CUTR conducts an annual Performance Evaluation Study for the Fl or ida Department of Transportation (FOOl) whi ch includes a trend analysis and a peer review analysis CUTR' s peer analysis groups Fl orida s fixed-route transit systems (those receiv i ng State Block Grant funds) into four groups based on motorbus fleet size : 1 to 9 vehicles, 10 to 49 vehicles, 50 to 200 vehic l e s, and greater than 200 vehicles. Peers from outside Florida a r e carefully selected and also p l aced into these categories. The analysis allows Fl orida properties to be compared with each other as well as among the i r out-of-state peers. S i nce these out-of state peers have been examined c l ose l y and accepted by CUTR, as well as FDOT, to b e appropriate peers for Florida systems, they were used in this analysis to show how the Bay Town Trolley would fi1 i n with the exi sting 1-to-9 vehicle group. All data are from the systems' indiVidual Section 15 reports for fiscal year 1994 The F Y 1994 d ata represent the most recent validated fixed-route infonnation available Peer systems contained within the 1-to-9 pee r group are listed in Table 2-5 Table 2-5 Peer Systems Operating Between 1 and 9 Vehicles In M aximum Service Florida Peers Non..florida PHr& Manatee County Area Tran s i t Lake Charles Transit System (LA) Key West Department of Transportation Albany Transfi System (GA) Smyrna Transit System BVCAA-Brszos Transit System (Bryan TX) CJart!.svi J ie Transit System (TN) Owensboro Transfi System (KY) Gastonia Transit Syttem (NC) Source: 1 994 Performance E valua tion of Florida's Tran$it Systert'l$, Part 1 : Trend Analysi s 1984-1994 CUTR, Tampa, Ma rch 1996 Bay County Transit Development Plan 126

PAGE 162

Table 2-6 summarizes selected perfonnance indicators effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures by displaying the peer groups averages as well as the averages of a subset of the peer group. This peer subset contains only the three Florida systems: Manatee County Area Transit, Key West Department of Transportation, and Smyrna Transit System. It should be noted that, as of fiscal year 1995, VOTRAN, in Volusia County, assumed the operation of the Smyrna Transit System. These data are also shown graphically in Figures 2 through 2. Complete data tables including each peer system are found in Appendix H. 126 Table 2-6 Summary of Selected Operating Statistics (1994) 1 to 9 Veh icles Indicator/Meas-ure I Peer Mean Peer Sobset1 lllean Servioe Area Population 91.206 92,743 Passe n 98r Ttips 440.862 317,861 Revenue Miles, 296.248 260,778 Operating Expense $847,661 $759 .566 Passenger Fare Revenue S155,122 $138 ,595 Passenger Trips per Capita 5 17 4.23 Passenger Trips per Revenue M l l e 1.36 1.02 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile $2.95 $3. 1 0 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $2.72 $3.82 Farebox Recovery Ratio 18.0% 15.1% 'Th e Peer SubH:t contains the Florida systems in this group: Manatee County Axea Transit, Key West Department of Transportation, and Smyrna Transit System. Sourc:e: Syt.tems' Individual annual FTA Sedion 15 Reports, Report Year 1994. Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 163

Gastonia ...... .... Owtnsooro Key West N twSmyma New Smyrna 1-9 MOTORBUS VEHICLE CATEGORY Perfonnance Indicators Figure 2-1 Service Area Population (000 ) Bryan Ukt Charto OW.nsboro Figu re 2-4 Revenue Miles (000) AIDiny -..., .. ...... ---KoyW.tt Figure 2-3 Vehicle M iles (000) UktCtltrtM rvn AII>IO)' l(oy-0-aw. ....... Ntwlnwm Figure 2 Passenger Trips (000) Figure 2-s Total Operating Expense (000) County Transit Developm&nt Plan 127

PAGE 164

1-9 MOTORBUS VEHICLE CATEGORY Perfonnanc:e Indicators Figure Passenger Fare Revenue (000) lkyan NowSmym.o Figure 2-8 Vehicles Availab l e for Maximum Service Keyw..t .. .... Cluk&vtl .. ...... Owtnobo
PAGE 165

1-9 MOTORBUS VEHICLE CATEGORY Effectiveness Measures Figure 2-10 Vehicle Miles Per Capita Gastonia Bry., o<.,.west owensboro Manatee Lake Chal'te$ ClarkSVille Albany New Smyrna Figure 2 Figure 2-11 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Figure 2-12 Average Age of Fleet (years) Figure 2-14 Revenue Miles Between Incidents Revenue Miles Between Interruptions -owensboro Cla:tk$villt Gastonia t
PAGE 166

1-9 MOTORBUS VEHICLE CATEGORY Efficiency Measures Figure 2-16 Figure 2-15 Operating Expense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Figure 2 -17 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile F igure 2-18 Mai ntenance Expense Per Revenue Mile Figure 2-19 Farebox Recovery Ratio 130 Bay County Transit Deve lopment Plan

PAGE 167

1-9 MOTORBUS VEHICLE CATEGORY Efficiency Measures Figure 2-20 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle Manatee Albany Ga&tonla Figure 2-21 Revenue Hours Per Employee Bryan Lake Chal1e$ Albeny Monotee KsyGa&tonla Lake CharM& Owensl:lor'Q ClarkSville Boyan Newsmyma Figure 2 22 Passenger Trips Per Employee Bay County Transit Development Plan Albany Ow.nsboro -Gastonia ClM'ksvlle New Smyrna Boy;lft Figure 2-23 Averag e Far e 131

PAGE 168

While the data in Table 2-6 show characteristics of the existing peer group in which BTT would be contained if the system were included in FOOT's Perfonmance Evaluation Study of Florida's transit systems, it was also instructive to examine closely the characteristics of a group of smaller systems. As discussed previously, the systems in the 1-to-9 vehicle group have been approved by FOOT as appropriate peers for Florida systems. However for the purpose of this TOP, a second peer group was developed utilizing data from the FY 1994 Section 15 database consisting of seven systems in the southeastern United States operating five or fewer vehicles in maximu m service (the selection was not restricted to the systems already in the 1-to-9 vehicle group). Peer selection for this group was based primarily on geographic location and the number of vehicles operated. The intent of this second peer group was to compile smaller systems for a comparison unique to BTT. The chosen systems are listed in Table 2-7. As the table shows, Gastonia Transit System, from the original peer group is also included in this second analysis since it operates five vehicles in maximum service. The only Florida system in this group is Key West Department of Tra nsportation which operates four peak vehicles (and is also inc luded in the original peer group). Table 2 Peer Systems Operating Five or Fewer Vehicles in Maximum Service Florida Peen Non-Florida Peers Kay West Department of Transportation c;,y of Denton (TXJ Gastonia T"'nslt System ('NC) City of San Angelo Anttan {TX) Tuscaloosa County Parking & Tnmsit Authority (Al.) Florence Pee Dee Regional Transportation Authority PDRTA (SCJ City of Hic::kory -Piedmon t Wagon (NC) This second peer review is more detailed than the relatively brief examinat i on of the 1-to-9 vehicle group, and is intended to primarily demonstrate the level at which BTT should expect to be operating as it continues to develop. The following sections analyze selected perfonmance i n d icators effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures (indicators and measures utilized in this review are shown underlined in Table 2-3) gathered from fiscal year 1994 Section 15 data. lnfonmation is presented in both tabular and graphic fonm. The tables contain the group minimum, maximum, and mean for each indicator and measure and, in some instances, show BTl's projected annual values. I t is important t o note that, since BTT has only been operating for siX months (at the time of this draft technical memorandum), annual figures must be estimated to compare the system's data to the annual data provided by the peer systems. Append ix H consists of detailed data tables for this peer group. 132 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 169

Indicators Table 2-8 summarizes the performance indicators fcir ifie peer group operating five or l ess vehicles in maximum service. As the table shows, BTl's approximate service area population, represented by a three-quarter-mile buffer around the current routes, is approximately 12 percent l ess than the peer group mean of 82,090. However, BTl's service area population density, an important indicator, more closely matches that of the peers; the BTT service area is about one percent more dense than the peer group average Table 2-8 illustrates that BTT's estimated indicators for its first year of operation are somewhat below the more mature, established peer systems. This would be expected, however, since ij usually takes at least one full year for the effects of new service t o be realized. The graphics in Figures 2-24 through 2-35 also depict the peer group's data. Table 2-8 Fixed-Route Peer Analysis-Performance Indicators (FY 1994) Perforrnaneo lnciicator BTT' Peer M inimum Peer Maximum PeorMean BTT: %From Mean Service Area PopOiatioo 72.630' 32,471 150,500 82,090 ll.5% Service Area Density 1,369 112 2,754 1,352 +1,3% (persons per square mite) Passenger Ttl!)$ 20,544 48, 006 345 753 155, 851 .8% Passenger Miles n/a 147,574 2 ,030.750 845,258 nla Vehicle Miles 98,942 59, 944 316,109 212,734 .03.5% Revenue MiSes 89.04$" 57,658 307,974 204,626 -56.5% Revenue Hours 9,072 3,810 17,835 13,284 -31.7% Ope1'3tlng Expense $248,800 $68,125 $702,393 $473,968 -47.5% To1al El
PAGE 170

134 1-5 MOTORBU S VEHICLE CATEGORY Perfonnance Indicators Flgure2U Service Area P opulation (000) San Angelo HICk ory Figure2 25 Service Area P opulation Density .... -s.n..,_ Denton San Ange l o D enton Figure 2-26 P assenge r Trips (000)

PAGE 171

n..sc::atoos a Key West Hkl
PAGE 172

136 1-5 MOTORBUS VEHICLE CATEGORY Perfonnance Indicators KeyWnt --S.nAngclo Hickory Figure 2-31 Total Operating Expense (000) Figure 2-32 Total Capital Expense (000) Figure 2-33 Passenger Fare Revenue (000) Bay County Transit Plan

PAGE 173

1-S MOTORBUS VEHICLE CATEGORY Perfonna nce Indicators Key W t$1 -S.n A"C!elo Gutonl F lottntt TUocolooso Hkllory Figure 2-34 Total Vehicles in Fleet .. m ,. z Figure 2-35 Vehicles Operated I n Maximum Service Bay County Ttans i t Development P l a n 13 7

PAGE 174

Effectiveness MeasuresService Supply and Service Consumption One measure of service supply is the number of vehicle miles per capita BITs value for this measure, 0.89, is shown i n Table 2-9 along with the peer group minimum, maximum, and mean. The peer data are also shown in Figure 2-36. At; seen in the table, BITs number of vehicle miles per capita is well below the mean (although is above the minimum value), as would be expected for a system in its first year of operation. After vehicles mile per capita, the next three measures can be used to demonstrate how effectively a system is serving its users. Table 2 and Figure 2 indicate that BITs service consumption, in terms of passenger trips per capita, is below the peer group mean of 2.62. Values for this measure vary widely from 0.49 trips per capita to 8.29 trips per capita. The level of service consumption can also be measured by the numbers of passenger trips per revenue mile and per revenue hour. As noted in the table, the peer averages for passenger trips per revenue mile and hour are 0 .82 and 12.07, respectively. Again, BTT is below the average in both of these measures. The peer data for these two measures are also exhibited graphically in Figures 2-38 and 2-39, respectively. Tab le 2-9 Fixed-Route Peer Analysis. Effectiveness Measures (FY 1994 ) Effectiveness Measure BTT Peer M lnlmum Peer Maximum Peer Mean %From Mean V&hicle Mites per C'plta 0.89 0.84 6.00 3.20 -72.2% Passeoger Trips per C3pita 0. 1 8 0.49 8 29 2 .62 -93.0% Passenger Trips per 0.23 0 .33 1.49 0.82 -72.0% Revenue M i le I P$sse.nger Trips per 2.26 5.67 20.48 12.07 -8 1.3% Revenue Hou r Sources: Bay town Trolley Monthly Operations Report$. ProfiJfts: AgencitJS in Urbanized AtVSS with 8 Population of Jess th(ln 20(>.000, USOOT, FTA, December 1995. 138 County Transjf Development Plan

PAGE 175

l<.y W est 1 5 M O TORBUS VEHIC LE CATEGORY Effec;tivenes s Measu res Fi gure 2-36 Vehicle M iles P e r C a p ita Figure 2-38 S aftAngt lo Fogure2-37 P-nger T rips Per Cplta Passe nger Trips Per Revenue Mile Fogure 2 -31 P assenger Trips Pe r Revenue Hour ......... Denton 1'UICI IOOA Bay County Transit De velopment Plan 139

PAGE 176

Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery The six operating expense ratios shown in Table 2-10 and Figures 2 -40 through 2-45 are reliable measures of a system's cost efficiency. Operating expense for BTT was estimated us ing the planned budget for the first year of service. As the table and figures demonstrate, the values for these operating expense measures vary extensively among the peer systems The l ast effic i ency measure outlined i n Table 2-10 is the farebox recovery ratio. Thi s measure denotes the portion of operating expense covered by passenger fares This ratio demonstrates the need for public transportation subsidies The peer group mean for this measure reveals that, on average nearly 21 percent of these systems' operating expenses are paid from the fareboxes BTT's farebox recovery ratio was estimated at 6 .4%. Figure 2-46 exhibits peer data for this measure graphically Tab le 2-10 Fixed-Route Peer Analysis -Efficiency Measures (FY 1994) I BTT: Efficiency Measure BTT P"rMinimum Peer Maximum I Peer Mean %From Mean Operating Expense pe r Capita $3,43 $0.92 $2 1 63 $7.59 -54.8% Operating Expense per $82 933 $22,042 $175 .598 $11 2 .898 26 .$% Peak VehiCle Operating Expense per $12.11 $ 1 .3 8 $7.32 $3.56 +240 .2% Passenger Trip Operating Expense per nfa $0 27 $2 .21 $ 1 .08 nla Passeng&r Mite Operating Expense per $2.79 $ 1 .07 $3 67 $2 .30 +21. 3% Revenue Mlle Operating Expense per $27 .43 $17.36 $53.35 $34.77 -21.1% Revenue Hour FarebOX Recovery Rallo 6.4% 1 6 .5% 25. 3 % 20.?%' -es.t% 'The peer group mean fOt th\t measure doe$ not Include data for Florence PORT A which did not provide fare r8'\t$MllltS for its motoltlus service. Souroes: Bay Town Trolley Monthly' Operations Reports. Transit Profiles : Agenc:nt..s In Urb1nized Areas with a Population ol/9$.$ than 200 ,000, USOOT. FTA December 1995. 1 4 0 Say County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 177

1-5 MOTORBUS VEHICLE CATE GORY Efficiency Measures Tuscaloosa Figure 2-40 Operati ng Expense Per Capita Figu r e 2-42 O p e rating Expanse Per Panenger Trip Bay County Tnmsit Development Pfen rJgure 2-4 1 Operating Expense Per Peak Ve h lele San AngeJo 2-43 Operating Expense Per Panenger Mile 141

PAGE 178

1 4 2 1-5 MOTORBUS VEHICLE CATEGORY Efficiency Measures Figure 2-44 Operating Expe nM Per Revenue M ile Figure 2-45 Operating ExpenM Per Revenue Hour San Angelo Figure 2-46 Farebox R ecovery Ratio Bay Colmty T ra n sit Development Plan

PAGE 179

Efficiency Measures-Vehicle Utilization and Fare The number of vehicle miles per peak vehicle is one measure of vehicle utilization. BTT's value for this measure, as shown in Table 2-11, is 32,981; this figure is approximately 52 percent less than the peer average. The numbers of revenue miles and hours per total vehicles (total fleet) are additional measures that demonstrate how efficiently a system utilizes the vehicles in Its fleet The peer group averages are 29,726 revenue miles per total vehicles and 1,924 revenue hours per total vehicles. BTT has 22,262 revenue miles per total vehicles. For revenue hours per total vehicles, BTT reported approximately 2,268 hours which is greater than the peer average. Figures 2-47 through 2-49 illustrate the peer data for these three vehicle utilization measures. The average fare, also listed in Table 2-11, is calculated by dividing the passenger fare revenue by the numbe r of passenger trips. This measure accounts for varying levels of discountfares. The table indicates that BTT's estimated average fare is only about one percent/below the peer group mean of $0.79 The peer systems' average fares are denoted in Figure 2-50. Ta ble 2-11 Fixed -Route Peer Analysis -Efficiency Measures (FY 1994) Efflclency Measure BTT Peer Minimum Peer Maximum Peer Mean BTT: %From Mean Vehlete Miles per 3 2,961 19,9 $1 63,222 50,085 Peak Vehicle Revenue Miles per 22, 2S2 9,61 0 44,425 29,726 -25.1% VehJcles Revenue Hours per 2 ,26$ 635 2 ,610 1 ,924 +17. 9% Total Vehicles Average Fare $0.78 $0.45 $1.47 $0.79 -1.3% 'The peer group mean for lWerage fare does not lnc:Jude data for Florence PORT A. which cfld not provide fare revenues for its motorbus !Jervioe. Sources: Bay Town TroJey Monthly Operations Report&. T(O)nsit Profiles: Agencies in Ulf)anlz&d Amas with a Population of less than 200,000, USDOT, FTA. Oecembcu 1995 Bay Coun(y Transit Development Plan 143

PAGE 180

1 5 MOTORBUS VEHICLE C ATEGORY Efficiency M eas ure s F"ogure 2-47 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle (0 00) o.nton Hk:l
PAGE 181

Conclusions This fixed-route peer review analysis summarized operating data for a peer group consisting of systems operating between one and nine vehicles in maximum service (utilized in an annual Perfonmance Evaluation Study prepared for FOOT) and a second group contain ing systems operating five or fewer vehicles in maXimum service. Where applicable, BTT operating data were compared to the smaller peer systems. It was expected that much of BITs data would be below the average of the peer systems, espec ially since BTT has only been providing serv ic e for approximately six months. A relatively lengthy period of time-usually at least one year-is needed for new service to mature. However, the infor mat ion presented in this section can provide insight as to the characteristics of BTT service as is continues to deve l op. Bay County Transit Development Plan 145

PAGE 182

Bay County Council on Aging (Paratranslt) Performance Review The substantial amoun t of data available f rom the AORs provi d e an o pportunity to develop a large assortment of measures for paratransit service. Sets of performance indicators and effectiveness and efficiency measures have been sel ected that are known to provide a good representation of overall paratransit system performance. Table 2-12 l ists the in di cators and measures used in this section In addition, Table 2 13 presents selected operating characteristics performance indicators, and performance measures for fiscal year 1994/1995 in order to provide a basic overview of BCCOA's performance Table 2-12 Performance Review I ndicators and Measures Paratransit Analysis Performance Lndlcators Effectiveness Measures Pas:se-ngtr Trip$ Service Passenge r M iles Vehtele M iles per Capita M11M Vehicle M;)es per TO C.pita Rev&nue MiiM Service Consumption Vehide Hours Passenger Trips per Capita Route M iles Pa$$enger Trips per TO Capita Operating Expenses Passenger Trips per Vehicle Hour 2 Capital Expenses 1 Passenger Trips per Veh icl e Mile Operat ing Reven ues Pauenger Trip$ per Vehicle TotaJ Employees FTE Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile Passenge r T rips per Revenue Hour' Fuel Consumption 1 Quallty of Service Average Age of Fleet (in year$} Number of Accidents Number of R oadea lls Revenue M iles Between Acc:iden ts Revenue Miles Between RoadcaUs Data are not avail able from BCCOA's fiscal year 1995 AOR. 2Comp5ele trend data for thl$ mea$ure are nol av'ilable Measures Cost Effici-ency Operating Exp. per Capita Opera ting Exp. Per TO capita Operating Exp. per Vehicle Operating Exp per Pas.stnger Tlip Operating Exp. per Passenger M ile 1 Opera ting Exp. per Ve hide M ile Operating Exp per Revenue M ile Fare Sox Recovery Ratio local Gov't Revenue Rat i o Vehicle Utilization Vehicle Miles per Vehkle Vehicle Mites per Gal lon 1 Revenue Miles per Tota l Ve h icles Revenue Miles per Ve h icle Miles Vehicle Hours per Vehicle t Labor Productivity PusengerTrips per FTE E m p loyee Revenue Hour.> per FTE Employt-e Tota l Vehldes per FTE Employee Sou roe: Commissio n for U'le Transportatio n DiSadvantaged. 1995 Annua l Performa n ce Report. County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 183

In order to completely understand the data used in a performance evaluation of this type, it is impo rtant to have an understanding of the definitions of the terms In many instances, these definitions differ from initial perceptions and, therefore, may be contingent upon subjective Table 2 Overview of BCCOA Performance (1995) Selected Measures Data Pe.rfonnance Indicators Countylaerviee area pop u l ation 1 138 ,798 Total one-way passenger trips 170,230 Total ve h icle m ile s 876,429 Tota l vehk:Je hours 62,291 Total revenue miles 739,627 Total operati n g expense $1,125,124 Tota l roadcalls 39 TotalaoOdento 10 Tota l revenue (all sources) $1,125,124 FTE employees 45 .7 Fleet size 45 Effectiveness Measures Passenger trips per veh icle mile 0.19 Passenge r trips p&r vehlde hour 2.73 Passenge r trips per FTE employee 3,727 Revenue mil o per vehicle mil e 0 .84 Vehi cle miles betwee n aoeldenrs 87,643 Vehicle m iles betwee n roadcalls 22,473 Vehicle miles per vehicle 19,476 Efficiency Measures Operating expense per passeng&r tri p $6.61 Operating expense per capita $8. 11 Operating expense per vehicle miSe $1.28 1As estimated by the Bureau of Economic and Susiless Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida as: of April1, 1995 Source: BCCOAAOR fisca l year 1995 Bay County Transit Development Plan 147

PAGE 184

interpretation. AppendiJC G provides a deta iled list of for the terms used in the trend and peer analyses. Oespije these definijions and continuous efforts to refine them, there remain some discrepancies as to how terms are defined and how information is collected Consequently, some ca ut ion should be exercised when Interpreting the findings contained within, especially for those variables that are more likely to be subject to variation in definition. One example includes how emp lo yees are categorized among administrative, transportation, and ma i ntenance responsibilijies within different agencies. Trend Analysis A trend analysis for the fiscal years 1992 through 1995 was conducted to recount BCCOA's temporal performance over this time period The myriad tables provided throughout the trend analys is present only the performance ind icators and effect i veness and efficiency measures that are available from BCCOA's AORs. These figures may be oversta ted or understated, due to various accounting pract i ces at BCCOA. Results from the trend analysis are provided in the follow ing paragraphs Performance Indicators As shown in Table 2-14, BCCOA ridership {passenger trips) rose by 27 percent in the period from 1992 to 1995. The level of service as measured by vehicle miles increased steadi ly from 1992 to 1995 overall in crease of 78 percent. Revenue miles increased at a sl ig htly lower rate of 53 percent from 1992 to 1995 Thus service provision increased at a faster rate than ridership ove r the four year period Vehicle hours are a l so included in Table 2-14 however, complete d ata were not availab l e for the trend analysis. Without taking into account inflation total operating expense inc reased by 65 percent from 1992 to 1995. In addition, tota l operating revenue increased by 73 percent from 1992 to 1995 Tab l e 2-14 shows the temporal trends for expenses and revenues The total number of full-t ime equivalent employees steadily increased by 4 7 percent between 1992 and 1995, as Table 2-14 shows. The fleet size has increased by nearly 73 percent from 1992 to 1995, wHh the net addijion of six vehicles in 1993, eleven vehicles in 1994, and two vehicles in 1995 to its current size of 45 vehicles, as shown in Table 2-14. 148 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 185

Table2 Paratransit Trend Analysis Performance Indicators Percent Indicators FY1092 FY1993 FY1894 FY1995 Chnoe (199Z..1895) Service Axea Population 131,751 134,192 136, 684 138,798 5% TO PopulatiOn 13.856 14,172 16,462 11 ,554 17% P-Tr%>s 133,610 159 ,598 157. 341 170,230 27% Vehicle Mils 492,1 3 1 612. 102 783 ,337 876,429 7ft Revenue Miles 482 a.;:! 595,614 l'V2,456 739,627 53 % Vehicle Hours nla n/a 59,801 62,291 n /1 Operating Expenses $683,856 $1 ,039, 634 $1,051 184 $1,125,124 85% Ope:ratlng Revenues $650 429 $997,348 $1,051,184 51,125,124 73% Total Employee5, FTE 31 0 34.0 38. 5 45.7 47% Vehk:les 26 32 43 45 73% Sowce: BCCOAAOR's. fts.c:llyean1992-1995. Effectiveness Measures -Service Supply A s shown in Table 2 15 service supply is measured by th e number of vehicle miles per capHa and the number of vehicle miles per TO capHa (using the TO population for Bay County) From 1992 to 1995 vehicle miles per capita increased by 69 percent while vehicle miles per TO capHa increased by 114 percen t. This transla t es into approxim a tely 73 miles per year for each person in the TO population. Table 2-15 Paratransit Trend Analysis Effec:tiveness Measures: Service Supply Parc t nt Measure FY1992 FY1993 FY1884 FY1995 Chango (1992 1996) Velllole Miles per Capita 3.74 4.56 $.80 6 .31 Vehacle M iles per TO 35.52 43.19 4&. 1 9 75.86 114% capita SCMJroe: BCCOAAORs. ftscal)"'ata 19i'2 Bay County Transit Development Plan 14 9

PAGE 186

Effectiveness Measures Service Consumpt ion Table 2 -16 contains measures of service consumption Passenger trips per capi ta prov i des the average number of boardings made by each person in Bay County over the course of a given year, and measures the extent to wh i ch the public util izes para t rans i t in the service area I n this case lhe service area i s assumed to be all of Bay County. From 1992 to 1995 p assenge r trips per cap i ta increased by 21 p ercent to 1 23 Passenger trips per TD capi t a also contained in Tabl e 2-16 measures the average number of boardings made b y each person in the TD populati o n This measure i ncreased by 53 percent from 1992 t o 1995, w i lh 1 4 .73 trips pe r TD capija In 1995 Passenger trips per vehicle mile i s also a measure of service consumption i nfl ue n ced by the levels of demand for and supp l y of p a ratrans i t serv i ce. F rom 1992 to 1 995, passenger trips p e r veh i cle mile declined by 28 percent to 0.19 as disp l ayed in Table 2 16 Passenge r tri p s per revenue mile, also decreased during this period by 17 percent. The opposrte t rends of passenger t rips per cap ita and passenge r trips per vehicle mile reflect the fact that vehicle mil es rose faster than ridership ove r th i s period This may be attributed to an increase in average trip length. Tab l e 2-16 Paratrans i t Trend A n alysis -Effectiveness M easures: Serviu Consumption I Percent Meas-ure FY1992 FY1993 FY19114 FY1995 Change (1992-1996) Passenger Trips per capita 1. 0 1 1 .19 1.15 1 .23 2 1 % Passenger Trips per TO 9 .64 11 .26 9 .56 14.73 53% Capila Passenger Trips per 0 .28 0 .27 0 .20 0 .23 -17% Revenu e M ile Passenger Trips per n/a n/a 2.63 2.73 nla Veh ic l e Hour Passenger Trips per 0 .27 0 .26 I 0.20 0.19 -28% Vehicle M ile Source: BCCOAAOR's, fisea tyear$19921995. Effectiveness Measures Quality of Service For fi sca l year 1995 the average age of BCCOA's paratransit fleet was cal c ulated to be 3 8 years as shown in Tabl e 2 17. The average useful life of a van in para t ransrt service is 4 years or 100,000 m i les The average age of the fleet is at the highest in 1995 in comparison to the other three years of the tren d anal ysis wrth a 15 percent overall i ncrease f rom 199 2 to 1995. Of the 45 ve h icles in BCCOA's active paratransit fleet the majori t y are mode l years 1993 and 1994, whil e 150 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 187

only 6 are model year 1988 or earlier. An inventory of BCCOA's current fleet is contained in Table 2 18. As shown in Table 2-17, the number of accidents has steadily decreased from 1992 to 1995 from 20 per year to 10 per year. The number of roadcalls has been erratic from 1992 to 1995 There were 10 roadcalls in 1992 and 40 roadcalls in 1993. In 1995 the roadcalls decreased to 39. Overall the number of roadcalls increased by 290 percent from 1992 to 1995. The number of revenue miles between accidents, as shown in Table 2-17, increased by 207 percent from 1992 to 1995, with a slight decrease from 1994 to 1995. The number of revenue miles between roadcalls decreased in 1992 before increasing steadi l y from 1993 to 1994. However, vehicle miles between roadcalls decreased by 61 percent from 1992 to 1995 with a slight i ncrease in 1995 to 18,965 vehicle miles. Table 2-17 Paratransit Trend Analysis -Effectiveness Measures : Quality of Service Porecnt Measuro FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 Change (1992-1995) Avera9E! Age of Fleet 3.3 2.9 3.5 3.8 15% NurOOer of Aociclents 20 17 10 10 -50% Number of Roadealls 10 40 44 39 290% Revenue MiiM Between 24,103 35,036 79 248 73,963 207% Aocidents Revenue Miles Between 48,205 14,890 18 010 18,965 RoadcaUs Souroe: BCCOA AOR'&, fiscal years 1992995 Table 2-18 1995 BCCOA Fleet Composit i on by Model Year ModtiYear Number of .. s Model Year Number of Vehicles 1984 2 1990 3 1 985 1 1991 2 1986 1 1992 5 1987 1 1993 9 1988 1 1994 12 1989 8 1995 0 Source: BCCOA AOR, fi$cal year 1995 Bay County Transit Development Plan 151

PAGE 188

Efficiency Measures -Cost Efficiency and Revenue Ratios Four cost efficiency measures have increased from 1992 to 1995, while two have decl ine d slightly, as Table 2-19 shows. Operating expense per capita and per T D capita increased by 56 percent and 97 percent, respectively. In addijion, ope rating expense per passenger trip increased by 29 percent from 1992 to 1995 and operating expense per revenue mile increased slightly by seven percent. Operating expense per vehicle and operating expense per vehicle mile declined by five percent and eight percent respectively. In 1995 $8.11 was spent by BCCOA on operat ing expenses for every person in Bay County; $6.61 was spent for every passenger trip taken on the BCCOA system; $1.28 was spent for every vehicle mile of service provided by BCCOA. Also contained in Table 2-19 is the farebox recovery ratio and local government r evenue ratios for BCCOA BCCOA, in 1995 recovered 2.2 percent of operating expenses through fares. Also in 1995, local government revenue sources contributed to 13.5 percent of BCCOA's revenue Thi s ratio fluctuated over the four-year period from a high of 32. 8 percent in 1993 to 0 6 percent in 1992 Table 2-19 Paratransit Trend Analysis Efficiency Measures: Cost Efficiency and Revenue Ratios Percent -... ... FY1992 FY19t3 FY1994 FY1995 Cl\ange (1992 -1995) Operating Exp. per Capita $5.19 $7,75 $7.69 $8.11 56% Operating Exp. per TO $49.35 $73.36 $63.86 $97 .38 97% Capl!Rlty Trans# Development Plan

PAGE 189

Efficiency MeasuresVehicle Utilization Vehicle utilization is measured by the number of vehicle miles per vehicle and revenue njiles per vehicle. As shown in Table 2-20, the first measure increased by three peroent from 1 992 to 1995. Revenue miles per vehicle decreased by 1 1 percent in the four-yea r period Revenue miles per vehicle miles, also contained in Table 2-20, reflects how much of the total vehicle operation is in passenger service. This measure increased slightly from 1992 to 1994, but decreased In 1995 for an overall decrease from 1992to 1995 of 14 percent. This decrease i n 1995 may be attributable to more careful data collection in regards to the two measures. Complete trend information was not available for vehicle hours per vehicle. In 1995 vehicle hours per vehicle measured 1 ,384 hours. Table 2-20 Paratransit Trend Analysis -Efficiency Measures: Vehicle Utilization Percent Measure FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 Change (1992-1995) Vehicle Miles pe r Vehiela 18,928 19.128 18,450 19, 476 3% Revenue Miles pet Ve hiCle 18,54 1 1 8 6 1 3 18,429 16,435 -11 % Revenue Miles per Vehicle 0.98 0 .97 1 .00 0.84 -14% Miki'S Vahicle Hours per Vehicle nla n/a 1 391 1,384 n/a Source: BCCOA AOR's. fiscal years 1992-1995 Bay County Tl8nsit Development Plan 153

PAGE 190

Efficiency Measures -Labor Productivity From 1992 to 1995, overall labor productivity, as measured by passenger trips per FTE employee, steadily decreased by 14 percent as shown in Table 2-21. Total vehicles per FTE employee also shown in Table 2 -22, i ncreased by 17 percent from 1992 to 1995 with a slight decrease in 1995. Table 2-21 Paratransit Trend Analysis -Efficiency Measures : Labor Productivity Percent Measure FY1992 FY1993 FY19H FY199S Change (1992-1995) Passenger Trips per FTE 4,310 4,694 4 ,087 3,725 14% VehiCle Hours per FTE nta nla 1 ,553 1,363 n l a Total VehiciM per FTE 0.94 0 .94 1.12 0.9$ 17% Source: BCCOA AOR's, fiscal yers 1992-1995. Peer Group Analvsjs A peer group analysis serves two functions: first, it provides a comparison of how well BCCOA is performing re l ative to similar paratransit systems within the state of Florida and second, it helps to establish realistic performance standards for the evaluation process A paratransit service peer review analysis for fiscal year 1995 was conducted to report the performance of BCCOA against that of sim i lar paratransit systems i n Florida. The eight Florida peer paratransit systems are shown in Table 2-22 These e i ght systems were chosen because they are somewhat similar to BCCOA in terms of key elements such as service area popu l ation, geographic s i ze, and vehicle fleet size. The graphics presented in this section summarize selected performance indicators, effectiveness measures and efficiency measures for the various paratransit systems considered for this review. Each performance measure is depicted i n a bar chart which also ind i cates the peer group mean (a vertical bar i n each chart) to enhance the overall comparison Detailed information for each of the peer paratransit systems is included in Appendix I. All performance statist i cs for the paratransit pee r group systems were obtained from the CTD's 1995 Annual Performance Report which conta ins a compilation of the AORs submitted to the CTD for fiscal year 1995 by each l ocal CTC. 154 Bay County Transit D<>velopment Plan

PAGE 191

Table 2-22 Bay Coordinated Transportation Syat&m P&&l'$ Servlc Area COmmunity Traneportatfon Coordinator Alachua County Coordina ted Tr tnaportaUon System Inc. Chrtona County Chll"totte County Transit Department lndlon River County Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. PaseoCounly Pasco County Public Transpodslion DMslon Hemando County M/d.florlcfa s.M:u. Inc. ukeCouncy UJ
PAGE 192

fleet contains 14 vehicles (Hemando County} whi l e the largest has 1 54 vehicles (Indian River which, interest i ngly has the smallest service area and TO populations in the group} Figure 2-56 also illustrates the sizes of the peers' respect ive fleets. Table 2-23 Paratranslt Peer Analysis -Population, Ridership, Service Levels, and Vehicles (1995) Performanoe Indicator BCCOA Peer Minimum Peer Maximum Peer Mean %From Mean Service Area PopulaOOn 131!, 7982 99.901 306,70 1 172 .534 -19.6% TD Population 11 ,554. 7,57D 32,873 1 5 .892 427.3% Passenger Trips 1 7 0.230 59.106 244 . 389 1 57.7 1 1 7.9% Vehicle Miles 8 7 6.429 177,631! 2 .31!7.833 1, 1 26.398 -22 .2% Revenue Miles 7 3 9.62 7 524.322 1 ,191, 740 835,4501 -11.5% Fleet Size 45 14 154 66 -31.8% 1The mea n for revenue miles does not i n clude figure$ for AJachu.a, Charlotte, HemanCIO. Ot Marion Counties, which did not report revenue mile$ in 1995 28ay County population estimate per BEBR as o f April1, 1 995 obtained by CUTR using the updated method()k)gy d&Sai>ed in Mflthodology Guidelines for TO TranS()()ftab'on Demand altho CO
PAGE 193

PARA TRANSIT PEERS Perfonnanee I ndicators Flgure2 County/Service Area Population (000) PISCO MaMn Alachua Lake Hernando -...... I!Mtlan Rivtr OkaiOON Ch ....... Figure 2-64 Veh icle Miles (000) Bay County Transit Devel-nf Plan AJaCI'IUI Boy a-Indian RiVer Figure 2.53 Passenger Trips (000) Fogure 2--52 TO Population (000) Figure 2-56 Revenue Miles (000) 157

PAGE 194

158 PARA TRANSIT PEERS Perfonnance Indicators Indian Ri\ror AIICI'IUI Marion Bay Okaloosa c-.-Htmancro ........ ..... ...... Okaloon Hemando Figure 2-56 Fleet Size Operating Revenue (000) Figure Operating Expense (000) Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 195

Effectiveness Measures Service Supply Table 2-25 outlines the peer group's data for the level of service supplied. This measure was evaluated in two forms: vehicles miles per capita (total county/service area population) and vehicle miles per TO capita utilizing the total TO population). BCCOA' s value for vehicle miles per capita (6.31) is slightly above the peer group mean for this measure (6.26). In addition, it compares favorably in terms of the number of vehicle miles per TO capita, which can be considered a more robust measure for analyzing the effectiveness of service supply. BCCOA provides 75.86 vehicle miles per TO capita, which is slightly more than the peer mean. Figures 2-59 and 2-60 graphica lly depict these measures. Table 2-25 Paratransit Peer Analysis -Service Supply (1995) Perfonnance Indicator BCCOA Peer Minimum Peer Maximum Peer Mean %From Mean Vehicle Miles per Capita 6 .31 1.48 12.1 2 6.26 -f().8% Vehlcl& Miles per TO Capita 75 86 15.70 181.92 75.18 -f().1% Source: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. 1995 Annual Report. Effectiveness Measures Service Consumption Similar to the effectiveness of service supply discussed previously, service consumption was measured in terms of both passenger trips per capita and passenger trips per TO capita, as shown in Table 2-26. BCCOA's number of passen ger trips per capita (1.23) is 31 percent above the mean (0.94), its number of passenger trips per TO capita, calculated to be 14.73 is about 30 percent greater than the average of 11.30 trips per TO capi ta. This is a positive finding since it demonstrates that BCCOA's effectiveness in serving the county's TO population is above average. Graphics for these two measures are exhibited in Figures 2-61 and 2-62 Another measure of service consumption is the number of passenger trips per vehicle mile. Table 2-26 indicates that BCCOA produces 0.19 trips per vehicle mile, which is s lightly greater than the peer group mean of 0.18 t rips per vehicle mile. BCCOA's value for this measure relative to its peers is shown In the graphic in Figure Bay County Transit Development Plen 159

PAGE 196

160 PARA TRANSIT PEERS Effectiveness MeaiUntS Figure 2-69 Vehicle M iles Per Capita Flgure2-61 Passenger Trips Per Capita Figure 2-60 Vehicle Miles Per TO Capita rogure 2-62 Passeroger Trips Per TO Capita Bay Ccunty Transit O.VIIIopment Plan

PAGE 197

Table 2-26 Paratranslt Peer Analy$1s Service Consumption (1995) Performance Indicator BCCOA Peer Minimwn Peer Maximum Peer Mean % p romM een PaH:onger Trips per Capt1a 1 .23 0.49 1.37 0.94 <30.9% Passenger Trips per TO Capita 14 .73 $.22 18,62 11.30 <30.4% Pas&onger T rips per Vehicle Mile 0.19 0.(]7 0.33 0 .18 <0 .6% S....,.: Conmiosion for lht Oisadvamaged. 1995 Attnwl Potfctmance Repott. Effectiven ess Measures Quelity of Service Overall, BCCOA's quality of serv i ce, as measured by vehicle miles between accidents and vehicle miles between roadcalls displays miXe d results in comparison to peers' In terms of safety, Table 2-27 ind icates that BCCOA had 87, 643 vehicle miles between accidents in 1995, which transl ates to only 10 accidents. BCCOA's value for th i s measure is five percent above the mean of 83 539 vehicles miles between accidents. Values for this measure are also shown graph i cally i n Figure 2-64 Concerning re liability, BCCOA's 22 473 vehicle miles between roadcatls ( 39 t ota l roadcalls in 1995) is 17 percent less than the peer average of 27,205. Figure 2-65 depic t s the vehicle miles between roadcalls fo r all the peers and also ind icat es that Hern ando County did not report roadcalls in 1995. According to veh icle fleet data obtained from BCCOA's fiscal year 1995 AOR, the average age of BCCOA's fleet i s 3 8 years According to F igure 2-86 relying on the average age figure calculated using data from BCCOA s fiscal year 1995 AOR, only Ind ian River has a younge r flee t th a n BCCOA. BCCOA's relatively young fleet is considered a factor and corresponds to higher service Table 2 P aratranslt Peer Analysi s Quality of Service (1996) Performance lndieator BCCOA Peer Minimum PMrMaxlmum Peer Mean %From11Hn Vehicle Mles Between Accidents 87,&43 17,764 151, 281 83,5$9 Vehicle Mies aet.een Roldc:lll 22.473 9;132 6 1, 458 27,20$ .4 % Average Fleet AQe 3 .80 3.00 8 .7 0 5.01 -24.2% Source: Ccmnlssion for 1l1e TrantPoototlon Oisadvon1ageulll Pelfotmonce Repoit. Bay County Transit Developmont Plan 161

PAGE 198

162 PARA TRANSIT P E ERS Effectiveness Measu...s Figure 2-63 Passenger Trips Per Vehicle Mile Figu"' 2-64 Vehicle M iles Between Accidents ( 000 ) Figure 2-65 Vehicle Miles Between Roadcalla (000) rogure2-a Average Fleet Au ( years ) Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 199

Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency The measures listed in Table 2-28 can help determine the success of a system's cosl minimization efforts The data in the table clearly indicate that BCCOA is quite cost efficient when compared to ijs peers. BCCOA's expenses per vehicle, per passenger trip, per vehicle m i le, per capna, and per TD capita are all below the peer group averages (the first four are significantly below the means}. In fiscal year 1995, BCCOA expended approximately $25,003 for each of ns veh icle s (on average), $6 .61 for each passenger trip, and $1.28 per vehicle mile of service provided. In addition, BCCOA spent $8.11 per county resident and $97 .38 for each person in the total TD population. Figures 2.f37 through 2-71 graphically illustrate each of the peers' values for each of these cost measures. Table 2-28 Paratransit Peer Analysis-Cost Efficiency (1995) Performance Indicator BCCOA P .. r Peer Peer Mean %From Mean Minimum Maximum Operating Expense per Vehicle $25.003 $7,063 $57,764 $30,493 -18.0% Operating Expense pel' PB$$$1'\ger Trip $6.61 $6.61 $13.68 $9.23 28.4% Operating Expe.nse per Vthlde Mile $1.28 $0.98 $4.55 $1,69 24 .3% Operating Expense per Capita $8.11 $5.41 $11.84 $6.25 -14.0% Operating EXpense per TO Capita $97.38 $54.05 $ 17 6.54 $97.68 -0.3% Source: Commission for the Transportauon Ob:advantaged. 1995 Annual PerfOtmanc#J Report. Efficiency Measures Operating Ratios As no ted previously, each of the peer systems' revenues matched (or nearly matched) their expenses during fiscal year 1995 (this can be clearly seen in Figure 2-72). BCCOA's revenues matched its expendHures, resulting in a ratio of revenue to expense of 100 percent. This percentage is less than the mean ratio of 102.7 percent, as shown in Table 2-29. Farebox recovery rat ios (th e proportion of operating expenses covered by passenger fare revenue) are traditionally low for paratransit systems. This is because most such systems are subscription services, or are social services that are heavily subsidized Table 2-29 exhibHs peer data for farebox recovery. BCCOA had a fareb ox recovery ratio of 2.2 percent in fiscal year 1995 which was only less than Hernando County (seven percent), as depicled in Rgure 2-73. Bay County Transit Development Plan 163

PAGE 200

Table 2-29 Paratranslt Peer Analysis-Operating Ratios (1995) Perlonnance ndlcator BCCOA PeorMinlmum Peer Peer Mean %From Mean Maximum Operating Revenue per Operating Expense 100.0% 96.5 % 121 .8% 102.7% 2 .6% Farebox Recovery Ratio 2.2% 0.0% 7.0% 1 9% 8% Source: Comml$$ion fcx the Transportation Disadvantaged. 1995 Annual Repott. Efficiency MeasuresVehicle Utilization A measure of vehicle utilization is the number of vehicle miles per vehicle. In fiscal year 1995, BCCOA logged on average 19,476 vehicle m iles for each of 45 vehicles, as shown i n Table 2-30. This figure is slightly below the peer group mean of 20, 797. Values for th is measure are also represented i n Figure 2-7 4 Lastly, the ratio of revenue miles to vehic les miles was examined for the peer group. Since only five systems reported revenue miles (as noted previous l y) the peer average is based on those five. According to Table 2-30, BCCOA's rat i o of revenue miles to vehicles miles was 84 perce nt, which is greater than the mean of near l y 80 percent. A graphic for this measure is shown in Figure 2-75. Table 2-30 Para transit Peer Analysis-Vehicle Utilization (1995) Perfonnanc:e Indicator BCCOA Peer Minimum Peer Maxi mum Peer Mean %From Mean Ve hicle Miles par Vehicle 19.476 4 ,402 39,333 20,797 --6.4% Revenue Miles per Vehicle Miles 84.4% 65.0 % 69.2% 79.7% +5.9% Source: CommiSSion for the Transportation Oisadvantag&d. 1995 AMUal Perfolmlllle& Report. 164 Bay C<>unty Transit Development Plan

PAGE 201

Figure 2-67 PARA TRANSIT PEERS Efficiency Measures F igure 2-68 Operating Expense Per Vehicle (000) Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip lndl;an R iver Figure 2-69 Operating Expense Per Veh i cle Mile F i gure 2 70 Operating Expense Per CapHa B ay Cou nzy Transit Devel opment Plan Figure2-71 Operating Expense Per TO CapHa C hartotte Hernando lndia. n River 165

PAGE 202

166 F igure 2 -72 PARA TRANSIT PEERS Effic i ency Measure s Operating Revenue Per Operating Expense Figure 2 -74 Vehicle Miles Per V ehicle (000) F Jgure 27 3 Farebox Recovery Ratio Figure 2 75 Revenue Miles Per V e hicle M i les .,...._ .............. ........ .... .... Bay County Transit Deve/opi>'Jent Plan

PAGE 203

This concluding section summarizes the results of the trend and peer paratransil review analysis for BCCOA. A summary of BCCOA's performance strengths and weaknesses based on the trend analysis and peer review of effectiveness and efficiency measures is provided i n Tables 2-31 and 2-32. The intent of showing this information is not to suggest the. extent of the strength or weakness but to identify those performance areas where BCCOA's performance has i mproved or declined from 1992 to 1995. Wrth regard to the trend ana l ysis, a performance strength is defined as. any performance area that improved or was mainta i ned over the trend analysis time period and a performance weakness is defined as a trend that declined over the trend ana l ysis time period. Regarding the peer r eview a performance strength is defined as a performance area that is more than 10 percent better than the peer group average, while a performance weakness is defined as a performance area that is more than 10 percent worse than the peer group average. Table 2-31 BCCOA Perfonnance Strengths and Weaknesses, Trend Analysis Performance Strengths Per1onnance 'Mr.lknesses Vehide Miles per Capita Passenger Trips pet' Vehide Mille Vehicle Miles per TD Capita Operating EXpense per Capita Passenger Tops per Capita Operating Expense per TO Capita Passenger Trips per TD Capita P8$Senger Trips per FTE Employee Number of Accidents Operating E'Xpens.& per Vehide Operating Expense per Vehicle Mtle The results from the trend analysis show that vehicle miles and passenger trips per have steadily increased from 1992to 1995 indicating that BCCOA's service supply is increasing. This suggests that BCCOA's performance has been stable over time. In addition, BCCOA has been successful at keeping down operating expenses. A weakness in the area of service consumption (passenger trips pe r vehicle mile) could indicate a reduction in the grouping of trips and/or that the length of passenger trips has increased over the trend-analysis time period. The trend analysis also showed weaknesses in operating expense per capita and operating expense per TO The increases in these measures can partially be explained by the Bay County Tronsit Developmerrt Plan 167

PAGE 204

increased number of passenger trips per capita and passenger trips per TO over the trend analys i s time period, and that the average length of each trip has increased. ihese measures could indicate that BCCOA was in a service growth period for the years of this trend analysis In addition, other co st-effi ciency measures did not indicate a dramatic increase in cost. Operating expense per mile decreased slightly over the time perio d However, BCCOA should continue to monitor operating expenses per capita and opera ting expenses per TO capita to ensure that their growth is not in conflict the goals of the agency Another weakness revea led by the trend analysis was passenger trips per FTE employee which decreased 14 percent over the time period. Again, this could be partially the result of increased passenger trip distance. Table 2-32 BCCOA Perfonnance Strengths and Weaknesses Peer Review Performance Strengths Pe.rformanc:e Weaknesses Passenger Trips pet capita Vehide Mile$ Between RoadeaUs Passenger Trips per TO Capita Average Fleet Age Operating Expense per Vehicle Operating Expen$e pet Pus.enger Trip Operst,ing Expense per Vfllicle Mile Operating Expense per Capita Farebox Recovery Ratio In reviewing the performance of BCCOA, the agency is performing well in compa rison to its peers. Particular strengths include service delivery, cost efficiency, quality of service, and farebox re covery In comparison its peers, BCCOA's only performance weakness was vehicle miles between roadcalls. BCCOA was 17 percent below the peer average for this measure. From FY1992 to FY1993 BCCOA s number of roadcalls quadrupled. This increase in roadcalls may be attributed to the quality of the vehicles in the fleet. While trend and peer review analyses can be useful in developing a better understanding of BCCOA performance and in iden tifying target areas for additional attention and improvement, performance evaluation measures do not comprehensively cover all of the objectives of a 168 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 205

paratransit system Many ob jectives cannot be measured with this mechanism and require information or more subjective evaluation However, the results of the trend and peer review analyses provide a useful slarting point for fully and completely understanding the perfonnance of BCCOA and complement the other components of this study. REVIEW OF BCT'S ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE Bay Coordinated Transportation, as previously mentioned, is a division of the Bay County Council on Aging. The Bay County Council on Aging is the Community Tran sportation Coordinator for Bay County. However, Bay Coordinated Transportation provides the of the trips provided under the Transportation Disadvantaged program. (Other contractors to the Bay County Council on Aging p rov ide the remaining TO trips.) The organizational chart for BCCOA Is shown in Figure 2-76. REVIEW OF BCT MARKETING SERVICES Marketing services by Bay Coordinated Transportation for TO transportation consist of brochures, public service announcements, public speaking engagements, interagency affiliations and attendance at County Commission and MPO meetings marketing services for BCT in conjunction with the Bay Town Trolley are being planned by the Bay County Council on Aging. Bay County Transit Dovelopment Plan 169

PAGE 206

170 Bay County Transit Deve/Opmllnt Plan

PAGE 207

INSERT BCT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Bay County Transit O.velopment Plan 171

PAGE 208

172 Bay County Transit Dev./opmenl Plan

PAGE 209

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER THREE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Ide ntification of goals and objectives for a public transportation system is a fundamental step in the devel opment of a TDP In order to better understand exactly what a goal and an objective are the following definitions were taken verbatim from Chapter 9J-5 Florida Admini stra tiv e Code. The definitions are as follows : a goar is the l ong-term end toward which programs or activities are ul t i mately directed and an objective is a specifi c. measurable intermedi ate end that Is achievable and marks progress towa rd a goal. This chapter summarizes the policy issues Identified in discus sions CUTR held wHh com munHy leaders the TDP Review Committee MPO staff BCCOA staff, and the general publi c. The first sect i on lists the goals, objectives, policies and measures for publ ic transportation In Bay County. These l i sts are separa ted into two parts : fix ed-rou te transtt and paratransil The second section contains tran sit-rel ated goals found in other Bay County documents. These d ocuments were reviewed to ensure cons i stency with public transportation goals and objectives PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND OBJECT I VES Goals objectives, polici es, a nd measures for fixed rout e transit and paratransit are presented separa tely in the followin g section Fixed-Route Transit Goals and Objectives The following are goals and objectives that have been devel oped for Bay Town Trolley the fixed route transH operato r in Bay County These goal s and objectives were developed with input from the MPO and BCCOA staffs and review committee members. The dates of action are In ital ics after each of the bullet-pointed items. The actions to accomplish these goals and objectives, as w e ll as the respons ib le p arties and dates. of action are Included in the recommendation s co ntained in Chapter Five. Goa/1: Establish transit se!Vioe as a viable transporlation option in Bay County Exam ine redesigning certain routes and schedu l es for Bay Town Trolley ( 1997) Enhan ce the leve l of connectivity between routes for Bay Town T rolley (1997). Optimize th e transit system and facilities for both fixed-route and paratransit operations to provide current level of service or better throughout the area (1997). Bay County Transit Pl4n 173

PAGE 210

Establish perfonnance targets for BTT based on the average of its peers (1997, 1998). Passenger trips per revenue hour: -After two years of service (1997) BTT should attain 50 percent of the peer (systems with five or less vehicles) average. -After three years of service (1998) BTT should attain 75 percent of the peer (systems with five or less vehicles) average. Passenger trips per revenue mile: -After two years of service (1997) BTT should attain 50 percent of the peer (systems with five or less vehicles) average. -After three years of service (1998) BTT should attain 75 percent of the peer (systems with five or less vehicles) average. Operating expense per passenger trip: -After two years of service (1997) BTT should attain 175 percent of the peer (systems with five or less vehicles) average. -After three years of service (1998) BTT should attain 150 percent of the peer (systems with five or less vehicles) average. Goal 2: Intensify marketing efforts and increase visibility of Bay Town Trolley. Increase the availability of infonnation regarding the routes and schedules through a fonnal marketing program (ongoing). Promote community outreach/education efforts (ongoing). Goal 3: Maintain low capital and operating costs to support public transportation in the long lenn. Develop internal perfonnance measures to track system utilization and transit demand for Bay Town Trolley (1997) Evaluate the potential for incorporating computer-assisted scheduling, automatic vehicle location, electronic f are medium, and other appropriate technologies (1999). Goal 4: Provide a transit system that is, to the extent possible, financially feasible by securing adequate funding 174 Maintain state federal, and other funding sources (1997). Identify and evaluate alternative funds available through state, federal, and other sources (1997). Bay County Trans# Development Plan

PAGE 211

Identify public/private sponsorship options (1997). Evaluate advertising as a revenue source (on bus exter ior at bus stops, and on ride guides) o n Bay Town Trolley (1997 for bus stops and ride guides, 1998 for bus exterior). Goal 5: Establish a proactive public involvamentlinfonnation process Provide early and continuing opportunities for the public to express views that relate to transH plans and imp rovem ent programs and projects (ongoing). Initiate on-going public infonnation programs to increase cHizen knowledge about the system (ongoing) Expand community knowledge of the public transportation system by promoting community events to raise money for local subsidy (ongoing). Paratranslt Goals and Objectives The following are paratransH goals and objectives that are contained in the Bay County Coordinated Transportation Development Pian: 1996 prepared for the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. These goals are included as goals for the Transportation Development Plan as they pertain to public transportation. Each strategy under each objective has a corresponding means of measuring success as well as a listing of the responsible parties. Bay County Transit Development Plan 175

PAGE 212

Oj '!' ;j :? :!! !l Table 3-1 Transportation Disadvantaged Goals and Objectives STRATEGIES MEASURES RESPONSIBLE DATE PARTIES GOAL 1: Ensure availability of transportation services to the Transportation Disadvantaged. Objective 1.1 Provide service to meet the demand for trips to the maximum ex1ent feasible. 1.1. a Continue to oontract with operators to provide a lntrease trips provided over the previous CTC ANNUALLY setVioe as necessary and appropriate including year to decrease the unmet demand out-of-county and stretcher service. based on available funding. 1.1.b Continue to identify funding sources and begin b. Present data on development of fixed CTC/DOPA ANNUALLY using FTA operating assistance for llm"ed foced route service to LCB as part of the annual route. review process. 1.1.c tnvesllgate we
PAGE 213

l !t i f ;a :!! !l ::j STRATEGIES T able 3 Transportation Disadvantaged Goals and Objectives (Conti nued ) MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES Objective 1.2 Maximize cooperation between entities involved I n the Florida Coordinat ed Transportation System. 1.2.a Conti nue to attend inter-coun(y CTC a. Report on number of inter-county CTC meetings .. CTC meetings attended in FY 96-97. 12. b Increase or maintain Coordination b. R eport annually to the LCB on efforts CTC Contracts when feasible and costeffeclive. to Identify and Implement Coordination Contracts with non coordinating agencies and progtams. 1.2.c Identify and execute Purchase of Service c Report annually to the LCB on efforts CTC Con!Jacts with all agencies C
PAGE 214

Qj !!. .g -'2 S TRATEGIES T able 3-1 T ra nsporta tion Disadvantaged Goa l s and Objective s (Con t inued) MEASURES Objective 1.3 Impr ove passenger a .nd general pub lic awarenes s of T ransportation Disadvantaged Services. 1.3. a Continue t o develop an information system for a CTC, LCB and DOPA will wor k together on marketing transportation services. developing i deas t o distribute p rogram Information. Use a gency/rider suNeys as one means to identify potential unmet dem and. 1 3 b Oevelop Informational material s for rider s of the b. Present to LCB a review of r'ider vstem; Including p o licies o f purchasing and information that i s provided t o t h e clients. sponsoring agencies specific to thei r r iders, 1 3 c Continue t o develop marketing tool s for c. P resent to LCB a r eport on agencies. group. homes, etc. for the presentations made to a g en c ies. civ i c coordinated system. groups an d others during FY 96197. RESPONSIBLE DATE PARTIES CTCIDOPAILCB ANNU A LLY CTC/OOPAILCB ANNU A LL Y C TC/DOPAI L CB ANNUALLY

PAGE 215

J f I i\1 -;(I STRATEGIES Table 3 1 T r a ns portation Disadvantaged Goals and Objectivas (Conti n ued) MEASURE S GOAL 2: Ensure cost-effec tive and effi c i ent transportation services Objective 2.1 Deliver servloa via the moat cosleffeclive mean s possible 2.1.a In v estiga te number of, and reasons for noa. Report no-show data lo LCB shows end cancelation. 2.1.1> 1nc:rease load factor by continuing to b Continue to increase trips per CX>Olinate trips. revenue mile as repo
PAGE 216

-9 g i % i :ll STRATEGIES Tab le 3-1 Transportation D i s a d vantaged Goals and Objectives ( C ontinue d ) MEASURES G O A L 3 : En sure quality service provi ded to the Tra n sportation D i sadvantag ed. Obj ective 3.1 Maintai n courteous and respectful customer rel ations. 3.1.8 Continue customer s&rVice recognttlon a Report to LCB on employee acti v ities. recognition ao:Witles related to customer service. 3 1 b Maintain and expand training opportunities b Rep o rt t o LCB o n employee customer for customer s ervice. servic e training programs Implemented. 3.1.c Ensure the customer i s awar e of all c Report to LCB o n an annual basis all transportation disadvantaged polic ies and of the e)(isling transportatton policies procedures t llat apply to them. and prooodures that are currently in p lace for the user o f the service. 3.1.d Use sufVoys to receive feedback fro m d. R eport to LCB on rider/agen cy r iders and agencies. survey results. --RESPON S IBLE DATE PARTIES CTC ANNUAUY CTC ANNUALLY CTC/PURCHASING ANNUALLY AGENCIES C TCIDOPA JUNE 1997

PAGE 217

" i { l !'l Table3-1 T ransportation Disadvant-sed Goals and Objectives (Continued) STRATEGIES MEASURES Objective 3.2 Maximize customer comfort and safety. 32.a Continue a safely reoognHion program lor a Report to the LCB on the empl oyee safety staff. recognition program. 3.2.b Maintain and conduct safety training b. Provide and report to the LCB all required annually. safety training. 32. c Use rider and ageney surveys to receive c. Report rider and agency survey results to feedback on usel's percepCion of comfort LCB. and safety. 3.2.d Maintain accident records for AOR. d. RIJpolt to LCS on a<:ddent r...,n.. 3 .2.e FOOT System Safety Plan. FOOT w;J repon System Safely Plan m1ew results to LCB. Objective 3.3 Minimize customer travel and wait lime 3.3.a ConUnue to pursue coordination with health a Report to LCB on typical walt tl'me on will care factiHies. calls and provide information on attempts to coordinate wHh doctors and other health care related facilities. 3.3 b Continue to contract vlilh operators to b. Report on use of contract operators provide timely demand response service. procured through RFP to supply demand response seMce. RESPONSIBLE DATE PARTIES CTC ANNUALLY CTC ANNUALLY CTCIDOPA JUNE t997 . CTC QUARTERLY FOOT ANNUALLY CTC ANNUALLY CTC ANNUALLY

PAGE 218

i it i a 3! .. S TRA TEG IES T able 3 1 Transportation D isadvantage d Goals and Obje<:tl ves (Contin u e d ) M EASURES GOAL4: E nsure necessary f undi n g t o support t h e program. Obje ct i v e 4.1 I n c rease total fund& to meet more o f the demand fo r non-sponsored trips. 4.1.a Continue e)(isling in-kind match f rom local a Report to LCB o n amount of in-kind government service provid e d by local governments. 4.1.b I ncrease t ri p s reponed and associated b Report on number of Coordinat ion funding by implementing coor dination Contracts negoti at e d during FY con t racts. 96197. RESPO N S I B L E D A T E PARTIES CTC JUN E 1997 CTC ANNUALLY Object i ve 4 .2 Encourage public and private agencies to identify and alloca t e suffic ient f und i ng t o mee t the nee d s o f t heir cl i ents. 4.2.a M aint a i n a moonor i ng p rogr am by LCB. a Conduct an evaluation o f annual OOPAI L CB/C T C ANNUALLY DOPA. and C T C o f ann u al budg et of budge t estimates. agencies funding transportation services to ensu r e funds are not supplanted by the non -sponsored program. --------------

PAGE 219

g t. i' i 1 -f: GOAL5: Table 3 T111nsportatlon Disadvantaged Goal s and Objectives ( Continued ) STRATEGIES MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES Ensure prog111m accountability DATE Objeclive 5.1 Adhere lo procedures, rules. and regulations established by the Leglslalure and lh e Commission for lhe Transportation Disadvantaged. 5.1.a Develop an accurale Annual Operating a. Submittal of the AOR to the CTC ANNUALLY Report (AOR) including data from aH Commission each year with ooplea t o Purchase ol Service and Coordination the DOPA and LCB. Contracts. 5.1.b DeveloP a monthly report lot submlllaf to b a monthly report of the last CTC/DOPA QUARTERLY the LCB OUtlining activities over the tasl3 three months' dala to the planning month reporting period. a9Mcy for inclusion in agenda packages fot quarterty Board meetings. Objective 5.2 Coiled. eotnpite, report. and maintain data nece5$81Y for evaol program. 5.2.8 (Same as 5.1.a) Develop a monthly report c Submit a monthly report o f the last CTC/DOPA QUARTERLY for submittal to tile LCB outlining acttvllies three months' data to lhe planning over the fast 3-monU\ reporting pertod. agency for inclusion In agenda packages for quarterly B oard meetings. Su bm it data requesls from DOPA CTC AS REQUESTED lot the development of the Coordinated T ransportation Development Plan. 5 .2.b Develop a comparative analysis of data b. Present a year to year data and DOPA ANNUALLY from the Bay County Coordinated peer systems analysis as part of Transportation program and Florida the Coordinated Trans portation peer systems. Development Plan each year I

PAGE 220

TRANSIT-RELATED GOALS FROM OTHER PLANS CUTR reviewed transit-related goals, objectives, and policies ide nt ified in other local plans and documents, when developing proposed goals for the TOP. The documents reviewed Inc lude, the 1992 Bay County Transit Development Plan, the local comprehensive plan, the long range transportation plan, West Florida Strategic Reg iona l Policy Plan and the Florida Transportation Plan. 1992 Bay County Transit Development Plan The Bay County Transit Development Plan of September 1992 was the last major update to the TOP. AI this time, fixed-route service had n ot been established in Bay County. The following are the goals and objectives contained in this plan. Goal1: Provide the MPO with information regarding the need for a limited fixed route transit system This i nformation is intended to assist the MPO with determining the feasi bility of operating a public transportation system in Bay County. Goal 2: Evaluate the need for a limited fixed route transit service whi ch will best serve the transportation disadvantaged as well as the general population of Bay County Objective 2,1: Compile and evaluate base data including demographic and economic data; surveys of the general population, human service organization clients, and on-board passengers; meetings with loca l officials; and public meetings. Goal3: Encourage community participation in public t ransportatio n planning through local municipalities, advisory committees, and others as appropriate. Objective 3.1: Establish a Review Committee to review the tasks as outlined in the Scope of Services as they are completed. Goal4: Assess transit integration and coordination with existing transit providers in Bay County. Objective 4.1: I dentify and profile existing transit services including a historical review of operating data and performance review of current operat ions. Goal 5: Assess the cost of operating a limited fixed route system Explore the availabi lity of funds from local governments and other sources to help support the operation of the system. 184 Bay County Transff Development Plan

PAGE 221

Oblectiye 5.1: Deve lop a five-year program which includes but is not t o, recommendations for financia l plans, transit services alterna t ives for m eeting tran sit needs, and organiza tio n and management structure Local Comprehensive P l an The Mass Transit Element of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan adopted in January 1991 provides direction to Bay County i n the d esig n a tion of future mass transit system fe atu res. The goals objectives and policies of the Bay County Mass Transit Element that address public transportation are l isted below GOAL 1: Develop a coordinated mass transit service In Bay County providing both demand response and fixed route concepts, serving the transp ortat ion disadvantag e d as well as the genera l populat ion Obj ective 1. 1 : Coordinate w ith the Panama City Urba nized Area Metropo litan Planning Organization and with the F lorida Department of Transportation to assist Bay Coordin ated T ransportation i n the development and provision of effiCient mass transit and paratransit w ith the f ollowing considerat i ons : (a) Proposed ftxed routes shall be planned so as to maximize service to major trip generators and attractors; (b) Route location sh all a lso consider current and planned projects in the FOOT Fi ve-Year Transportation Plan in cluding trans i t-related projects and relevant high way projects ; (c) All proposed bus stops and transfer points shall be located based on safe and convenient access for passengers. Polic y 1 1 1: Provide assistance to Bay Coordinated Transportation by identify ing and helping to pursue financial assistan ce from other sources such as the Federal Transit Admini st ration, to continue the coordinated transportation program. PoUcy 1 1.2: Participate with the Bay County Council on Aging and the Metropo litan Planning Organization to conside r the success of the proposed fi xed route transporta tion service and to develop p ro posals for the future of publ i c transporta tion in Bay County Pg!icy 1.1 3 : Encourag e the Panama City Urbani zed Area Metropolitan Plann ing Organization to enhance transport ation service in Bay County by expanding the system to Includ e express service to major trip gen era tor s and attactors. Provide s t a tements endors i ng their efforts to obtain &ly County Transit DevelopmMI Plan 185

PAGE 222

Mure grant funding from Federal and State agencies such as the Federal Transit Administration and the Florida Department of Transportation. Policy 1.1.4: Encourage private sector opportunities to expand mass t r ansit service in Bay County through the use of tax exemptions granted by the County. Policy 1 1 .5 : Designate exclusive mass transit corridors along major arterials at such time as a full-service, fixed-route mass tra nsit provi der becomes operational in the county If such designation appears t o a viable, cost-effective means of maintaining traffic flow on the roadways at the level of service standards adopted in the Traffic Circulation Element of this Plan. Policy 1.1.6: Mass tra nsit will be p rovided in Bay County at a level of service no lower than the following: All areas of Bay County shall be served by demandfresponse paratransit with a max imum of 24-hour advance notice required Objective 1.2: Participate in the continued improvement of the system of transporta t ion for the transportation disadvantaged. Policy 1.2.1: Coordinate with Bay County munidpalilies to increase the geographical area served by the Bay Coordinated Transpo rtation Program. Policy 1 2 .2 : Support the most efficient combination of the available transportation resources, including the use of the transportation disadvan taged system as a feed e r to the fixed route system when determined to be advantageous by Bay Coordinated Transportation Policy 1.2 .3: As required by 89-376, Laws of Florida, revise the Mass Transit Element of this Plan upon completion of the Five-Year Transportation Disadvantaged Pla n to be adopted by the State Disadvantaged Commission to eliminate any potential inconsistencies between the plans of Bay County and the State. Objective 1.3 : Increase ridership in van pools, car pools, bicycling, and other modes of transportation to reduce the number of auto-work-trips. Policy 1.3.1: Increase public awareness of the goals and objectives of the Share-A-Ride Commuter Assistance Program by making information about this program available at County offices. 186 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 223

Long Range Transportation Plan The 2020 Panama City Urbanized Area Transportation Study, adopted in March 1996, also contains goals and objectives related to public transportation These pertinent goals and objectives are listed below GOA L A : To provide a cooperative continuing and comprehensive transportation planning process that addresses the mobility needs of the Urbanized Area Objective A .2: To develop a transportation system that is user-acceptable by taking into consideration l ocal preferences and desires. GOAL B: To provide a safe transportation system. Objectjye B.'!: To minimize automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle conflicts by developing a multi-moda l and intermodal transportation system. GOAL C: To provide an energy efficient transportation system. Qbiectjve C 1 : To reduce energy consu m ption by promoting alternative high occupancy vehicle (HOV) modes of transportation, such as ridesharlng, trans" ridership, vanpoo l ing, etc . GOAL D: To provide a transportation system in harmony with the environmental and social features of the area. Objective Objective 0.4: To promote and maintain accessible services for the transportation disadvantaged In the urbanized area through coordination of local social service transportation agencies and enhancement of the system for all cnizens. To improve the economy of the Urbanized Area by providing a transportation system that is compatible with local economic development strategies. Bay County Transit Development Plan 187

PAGE 224

West Florida Strategic Regional Policy P l an The West Florida Strategic Regional Policy P l an which was adopted on July 15 1996 estab l ished three transportation priority areas for the region of West Florida. The goals and pol i cies related to these priority areas are listed below PRIORITY 1 : Mobilijy of Peoole and Goods GOAL 1 : Provide an economica l and efficient transportation system that maximizes the mobility of people and goods. Pol icy 1.3: Maintain standards for transft service consistent with policies identified i n the Escambia Oka l oosa, and Bay County Transit Development Plans Po lj cy 1.4: G ive the highest priority to transportation improvements that will relieve existing traffic congestion Poljcy 1 .5: Support transportation faci l fties that provide connectivfty to areas outside the Urbanized Areas and serve the i mportant nationa l and reg i ona l functions (i e. Florida Intrastate System U.S. Interstate System). Pol icy 1 7: Improve and expand existing p r ograms to better serve the Region s transportation disadvantaged. Po licy 1 8: Develop an infonnat i on system and market i ng tools for marketing transportation services to agencies, groups, and general public. PRIORITY 2 : Safety. GOAL 1 : Cont inue to p r ovide a safe motorized and non-motorized transportation system and roadway network for present and future residents Policy 1 .2: Minimize automob i le/pedestrian/bicyc l e conflicts by developing a multi modal and intennodal transportation system PRIORITY 3 : land Use, ComPrehensive P laonjog, and Transportation Coo r dination GOAL 1 : Provide a transportation system i n harmony wfth environmental, social economic and aesthet i c features of the area. 188 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 225

Policy 1 5: Facilitate public transportation for the transportation disadvantaged through coordination of local social service transportation. GOAL 2 : Provide measures to relieve financial constraints on improvements to the transportation system and optimize preservation and efficiency of existing transportation facil"ies. Policy 2.2: Obtain adequate funding for needed transportation improvements by encouraging greater state and federal participation and local adoption of measures to augment these revenue sources. GOAL 3: Provide an energy efficient transportation system. Policy 3.2: Reduce energy consumption by promoting actions to increase the occupancy of vehicles (e.g. ridesharing, mass transit, HOV lanes}. Policy 3 3: Reduce energy consumption by promoting measures to facil"ate pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Po licy 3,4: Reduce energy consumption by promoting use of alternative fuels (e.g., compressed natural gas}. Policy 3.6: Imp lement Travel Demand M anagement (TOM) strategies, e.g parking policies, car and van pooling, staggered work hours, high occupancy vehicle lanes, etc. Florida Transportation Plan The 2020 Florida Transportation Plan comp l eted in March 1995, serves as a blueprint for the transportation future in Florida by providing the basis for developing a statewide transportation system that balances the diverse needs of its customers with the effective and efficient use of available resources. Goals and objectives that relate to public transportation are as follows. GOAL 1: Safe transportation for residents, visitors, and commerce. Objective 3 : Improve the safety of commercial vehicles, rail facil"ies, public transportation vehicles and facilities, and airports. GOAL 2: Protection of the public's in vestment in transportation. Objective 3: Protect the public's Investment in aviation, transit and rai l facil"ies. Bay County Tnmsit Development Plan 189

PAGE 226

GOA L 3 : Trave l choices to ensure mobi l ity, susta i n the quality of the environment. preserve community values and reduce energy consumption Obiec!jye 1: Reduce dependency on the single occupant vehicle. Objective 2: Provide accommodation for transH vehicles. bicyclists and pedestrians wherever appropriate on state highways. Obiectlye 3: Increase public transportation ridership. Objective 4: Expand public and specialized transportation programs to meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. CONCLUSIONS When compared to the transit-related goals i n other l ocal plans, the goals and object ives for fixed route and paratransit service in Bay County are consistent. As stated in the beginning of this chapter the recommenda t ions contained in Chapter Five further detail the actions and respons i ble parties for each of the goals and objectives. 190 Bay County T ransit Development Plan

PAGE 227

CHAPTER FOUR DEMAND ESTIMATION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION One particular task in the development of the TOP for Bay County includes the preparation of demand estimates for public transportation over the five-yea r planning period and an assessment of mobility needs in the a r ea This chapter summarizes the results of this effort and leads into the final task of this TDP, which will identify and evaluate public transportation alternatives. Various methods of estimating public transportation demand and assessi n g unmet mobility needs are presented and discussed herein The demand est i mation methods utilize data and findings from all previous tasks as well as operating data collected f r om other sources. The calculated demand estimates are compared to current public transportation service to dete r mine the extent to which transit demand exceeds existing service. The goals and objectives in Chapter Three and the exi sting levels and perceptions of service are a l so considered in assess ing the need for and/or i mproved public transportation service. A needs assessment is also included which summarizes relevant information concerning unmet demand service area and type of service and coordination of service other operators that may contribute to improved publ i c transportation service and mobility for residents of Bay County In addition, the impacts of complying the ADA are br i efly examined. CURRENT AND FUTURE DEMAND FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION There a r e several different methods available to estimate the level of demand for public transportation service in Bay County Demand may be estimated through the use of trend analyses, peer review comparisons among sim i lar Florida and non-F l orida transit systems, fare and service elasticities, Census tract analysis, and results of in t erviews an d public wor1
PAGE 228

Demand for Fixed-Route Transit Service Peer Analysis One ofthe methodolog i es used to derive demand es t i mates for fixed-route transit service consisted of compiling operating profiles for a group of fixed-route public transit systems selected as peers These systems were selecte d on the basis of their similarity to the Bay Town Trolley system in a number of areas such as the number o f vehic les operated in maximum service and g e ograph i c characteristics. The urban area population size and popu l ation density were also exam i ned The pee r group which was also utiliZed in Chapter Two, was developed u t ilizing data from the FY 1994 Nat i onal Transit Database and consists of seven systems in the southeast States operating five or fewer vehic l es in maximum service. The systems are listed i n Table 4-1. Table4-1 Fixed-Route P ee r Systems Operating Five or Fewer Vehicles Aof'ida Peer Systems Non-Florida P .. r Systems Key West of Transportation Gastoni a Transit SY$tem (NC) City of San AngeloA ntran (TX) Cil\f of Oenton (TX) Tuscaloosa County Partting and Transit Authority (Al) City of Hickory-Piedmont Wagon (NC) Florenoe Pee Dee Regional Transportation AuthorityPDRTA(SC) Table 4-2 summar izes designated operating data for this group of smaller systems. The average service area population density for this group is 1 352 persons per square mil e, compared to the 1,369 persons per square mile i n the service area of the Bay Town Trolley Also the table sh ows that these peer systems averaged 155,851 passenger trips in fiscal year 1994. 192 Bay CO
PAGE 229

Table4-2 Comparison of Peer System Averages for Fixed-Route Systems Operating Five or Fewer Vehicles FY 1994 Measuro Peer Group Mean Service Area Population Density 1,352 (persons per squBie mile) Ridership 155,851 Vehicle Miles 212 ,734 Revenue Miies 204,626 Total Operatll'(j Expense $473,968 Panenger Trips per Capita 2.62 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile 0.82 Source: Transit PfOfiles: Agencies in UrlJBIIized Areas with a Populabbn of Jess lhtm 200,000. USOOT, FTA. December 1995. To estimate demand for fiXed-route service in Bay County, all other things being equal, the mean number of passenger trips per capita, shown in Table 4 -2, was app l ied to population estimates for BIT's service area. The population estimates are based on a three-qu arter-mile buffer encompassing BIT's five routes (utilizing 1990 U.S. Census data), and the growth rates used for Bay County as derived by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida (9.3 percent growth between 1990 and 1995; 1.7 percent growth annually between 1995 and 2000; 1.4 percent growth annually between 2000 and 2005). The peer systems selected for this study are all well established in their service areas and offer consistent hourly service. Therefore, to allow for the growth and maturity of BTT, first-year demand estimates were based on one-half the peer average of 2.62 trips per capita, and the second-year estimates represent three-quarters of that average. The following years were calculated utilizing the full value of 2.62 trips per capHa. Based on the service area population projections and the peer group data, demand estimates were calcu lated for the planning period and are outlined in Table 4-3. Bay County Transit Development Plan 193

PAGE 230

Table 4-3 Fixed-Route Demand Estimates' Bay County YeaT Population Demand Estimates 1996 80,734 105 762 1997 82,106 161,749 1998 83,502 218,775 1 999 84,922 222,496 2000 86,366 226,279 2001 87,575 229,447 1Estimafes were derived using 1 .3 1 passenger trips per capita for 1996 the peer group mean) 1.97 trips per ca,pita for 1 997 (three-quarters of the peer group mean), and 2 62 trips pet capita for the remaining yea!'$ (the peer group mean). 2Service area popu1ation estimates are based on the 1990 population withi n a three-quartefmile buffer arou n d BITs routes and Bay County population g(owth rates provided by BEBR {9.3 percent g rowth between 1 990 and 1995; 1. 7 percent a nnual growth between 1995 and 2000; 1.4 percent annual growth between 2000 and 2005) An method of gauging potentia l ridership based on peer system data is th rough the mean number of passenger trips per vehicle mile. Clearly the level of system ridership is dependent o n the level of service provided. For example it has been estimated that BTT will carry 20,544 passengers and generate 98,942 vehicle miles in first 12 months of operation, resuHing i n 0.21 trips per vehicle m i le. The peer group mean for this measure is 0 78 trips per vehicle mile; t herefore based on this figure, as BTT ma t ures H can carry approXimately 77,175 annual passengers at a constant l eve l of service. Demand forecasts based on serv ice levels are somewhat more refined than those based solely on area populations. Whi l e peer group analysis is useful for comparing the relative performance levels of similar systems caution must be used in applying these results to demand estimation and needs assessment. The underlying assumption that t h e propensity to use transH is cons tant across urbanized a reas of similar size and similar system characteristics i gnores differences among cities i n urban development, demograph i cs and quality of service Start-Up Data Since BTT is a young system, it may be helpfu l to examine start-up data from smaller Florida systems and other peers to give further insight as to expected levels of demand for new transit service. In Ta ble 4-4 start-up data from existing systems were exam i ned. Such data were obtained from three Florida systems: Lakeland Area Mass Transit District, Manatee County Area and Key West Department of Transportation Lakeland s Citrus Connect i on began operat i ng service in 1983 with eight vehicles on eight routes. Manatee County's system started i n 1976 operating six vehicles on eight routes. Key West began directly operating fixed-route 194 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 231

. . service in 1987 with four vehicles. Finally, tile Bay Tdwri Trolley began service in December 1995, serving five rou tes with three vehicles. As of April1996, BTT has generated approximately 4,500 trips. An annual ridership estimate of 20 544 was calculated utilizing average daily ridership. Table 4-4 summarizes the start-up ridership for these fou r systems. Table4-4 Fixed-Route Start-Up Data for Four Florida Transit Systems Sy$tem Fl:mYear Second Year Third Year Ridel'$hlp 269 200 324,500 369,900 Lakeland Area Mass Tr.ans.it Revenue M iles 424,200 4 27,600 427,600 District (Citrus COnnection) 0 6 1 0.76 0.87 Riders.hip 380,000 484,000 5$8 ,000 Manatee County Atea Transit Revenue Miloo not avaaabl8 not available not available Trips per M il& nla nla nla Ridef$h;p 260,390 265.300 246,900 Key West Department of Revenue Miles 249,500 220,310 174 ,300 Transportation Trips per Mile 1.04 1.20 1.41 Ridership 20,5441 nla nla BayTown Trolley Revenue Miles (Panama Ciry) 89, 048 nla nla Trips pQr Mile 0.23 nla nla trhe ridershiP figure for the Bay Town is estimated from average daily ridership from January 1996 through Apr111996. Source: Telephone convmations with $taft' of transit agencies. Table 4-5 summarizes start-up data for other systems in BTT's peer group. One of these peers is a new fixed route system is in Indian River County. The system filed its first National Transit Database (Section 15) re port with FTA for fiscal year 1994/1995. Indian River operates seven vehicles on a deviated fixed-route networl<. The system had been operating on eight routes; however, one route was recently discontinued. In addition, a new route serving a low-income minority a rea will soon be in operation. This new route was part of the original system when it first started, but had been d iscontinued due to low ridership: expected to be more successful on this second attempt. The Ind ian River fixed-route system operates approximately one-hour service Monday through Friday. One route only operates Wednesday through Friday, while a shuttle operates Wednesday and Friday Hours of service are generally from 8:00a.m. to 4:00p. m Bay Coonty Transit Development Plan 195

PAGE 232

Table 4..S Start-Up Data for Small Florida Systems and Peer Systems System Nam& StartUp Pasunger Trips per Trips per Farebox Number of Year Trips Rev. Capita Routes Indian River County 1995 62 604 0.47 0 .06 2 .8% 8 Key Wes.t Dept o f Transportation l 1987 260,390 1 04 9 .76 23.4% Cl1y of San Angelo Antran (!)() I 1920 n/a nta n/a n/a n/a Cl1y of Dento n(!)() I 1 993 1 22,214 0.44 1 .84 16.9% 5 CJty of H ickoryPiedmont Wagon 1 987 76,600 0.64 no fares 6 (NC) Source: Te-Jephone eonvers.atiON with staff o f ttans.lt agencies. It is i mportant to remember that i n eva l uating the level of demand and the perfonnance of new publi c transH service the goals set for the system by the communi t y and l oca l officia l s must be heavily weighed. There are many smaller communities (especially I n Florida) that operate fixed route transH services (cHies with populations of at least 25,000 can usu a ll y support some level of fixed-route service) Sometimes a certain m easure of cost-effectiveness or ridership i s not as important to a communHy as the goal of providing mobiiHy to those who truly need it. One example of this is i n John son City Tennessee which had a population of 39,310 in 1980. Like in Bay County, fixed-route transit was somewhat of a controversial issue in Johnson City, Ten nessee Some believed that the demand was not substantial enough to support transH and that the costs far outweighed any benefits Still others saw more indirect be n efits to a system and felt that such a service fulfi ll ed important communHy goals Nevertheless, Johnson City implemented a fixed-route system in Octobe r 1979 The major goals of the system we r e to provide mobil ity to the transportation-
PAGE 233

At first, the system covered about one-third of its operating expenses with farebox revenues--a considerably high percentage, especially among Aorida systems, for the present day. . A paper presented at an annual Transportation Research Board (TRB} meeting on this system also provided a few guidelines for planning transit systems in smaller urban areas2 These included the following. Ridership should not be expected to be large-in a smaller community with little congestion and no parking problems the transportation-disadvantaged would be the primary users of the system, not work commuters. Once service is offered, it is difficult to curtail, even with low ridership. Therefore, routes and schedules should be developed incrementally, and should be kept simple. Costs of the service will be relatively high. I f the community has concerns about the expense, other aHernatives should be fully investigated. The availability of fixed-route service will not eliminate the need for social service transportation services Coordination of service should be maximized. Transit destinations as well as the local government should encourage use of the system. The Johnson City Transit System still exists today. The most recent data from the system are from fiscal year 1994 and indicate that the service area population has grown to 49,381, with a service area size of 33 square miles. The system operates six vehicles for fiXed-route service and four vehicles for demand-responsive service. Ridership for the fixed-route service was 389,601 in 1994. The farebox recovery ratio (the ratio of fare revenues to operating expense} was approXimately 16 percent. The Johnson City Transit System is not considered to be a peer of BTT. However, it appears to be quite cost-efficient when compared to the systems selected for this analysis (see Figures 2-40 to 2-45} Fare aod Service Elasticities Another means of estimating Mure demand for transit is through the use of fare and service elasticities. An elasticity is a measure of the sensitivity of a dependent variable, such as passenger trips, to changes in an independent variable, such as fare or level of service. It is also represented by the percent change in a dependent variable divided by the percent change in an independent variable (and holding all other factors constant). While considerable variations can occur, 'Ibid., 18-19. Bay County Transit Development Plan 197

PAGE 234

especially for changes at the leve l of indMdual routes, fare and service e l asticities have been shown to remain re l ative l y consistent across systems of all sizes at the aggregate system l evel. The American Public T ransit Association (APTA) has publ i shed a value of -0.43 for the elast i c i ty of ridership with respect t o fare (fo r systems serving areas with popu l ations of less than one million).3 According to an Ecosometrics, Inc., report, t he elasticity of ridership with respect to l evel of service as measured by veh i cle miles i s +0.61.' The elasticity measures are interpreted as foll o ws: a 10 percent increase in the transit fare wou l d result In a 4.3 percent decrease in ridership (a ll else being equa l ), while a 10 percent increase in the level of service would generate a 6.1 percent increase In ridership (all else being equal) These elasticities show that genera ll y, transit riders are more sens i tive to service l evels than t o the far e Table 4-6 presents the results of two far e pri cing scenarios as well as a scenario invo l ving an increase in the level of service. The firs t scenario predicts how ri d ership wil l be affected if the current fare of $1.00 were to increase an additional10 percent to $1. 10. According to the ela sti c ity measure, with a fare of $1.10, the system can expect a decrease i n ri d ership (as measured by the number of passenger trips) of 883 trips, all other things being equal. However since the demand for transit is considered ine l astic with respect to fare (indicating a lesser degree of sensitivity to fare changes). the i ncrease in revenue from riders pay i ng the higher fare will more than offset the l oss from fewer trips, resulting in an annual net financial impact of $884 (based on the average fare) )American Publ ic Transit Association, El!ects of Fare Changes On Bus Ridership (Washington: American Pubic Transit A$$ociation, May 1991) 7 Eoosometrics, Inc. Patronag6 Impacts of Changes in Transit Fares and Servicos, report pre-pared for the U.S Departme n t of Tran$portation (Washington: Government Prin t ing Office, September 1980) 65. 198 Bey County Trans;t Development Plan

PAGE 235

Table4-6 Impacts of Fare and Service Scenarios Existing Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 31 Measure 1 f)-cent fare 10% increase (FY 1996) Increase decrease In s ervice Fare $1.00 5 1.1 0 $0.25 $1 00 Averag e Fare $0. 7 8 $0.86 $0.20 $0.78 Ve hicle Miles 98,942 9 8 9 4 2 98,942 108 ,836 P8$$8ng&r Trips 20,544 1 9 ,661 27, 169 2 1,797 Operatlng E xpense $248 ,800 $248,800 $248.800 $273.880 Change in Ridership --883 +6,625 +1 ,.253 Change in Revenue +$884 -$10,590 +$978 Change In Operating Expense +$24,880 Net Flnanclallmpact +$884 -$10,590 -$23,902 1Soenario 3 utilizes fully.aUocated cos.ts per vehicle mile to genorate the estimated annual operating expense. It is an ticipate
PAGE 236

impacts on cost as well as ridership. Also important however, is the fact that all service extensions are not equal; an improvement targeted at a specific corridor or l ocation where t here is significant demand can perform much better than aggregate averages. Census Tract Analvsis 1 990 U.S. Census tract data were used i n Chapter One to analyze demographic i nformation, particularly those characteristics that are highly correlated with a person's o r household's need for transit. This type of analys i s is useful for determining which tracts in an area have the highest demand for public transit. For this effort the demographic characteristics that were used to indicate transit dependence included the distribution of elderly (60 years or older} persons, persons below 18 years of age, low-income ( l ess than $10,000 annual household income} households, and zero-vehicle-ownership households The probabilities and final scores for each demographic characteristic's categories are presented in tabular form i n Appendix B. Table 4-7 presents the res u lts of the census tract analysis. A map, illustrated in F i gure 1-13 in Chapter One, shows the primary, secondary, and tertiary transit-dependent census tracts with an overlay of BTT's route networl< Based upon this analysis, it was determined that all the transit dependent tracts lie within BTT's serv i ce area and are at least partially served by the fixed-route system based on the configurations of the routes not on their level of service. The transit dependent tracts are located primarily in Panama City Cedar Grove, and Springfield. 200 Table 4-7 Transit-Dependent Census Tracts Bay County Bay County Transn Development Plan

PAGE 237

Como!ementarv paratransjt Service Demand The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires all transit agencies that provide fixed route bus service to provide complementary paratransit service, as well. The paratransit service must "shadow" the fixed-route service area and provide a comparable level of service for persons who cannot use the fixed-route service. The paratransit service must be comparable to the fixed route service in six service criteria The service criteria, described in Section 37.31 of the regulations (49 CFR Part 37) are: Service area Trip Purpose Response time Hours and days of service Fares Capacity Constraints Three categories define who is eligible for the comp l ementary paratransit service mandated by ADA. The categories are listed below. Category 1: Persons who are unable to board, ride or disembark from a vehicle even if they are able to get to the stop and even if the vehicle is accessible. Category 2: Persons who cannot use vehicles without a lift or other accommodations These persons are eligible for paratransit service if accessible fixed-route vehicles are not available on the route on which they need to travel when they need to travel. Category 3: Persons with specific impairment related conditions who cannot travel to a boarding location or from a disembarking location to their final destination. Population estimates for Categories 1 and 3, based on the methodology presented in the ADA Paratransit Handbook prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation, are presented in Table 4-8. Category 2 was not included in these estimates because the persons included in this category can not use the fiXed-foute system if the vehicles are not accessible. All fixed-route vehicles in Bay County are accessible The service area includes all persons within three-quarter miles of the fixed-route system and was determined by taking census tract data from the 1990 U.S. Census and extracting the population within three-quarter miles around each r oute. The service area population was then estimated to grow at the same rate as the county population under estimates from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. The ADA-eligible populations were determined by multiplying the service area population by one percent for Category 1 and Category 3 combined. These population estimates were then adjusted for Bay County by weighting the populations by the percent of persons in Bay County reporting a Bay County Transff Development Plan 201

PAGE 238

"public transportation disability" in the 1980 U.S. Census (4.5 percent) divided by the national percentage (3.5 percent) for the same question. (lnfonnation from the 1980 U.S. Census was used because this question was not asked In the 1990 U.S. Census.) An estimate for annual trips was then calcu l ated, based on an estimate of 1.2 trips per month per ADA eligible persons as suggested by the ADA Paratransit Handbook. As shown in Table 4-S, the estimate of trips that would be made by the Category 1 and 3 eligible populations for 1996 is 14, 937. Passengers who would be oonsidered eligible for ADA complementary paralransit service are not analogous to the TO Population; ADA eligibility is more narrowly defined (Category 1 and 3, as described above). However, these estimates of ADA eligible complementary paratransit trips are not necessarily in to the trips that are already being provided or coord inated by the Transportation Coordinator. Table 4-8 ADA Paratransit Population and Trip Estimates' Bay County 1996 1997 1998 E$timated Service Area Population 80,680 82,004 83.348 Estimate of Population1.037 1.054 1.072 Ca1egories 1 & 3 Estimate of ADA Trips 14.937 15.182 15,431 c.rtegories 1 & 3 1999 84.715 1 .089 15.684 'Estimates based on the methOdOlOgy presented in the ADA Paratransjt HMdbook prepared by USOOT. Interviews. Swyey Results, and Citizen lnout 2000 88.131 1 107 15.947 Findings from interviews key local officials were discussed in detail i n Chapter One. The general opin ions of those interviewed were that there is a demand o r potentia l demand for public transportation. The needs of the elderly, disabled, wor1
PAGE 239

by riders for more frequent service mo re hours of operation and weekend service Responses f rom the Bay Coordinated Transportation survey revealed a desire by respondents for weekend service, increased fle xi bil ity in destinat i ons and i ncreased flex i bility of the system in the event of an emergency Bay County citizens have also had many opportunities to contribute comments and suggestions regarding public transportatio n in Bay County. The s taff of BCCOA have r eceived by mai l and by phone many comments from citizens. These comments a r e summarized in Append i x D I n addition two sets of public meetings have been con d ucte d On April 23, 1996 two pub li c meetin g s were held for Bay Town Troll ey and Bay Coordinated Transportation. The main comments from these meetings focused on expanding service to additiona l parts of P a nama City Beach (e.g C i ty Hall ) Other citizens commented that peop l e a r e not riding the system because there i s n o t enough in f ormation avai l able on the routes and schedules. An additional public meeting for Bay Town Trolley was conducted on August 7, 1996 A summary of the public comments at the meeting include : more mar keting of the system is needed; more service is needed in residentia l areas ; the schedu l es need to be easier to r ead; the trolley stop signs need to be clearly marked; passes should be ava i lable at the high schoo l s; an extension through the City of Lynn Haven i s needed ; Gulf Coast Community College should be accessible between 7:30 am and 8 :00 am; a stop at Rutherford High School is needed at approx i mately 12 :30 p m ; the routes should go one direction one time and the other direction the next time; a L ynn Haven extension off of SR 77 is neede d ; and service to the Hugh Nelson Industrial Park in L ynn Haven is needed Bay County Transit Development Plan 203

PAGE 240

Demand for Paratransit Service Population and Trend Analysis Projections of the Potential TO Population and the TO Population for Bay County were developed using the method described in the 1993 report, Methodology Guidelines for Forecasting TO Trans portation Demand at the County Level prepared by CUTR for the Florida Commission for the Transportation D i sadvantaged The model forecas ts the TO populations using data f rom the Bureau of Economic and Bu siness Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census The forecast for Potential TO Population and TO Po pulation for FY 1995 through FY 2000 are shown in Table 4-9 This population in formation is explained in more detail in Chapter One under the section describing the transportation disadvantaged population. Table 4-9 Estimated TO Population, Paratransit Demand, and Paratransit Supply Bay County Estimates 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Potential TO Population 48,553 49,539 50,546 51,574 52,625 TO Population 1 1 .554 11,799 12 049 12.305 12,567 Demand for Paratransit Service 289, 711 297,93 1 304, 133 310.473 316,952 Supply of Paratransit Service 173 ,015 179,818 1 83,505 187 ,267 191, 106 U nmet Demand for Paratranslt Service 116 ,696 1 1 8,113 120 ,628 123.2()6 125,84 6 I 2000 53,700 12 ,835 323 ,574 195,025 128,549 Source: Eitimates obtained by Cl1TR using the methodology de$aibed in Metho
PAGE 241

Peer Analysis Another approach for estimating demand for paratransit service is to compare the paratransit service p rov ided and c o ntracted by Bay County Council on Aging to similar paratransit systems in Florida. However, when comparing the paratransit trips per capita for the peers to the paratransit trips per cap ita for BCCOA, the resu lts sh o w that Bay County is performing bette r than all of its peers Therefore, this analysis was not inc l uded in this report NEEDS ASSESSMENT The previous sect i on o utlined demand estimates for transit and paratransit services in Bay County. In this section, mobility needs are assessed which address ways to meet unmet demand This discussion includes unmel needs potential markets, and the exte n t to which mobil ity needs are being met by existing public transportation services Existing P u blic Transportation Services Existing public transportation services are available through two pri m ary sources: the paratransit service coo rdinated by the Bay County Council On Aging, Inc., and Bay T o wn Trolley {BTT), the system that operates service on frve fiXed routes. Other paratranslt services that are not coord i nated under the community transportation coordinator are also available in Bay C o unty. All of these public transportation services are descri b ed an d enumerated in Chapter Two and further detailed in Appendix F. UnmetN eed There is an unmet need for publ i c transportat i on service in Bay County. For fiscal year 1996 it was estimated, based on peer analysis that there I s a demand for approximately 103,985 fixed-route trips. As discussed previously, BTT s estimated ridership for Its first year of operation is 20,544, exh i bi t ing an unmet demand There i s also an unmet need for paratransit service in Bay County. For 1996, the estimated demand for TO paratrans i t trips in Bay County, based on CUTR's methodology, was 304,411 The estimated supply of TD paratransit trips {both outside and within the coordinated system) was 179 818 tri ps, yie l din g an unmet demand of 124,593 trips. ADA complementary paratransit service also has a great unmet need Under ADA Category One and Category Three comb i ned there was an estimated 1996 unmet demand of 14,937 trips Bay County Trot>$il Development Plan 205

PAGE 242

To meet these needs requ i res the assessment of many factors including seiVIce area coordination of seiVice with other agencies days and hours of seiVice operating data collection and analysis for seiVice planning purposes, and public outreach and marketing The proposed goals and objectives presented in Chapter Three, interviews with l ocal officia l s, public workshops and demographic characteristics all are used to evaluate the characteristics of need. Coordi n atio n of Service wjth Other Aoencies One advantage of coordinated service among operators is that it has the potential to link the service of the CTC and the fixed-route provider more close l y to the overall community and thus, increase political support It can also, if successful, tap a major source of ridership growth. To maximize the use of the fixed-route system, arrangements can be made with agencies, such as Medicaid (although BCCOA does not currently have a contact with Medicaid), for certain clients without severe mobi lity limitations to shift from paratransit service to BTT. Such coordination will resuH i n lower costs since fixed route trips are less expensive to provide than trips on a paratransit system Span of SeiVice ResuHs of on-board suiVeys and interviews with loca l officials indicated a need for seiVice earlier i n the morning and later into the even i ng. This additiona l service would mainly benefit workers By i ncreas i ng its span of service and generating additional work trips BTT would gain a more solid ridersh i p base. Days of Service Many of those interviewed for this TDP, as well as respondents to the on-board suiVey commented that BTT should operate on Saturdays. Saturday seiVice would allow for recreational trips (such as for shopping or to the beach) as well as work trips for employees in the seiVice industry. Again, as BTT continues to grow, it can consider offering Saturday service. In addition, on the BCT on-board survey, some respondents commented that Saturday seiV i oe was needed. 206 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 243

Frequency of Service Information gathered from interviews and public workshops i nd i cated a need for more frequent service on BTT. Hourly service on all routes would be the preferred frequency; however it is widely understood that such serv i ce is not currenUy feasible due to the young age o f the system. As BTT c o n t inues to mature and grow, it will be Important to offer improved frequencies to fully serve the mobility needs of its riders. Service A r ea A part of assessing the nee d f o r imp r oved transit service is determining where this improved service sh o uld operate in the study area. The first step in establishing a service area is determining where p o tential riders live. An estimation of this population was done in the Census tract analysis in Chapter One. Utilizing 1990 Census data, tracts that have a large percentage of transit dependent p ersons wer e identified. Further, the Census tract analysis identified four specific characteristics as factors that could influence a person's depende n ce on transH: persons under the age of 18, pers o ns age 60 or o lder, households with annual incomes of less than $10 000, and househo lds w ith no access to a vehicle. This analysis yielded transit-dependent areas The results of all the Census analyses are shown in the maps in Figures 1-1 through 1-10 and Figure 1-13 in Chapter One. As the maps sh o w, the tracts that contain persons who potent i ally have a dependence on public transit service are almost all adequately served by BTT, which is the eXisting fixed-route service. In a d dition, for those persons who can not use the fixed-route system BCCOA prov i des paratransit service to the majority of the county excluding distant origins and destinations such as Mexico Beach. In addition to evaluating the service area according to demographic characteristics and current supply of paratransit trips, interviews with loca l officials and citizen comments offered opin io ns on the current service and service area. As mentioned previously, Chapter One contains a synopsis of the interviews with local officials and community leaders and Appendix D contains citizen comments. Several of the interviewees and citizens commented that, i n the Mure, BTT shou l d conside r extending its service to Tyndall Air Force Base, and to the Hugh Nelson Industrial Park (near Lynn Haven), South Port and the area west of SR 79. Data Collection and Analysis To provide service planning that will make public transportation more attractiVe and beneficial to current and potent ial riders, it is imperative that the in-house coll ection and analysis of operating data is accurate and consistent For BTT, the collection of such data is not on l y necessary for fede ra lly-required reporting, but will provide the transit operator with a historical database that can Bay County Transit Development Plan 207

PAGE 244

aid in allocating scarce resources most efficienUy. For BCCOA, the collection of information is mandated by the Florida Commission for the Transporta t ion Disadvantaged. Public Outreach and Marketing Public outreach is a way for BCCOAIBTT to educate the area's residents and visitors about its fixed-route system and t he advantages of public transportation in gene ral. The elde r ly could be targeted (perhaps through St. Andrews Towers), as well as youths, through local schools and Gulf Coast Community College. Major employers on the beach, who may be interested in BTT service for their employees, should also be contacted. There are other outreach/marketing techniques that can be used to improve the visibility of public transit in Bay County. These include the provision of bus stop signs with route schedules, information klosks at major transfer points and stops along the system, and bus shelters at key locations. BTT could also benefrt from becoming more involved in the promotion of bicycles on buses. ADA Complementary Paratransit Service As stated in the demand section of this document, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires all transit agencies that provide fixed-route bus service to provide complementary service, as well This paratransit service must shadow" the fix ed-route service area and provide a comparable level of service for persons who cannot use the fixed-route service. However, an aHemative to providing ADA complementary paratransit service is establishing the fixed-route service as route-deviated service. In a route-deviated service, a vehicle operates along a fixed route, making scheduled stops along the way. Vehicles will deviate from the route, however, to pick up and drop off passengers upon request. Afte r deviating, a vehicle the n immedi ately returns to the fixed route at the point at which it departed to accommodate the request for deviation. Route deviation is described as a hybrid configuration features of fixed-route, fixed-schedule service and demand responsive, curb-to-curb service. This hybrid service is defined as demand responsive and, the refore is exempt from the "shadow" service of ADA complementary paratransit service, according to the ADA Paratransit Handbook: Implementing the Complementary Paratransit Service Requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (now the Federal Transit Administration) of the U S. Department of Transportation. Requests for deviation from the fixed route are made in advance by phone throug h a dispatcher. Both the time in advance for req uest i ng a deviation and the distance from the fixed route which the 208 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 245

vehicle will deviate are set locally. Standard times for request for deviation range from 24-hour or prior-day notice to less than one hour for systems with two-way radio communication. The distance of the deviation ranges from one to two blocks up to thre&-quarters of a mile to match ADA requirements. For the service to be defined as a demand-responsive service, thereby not having to offer complementary ADA paratransit tili!. ri>ute deviation service must not be specific to a rider group. This type of service will have a significant positive impact o n operating costs for the service in that no complementary paratransit service will be necessary. However, it should be noted that although BIT would not be required to provide ADA complementary pa r atransit service, there may still be individuals in these service areas that would not be able to use the route deviation service due to the natu r e of their disabilities and/or because the deviated rvice does not travel where they need to go. For example, some individuals with menta l or physical impairments may not be able to navigate the system on their own. In cases such as these, BIT would have to make a determination as to whether to provide door-to-door paratransit service to individuals that are unable to use the route deviation service. If route deviation was established it is recommended that the deviated service be open to the general public, and that only one to two deviations per trip be allowed Based on an approximate five-minute travel time per deviation this would enable a route to consistently maintain its schedule. Bay County T ransit Development Plan 209

PAGE 246

210 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 247

CHAPTER FIVE TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION Previous chapters have de$cribed the current conditions for transH service in Bay County and the current transit services available in Bay County. The purpose of this chapter is to b ring together all of the previous findings and information to sketch alternatives for public transportat ion and to make recommendations for public transportation improvements in Bay County. The first two sections outline the vision of Bay County's public transportation for the next five years based on the three questions: "Where have we been?"; "Where are we now?"; and "Where are we going?" The third section presents recommendations prioritized according to the time frame for action: Immediately, within one to two years, and within three to five years. In the third section estimate$ of additional costs associated with each recommendation are presented. The final two sections include a five-year operating and capital financial plan for pu blic transportation with a list of projects for which funding has not been identified and a listing of other funding sources that tra nsportation operators in Bay County may use. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: PAST AND PRESENT Before looking at the future of public transportation in Bay County it is necessary to examine "Where have we been?", and "Where are we now? Bay County has a long history of public transportation including transit and paratransit. Fixed-route transit was operated by the City of Pa nama City within its city limits from after World War II until May 1982 The service was discontinued partially due to a continuing decline in public participation and a tren d of decreasing ridership. In the final full fiScal year (1980/1981) the system provided 94 008 passenger trips. The majority of the regular riders were domestic help followed by senior citizens and lower income res i dents After the discontinuation of service in 1981 there was no fixed-route public transportation in Bay County until the end of 1995 The Bay Town Trolley, a new fixed-route system in the urbanized area of Bay County, began operations In December 1995. It is operated by the Bay County Council on Aging under the direction of the Panama City Urbanized Area MPO for a three-year trial period with four trolleys (one spare) on fiVe routes. As detailed in Chapter Two, r idership is low, however low ridership is not unusual for a small system in the first year of service. Grants from the Federal Transit Administration and the Florida Department of Transportation will support the Bay Town Trolley system for a three year trial period. It is expected that BTT will begin exploring other funding sources immediately to supplement and/or match state and federal dollars if the three-year trial period proves successful. Bay County Tnmsit Development Plan 211

PAGE 248

Paratransit service has been coordinated by the Bay County Council on Aging Inc. since 1983 when they were selected as the Community Transportation Coordinator for Bay County. In 1992, Bay County Council on Aging provided or contracted for 133,610 passenge r trips In 1995 the number of TD trips provided increased to 170,230 a 27 percent increase. As shown in Chapter Two, BCCOA compares favorably to peers in regard to effectiveness and efficiency measures. In addition, reviews of BCCOA performed by the Commission for the Transportat ion Disadvantaged reaffirms favorable performance. FUTURE DIRECTION FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION *Where are we going?. is the main question to be asked for the next five years of public transportation in Bay County. There are many issues to be considered in determining this d irect ion. As stated above, fixed-route service was begun in December 1995 after a 14-year hiatus in Bay County. The fixed-route system is attempting to serve a large part of the Panama City Urbanized Area, three vehicles. Service is currently limited in regard to hours of service and frequency of service. The question, therefore, for the future of public transportation in Bay County is where to focus the limited resources for fixed-route transportation One is to focus resources on the current routes by increasing frequency on these routes and connectivity between these routes. Another alternative is to expand service into new areas thereby serving a bigger percentage of the population As indicated by interviews leaders meetings with the TOP review committee, consultations with the MPO and BTT staff, and public meetings with the general public, the focus of the resources of Bay Town Trolley should go towards increasing ridership o n the current routes The long-term success of Bay Town Trolley depends on people regularly riding the system, and residents of Bay County will only regularly ride the trolleys if the system has adequate frequencies to accommodate round trips and if there are timely connecti ons between routes. From public comments there were many requests to increase the hours of service, provide Saturday service, and expand the service area. These are valid requests, however, increasing ridership on current service hours, service days, and service areas must be addressed first. Therefore, the fiVeyear public transportation recommendations in the following section address the issue of Increasing ridership in the first three years. In the horizon of t hree to five years it is suggested that expansion of service hours, service days and service areas should be evaluated to determine if their would be sufficient demand. 212 Bay County Tr8llsit Dsvelopment Plan

PAGE 249

RECOMMENDATIONS . This section presen)s recommendations for public transportation in Bay County over the next five years (through fiscal year 2001). The three parts of the recommendations pertain to issues related to both the fixed-route system and paratransit sys1em, issues unique to the fixed-route system, and issues unique to the paratransit system. Each part is further arranged Into recommendations on service, management and marketing. All of the recommendations re l ate to eithe r immediate actions, actions over the next one to two years, or actions over three to five years Public Transportation Service Recommendatjons Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next Three to Five Years 1. The MPO should investigate the potential for vehicles after useful life being leased or sold to local governments for use as a feeder servi ce for the fixed-route service In other counties of Florida when vehicles are replaced by newer vehicles these vehicles are then operated by county or city governments as a feeder (demand-responsive) service that is coordinated with th e fixed-route service For example, in Broward County Broward County T ransit (BCT) leases its vehicle s to local municipalities for them to provide a community circulator service that feeds into one or more of BCT's fixed routes Management Recommendations Actions To Be Initiated Immediately 2 Consistency with Local Comprehensive Plan Transit Element. Efforts should be made to increase densities along major corridors so that improved transit efficiencies and increased usage will result. The MPO should work with the Bay County municipalities to accomplish this. Table 5-1 shows suggested minimum residential densities and downtown non residential floor space requirements for varying levels of fixed-route bus service as an example of an alternative policy for the Mass Tran sit Element. Bay County Transit Development Plan 213

PAGE 250

Table 5-1 Thresholds for Fixed-Route Transit Headway' M inlmum Residential Density Minimum Downtown1 Type of Service Non+Res. Floor Space (minutes) (dwelling units/acre) (million s of sq. ft.) M inimum local Bus 60 4 3.5 Intermediate Local Bus 30 17 7 Ftequentloeal Bus 10 15 17 Express Bus Walk Access 30 15 50 (avg. over 2 sq. mi.) Express Bus DriVe A.ooess 20 3 20 (avg. over 20 SQ. mi.) 1"Hea
PAGE 251

approximately $790,000 of annual reven ue In Bay County, and a one-cent sales tax would generate approximately $21,100,000. 6 BCCOA should cross-train all administrative employees to perform duties for both Bay Town Trolley and Bay Coordinated TranspOrtati
PAGE 252

transfer point) so that the three trolleys meet at specific times in the day. I n addition, the routes were modified to better serve the eXisting service area and provide additional transfer points (that are presently un officially used by riders of the system). 9. Re-establish the fixed-route service (Bay Tow n Trolley) as a deviated route service. In a service, a vehicle operates along a fixed route, making scheduled stops along the way. Vehicles will deviate one to two blocks from the route, however to pick up and drop off passengers upon request. After deviating, a vehicle then immediately returns to the fixed route at the point at which it departed to accommodate the request for deviation. Route deviation is described as a hybrid configuratio n with features of fixed-route, fiXed-schedule transit service and demand responsive, curb-to-curb serv i ce {i.e., the driver will not help the passenger to the door). This service is defined as demand -res ponsive, therefore, Bay Town Trolley would not be required to offer complementary ADA paratransit service, according to the ADA Paratransit Handbook: Implementing the Complementary Paratransff Service Requirements of the Americans wffh Disabilffies Act of 1990, by the U rban Mass Transportation Admin istrat ion (now the Federal Transit Administration) of the U.S. Department of Transportation. It is recommended that the deviated service be open to the general public, and that only one to two deviations per trip be allowed, or as the schedule permits. The vehicles will deviate one to two blocks off of the fixed route. And requests for deviation from the fixed route would be made one day in advance and would be on a first-come, first-serve basis. 10. Modify the size and color of bus stop signs. The interviews with local officials revealed that the current signs dis played at BTI stops are not distinctive to the surroundings and are too small. One comment was that they blend into the background because they are "too" attractive. The background color of the signs should be changed to white while maintaining the same logo. The signs also should be bigger (using requirements for lettering size as mandated by ADA) and fa ce on-coming traffic rather than facing the road. From a marketing point of view, each bus stop sign represents a miniature billboard, and its promotional effect should be maximized. 11. Install bus stop signs with route schedules Once new route schedules are implemented the specific schedule should be displayed on a separate smaller sign directly below the bus stop sign. These signs should be separate in anticipation of changes to the route schedules in future years. 216 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 253

12. Provide infonnation kiosks at major transfer centers (e.g., Target). These kiosks should contain information on routes, schedules, fares, and the transit system as a whole. A full . . .. '.. system map should be posted, along With maps of routes serving the transfer center lnfonnation on alternate payment options should also be included. One information kiosk is planned for installation in the first year of the plan. Lack of Inf ormation on a transit system is widely regarded as a barrier to Hs use, and must be countered at every reasonable opportunity. 13. Install and privatize bus shelters at key locations. Key bus shelter locations have been identified by the MPO and BTT staff, as shown in Appendix K. The MPO has solicited letters of interest for bus shafter pennittlng, construction, maintenance and sale of advertising on the shelters and is currently working to make the plan consistent wHh local regulations (Local sign ordinances need to be amended to allow for i nstallation of bus shelters.) The inst a llation of these bus shelters must be pursued. Insufficient protection from Florida's sun and rain is a clear deterrent to transit use. To pay for these bus shelters the MPO and BTT staffs have investigated the possibility of privatlzlng shelters. Many transit systems in Aorida have opted to implement the privatization of their shelters and their advertising. This program is usually run by an advertising company that would be responsible for the purchase and maintenance of the shelters as weU as for the marketing/selling of advertising space. The MPO staff believes that it would be a net gain in revenue for Bay Town Trolley Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next One to Two Years 14. Evaluate the need for additional bus stops and bus shelters based on comments and suggestions in the first two years of service Once the reconfigured routes have been implemented, the MPO should evaluate the need to establish a d ditional signs and sheHers. Generally signs should be placed every other block or approximately every 2110 mile. An appropriate goal for BIT would be to have bus stops every one-quarter mile. SheHers should be placed at int ersections where routes transfer, or areas of high transit ridership such as retirement centers, apartment complexes, etc. 15. After two years of service (one year after the major route and schedule changes), the MPO and BCCOA staffs should evaluate the overall success of Bay Town Trolley based on many factors. It is important to note that every urbanized area has a variety of factors that influence the success of a transit system Including demographics of the population, central business district size, the number of tourists geographic features, and the characteristics of the transit Bay County Tmnsit Development Plan 217

PAGE 254

service itself. In it must be emphasized that any new transit service requires at least one to two years to establish itself in the community. 16. After two years of seNice (one year after the major route and schedule changes) and again at three years of service, the MPO and BCCOA staffs should also evaluate the success of Bay Town Trolley against the performance measures of its peers. The performance of othe r systems with five or less vehicles was shown in Chapter Two. The average of certain measures for these peer systems should be used as one method of evalu ating the performance of BTT. The key performance measures that should be used are: passenger trips per revenue mile, passenger trips per revenue hour, and operating expense per passenger trip. The goal of BTT should be to attain 50 percent of the peer average after two years of service and 75 percent of the peer average after three years of service for passenger trips per revenue mile and passenger trips per r evenue hour. For operating expense per passenger trip, the goal after two years of service should be to attain 175 percent of the peer average and 150 percent of the peer average after three years of service. 17. The MPO and BCCOA staffs should periodically evaluate the success of Bay Town Trolley individual routes based on many factors. For Bay Town Trolley the first step i n evaluating the success of the individual routes would be to evaluate each of the routes based on a scoring evaluation process using six performance measures {riders per mlle, riders pe r hour, revenue per mile, revenue per hour, operating ratio, and cost per rider). A score is calculated for each route by equally weighting these measures for each route to derive an overall route score. A route's score for a particular measure is based on a comparison of the measure as a percentage of the system average for that particular measure. These individua l measure scores are added together and divided by six to get a fina l aggregate score. This final score is an i ndication of a route's performance for all six measures when compared to the system average for those measures. A higher score represents better overall performance when compared to other routes The final step is to rank-order the routes based on their aggregate scores. Unfortunately all of the data necessary to derive these measurements are not currently collected on a route by route basis for BTT. However. an example of this analysis done for the transit agency in Volusia County {VOTRAN) is contained in Appendix L. 218 Another method of examining success by route is to examine the 1990 Census data for a 114-mile buffer around all of the BTT fixed routes. Census characteristics which historically have a significant effect on transit system performance include population density zero-vehicle households low income a r eas, and areas with higher levels of the very young and very old. These characteristics make up what are known as transit dependent census tracts, and are Bay County Transit Developmen t Plan

PAGE 255

described in more detail in Chapter One. The results of this analysis are contained in Appendix L. Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next Three to Five Yean: 18. Expand service to earlier in the morning and later in the evening. On-board surveys and interviews local officia l s ind icated a need for this additional service particularly for the provision of wo r k trips. It Is recommended that service start approximately one hour earlier at 5:30 a.m. and run approximately one hour later in the evening until 7:30 p.m. This expansion of service would not require any additiona l vehicles, however, it wou ld increase annual operating costs by approximately 17 percent. This relatively small increment in service will make a difference in transifs attractiveness and relevance. 19. Improve frequency of routes. Citizen comments and results of the on-board survey indicate a potential need for increased frequency on all of the routes. Given the current fleet size of BTT, increased on all of the existing routes could not be accomplished at present. However, with the addition of 1 vehicle the frequency of ali routes could increase by approximately 33 percent. 20. Provide Saturday service that would be ne811y the same, if not the same, as weekday service. Interviews with local officials and comments from citizens revealed a potential demand for fixed-route service on Saturday. Many service workers in Bay County do not work the traditional Monday through Friday work week. Saturday service could provide transportation for these workers. Service would be the same as that prov ided during the week. The expansion of service to Saturday would not require any additional vehicles, however, this service, if operated the same hours as on weekdays, would increase operating costs by approximately 20 percent. 21. In the next major update of the TOP (in three yean:), the MPO should evaluate the need to modify the service currently being provided to the existing service area. a) Replace loop routes with tum-around routes. BTT currently offers routes that loop around a geographic area, due to the limited vehicles available and the large geographic area to cover. The MPO should investigate, in ttie Mure, the possibility of reconfiguring the routes to turnaround routes rather than loops to potentially decrease the ride times of its patrons. This reconfiguration, however, would require additional vehicles. b) Split the East Route into two routes The current East Route is approximately 1-1/2 ho urs in length. Bay County Trans;t Development Plan 219

PAGE 256

c) Eliminate or modify the North Route. The North Route currently maintains the lowest ridership of all of the routes. In addition, the service area covered by this r oute was not shown to be transH dependent by the Census Tract Analysis. If ridership does not improve on this route before the next major update of the TOP elimination of the route should be considered. 22. In the next major update of the TOP (in three years), the MPO should evaluate the need to expand service to Tyndall Air Force Base, and other major employment centers not currently served by BTT. Thi s evaluation should be based on the need demo nstrated by suggested vanpool services and/or feeder services and reflected in comments and suggestions from mizens. The MPO should explore for funding partnerships with the Air Force Base, shopping centers, or other business centers 23. Worl
PAGE 257

' . ... complementary paratransit service if the service remains a fixed-route service rather than deViated-route service. 26. Formally collect all required data for National Transit Database (formerly known as Section 15) reporting. Bay Town Trolley is a small enough system where required data could be collected on a continuous basis. The staff of BTT s hou ld coordinate with the MPO to follow the requirements outlined in FTA Circular 2710.1A which details sampling procedures for obta ining required fixed bus operating data. 27. Report monthly revenue expenditures in a format understandable to the MPO Board and other organizations with similar accounting knowledge. The current method of reporting revenue expenditures for operating expenses is difficult for the average person to follow. Simplified monthly data should also be reported. This is necessary t o calculate data fo r monthly MPO reports. 28. BTT should work with the MPO to expand the formal monitoring program to track the performance of individual routes and formaHze internal performance measures. This information is the basis for making decisions on the routing and frequency of buses Although some data are currently being collected, a more formal d ata monitoring and analysis program should be set up and followed (One option is to use RSVP volunteers to ride the trolleys and collect a sample of the necessary information.) This program would require a s ignificant amount of perso n hours. In formal guidelines or performance m easures to be used in measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of transit service should be established. Certain measl\res such as riders per hour or per vehicle m ile are used to evaluate overall system performance. These performance measures are, also, required by the Florida Department of Transportation for recipients of Block Grant monies 29. Coordinate with the MPO's CAP to meet the service needs of major emp loyers on the beach As mentioned above, some employers have shown an interest in Bay Town Trolley services. Major employers in Bay County are listed in Appendix C. Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next One to Two Years 30. Explore the potential for advertising on the trolleys Advertising has proved to be a major source of revenue for many transit agencies across the state. They have successfully allowed tasteful advertising on both the inside and outside of vehicles. One example is the specially painted "Supergraphic transit vehicles around the state that have proven to be an extremely popular method of advertising. These types of vehicles can get the transit system noticed. Similar advertising is used on vehicles in Pensacola, Orlando Tampa, and Fort Bay County Transit Development Plan 221

PAGE 258

Myers. If pursued, BTT should ensure a consistent visual identification is placed on all of vehicles. The advertiser would pay the full cost to "supergra phic' the vehicles. In addition to leasing advertising space on vehicles, the potential advertisers would bear the inrtia l cost of painting the vehicles and returnin g them to their original state once the agreed upon advertising term had concluded 31. MPO staff, with assistance from BTT staff, should conduct an on-board survey in 1997. An on-board survey using the same survey i nstrument as in the 1996 BTT survey should be used. This informatio n would be useful to evaluate how BTT is imp roving and where changes need to be made. Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next Three to Five Years 32 For new vehicle purchases the MPO should investigate alternative vehicles and ensure that the warranty information is clearly defined. Existing vehicles have incurred many mechanical problems. Diesel vehicles as well as other vehicles that look like trolleys should be Investigated for future vehicle purchases. In addition for past vehicle purchases for Bay Town Trolley, the warranties for the vehicles were split between three different manufacturers/converters The result was confusion about whi ch organization covered the warranty on which parts. Ma r keting Recommendat ions Actions To Be Initiated Immediately 33. Produce improved route and schedule information. After the new reconfigured routes and schedules are finalized this information should be published in a new "Ride Guide". A companion information card should also be produced. This card should be small enough to fit in a wallet and contain minimal information The cost of printing these ride guides could be covered if a company is found that wishes to advertise in the guide. 34. Set up tables/booths at special events for places such as Gulf Coast Community College or St. Andrews Towers for the purpose of promoting the sate of reduced fare passes on Bay Town Trolley Bay Town Trolley currently offers discounts on us fares when riders purchas e the "Twenty Ride Ticket, a weekly pass, or a monthly pass. These passes should be marketed at special events in which BTT staff can set up a booth with information about th e Trolley. BTT staff should utilize existing marketing tools such as the previously mentioned video, at these events. 222 Bay County Ttansit Development Plan

PAGE 259

35. Continue presentations in front of various groups, including town meetings, social service agencies, churches, the downtown merchant association and civic associations. BTT and BCT staffs have consistently sought sj:>eaking opportunities to further educate groups about both BCT and BTT. A video has been produced, and already has been shown to various groups, which has proved to be a great tool to introduce the trolley to the public. The benefrt of these presentations has been invaluable and should continue by the staff of BTT. With assistance from the MPO BTT staff should pursue presentations to groups that have particular transportation needs (e.g., previous presentations to people who have sustained head injuries). 36. The MPO should jointly promote bicycles on buses with the MPO's bicycle coordinator and Bay County Bicycle Clubs. All BTT vehicles have easy-to-use bicycle racks. Bicycles on buses would help to address some of the concerns for bicycle safety at such locations as going across the Hathaway Bridge. Information about this service should be disseminated to bicycle riders and enthusiasts. 37. Arrange for bus system map information to be included in the telephone directory for Bay County. This is an easy way to make infonnation on the transit system available to the general public in their homes. Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next One to Two Years 38. Worldng with private industry, the MPO should evaluate the feasibl7ity of chartering out transit vehicles to private organizations for weekend and evening service. The rules restricting the chartering of vehicles purchased with federal funds are listed in U S. Federal Register 49 CFR Part 604. These rules state that organizations using Federal Transit Administration equipment or must first detennine if there are any private charter operators willing and able to provide the charter service which the recipient desires to provide. If there is at least one private provider willing or able to provide the charter service the organization is prohibited from providing the service themselves. The intent of these rules is to ensure that publicly-funded equipment is not to compete with private enterprise. Bay County Transit Development Plan 223

PAGE 260

Bay Coordinated Transportation Service Recommendations Actions To Be Initiated Immediately 39. Continue the vehicle replacement progrem and purchase new vehicles while investigating other sources of vehicles other than currently used because of maintenance pro blems The TD capital improvement program is contained in Table 5-5. Management Recommendations Actions To Be Initiated Immediately 40 Continue to pursue a method of more effectively serving the Mexico Beach area of Bay County through an tnter-CTC agreement with the Gulf County CTC. 41. BCCOA should oontinue to pursue the inclusion of Medicaid unde r coordinated trensportation service in Bay County Medicaid has not operated wtlhin the coordinated system since September 30,1995. II is not within the control of the MPO or BCCOA to requ i re them to operate under the coordinated system, and BCCOA has worked diligently to assist Medicaid in finding solutions to meet their budget reductions. However with the start of Bay Town Trolley, Bay County Council on Aging could suggest additional solutions to Medicaid such as monthly passes as an option for transportation. Other transit programs in Aorida have developed bus pass programs for clients of particular agencies (e.g., Medicaid). In some programs, agency clients who have t h ree or more appointments per month are eligible to receive a monthly pass good for any number of trips on the fixed-route bus service The clients who take advantage of this program give up their paratrans i t rig h ts, unless fo r some reason the fixed route bus service is not able to accommodate thei r needs. These programs have resulted in cost savings for the system because the fixed-route system i s more cost-efficient than door-to-door paratransit service. Where mobility limitations do not restrict c l ients from us i ng fiXed-route service arrangements wtlh agencies should be m 42 Increase education to clients and agencies about the no-show policy. BCCOA staff members meet annually with purchasing agencies and work on a daily basis to communicate and reinforce the no-show policy. However as indicated by the on-board survey of BCT many 224 Bay County Transit Plan

PAGE 261

riders commented that the no-show policy was too harsh : BCCOA should investigate where the breakdown in communication as to the no-show policy takes place and work to increase education so that riders understand necessitY of the strictness of the no-show policy in influencing behavior and cost-effectiveness. 43. The MPO should promote the dollar voluntary contribution license tag renewal forms. The BTTIBCT Marketing Director should work with the to sponsor awareness of TO programs and specifically the voluntary dollar 44 BCTshould review and monitor vehicle maintenance record keeping. From fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 1993 reported roadcalls for BCT increased from 10 to 40. Efforts should be made to monitor future record keeping for BCT Actions To Be Initiated Over the Next One to Two Years 45. BCT should monitor the performance of BCT on a route or zonal basis. On a system-wide basis BCT compares favorably with its peer systems as was shown in Chapter Two However, BCT should also be monitoring effectiveness and efficiency of service on a zonal basis to determine if any future modification of service will be needed. 46. BCT should continue to monitor performance measures identified as weaknesses in their trend analysis. The weaknesses reflected in BCT's trend analysis were part i ally r e l ated to the system s rapid growth in service from FY1992 to FY1995. However, BCT must ensure that future growth in vehicle miles and passenger trips is consistent with the agency's goals and objectives Bay County Transit Development Plan 225

PAGE 262

FIVE-YEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN: FINANCIAL PLAN Up to this point, the TDP process has not been constrained by fiscal considerations, in accordance with its strategic intent. Demographics, survey results, community input in various fonns and peer and trend analyses, have all been used to assess the demand for transit service and to identify needs in Bay County The recommendations presented above have been based on previous findings and future directions. The final step in the transit development plan process is to estimate costs for these recommendations and compare them against current and anticipated financial resources. Table 5-2 presents the costs associated with the above recommendations and the projected dates of implementation. All but three of these recommendations are funded in the current budget. Extended service hours, i mproved frequency, and Saturday service will require additional operating and/or expendrtures. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 contain and operating expenses and revenues projected through the end of the fiVe-year planning period. The operating expenses include existing service as well as expanded service starting in fiscal year 1999 Capital expenses are associated with replacement vehicles in fiSCal year 1998 and one new vehicle (for improved frequency) in FY 1999. Operating assistance originates from FTA Section 9 funds and State Block Grant funds. Beginning in FY 1999, at the close of the demonstration period, local funds will be necessary to match federal and state monies. The federal operating assistance revenues in Table 5-3 assume a 50 percent decline in comparison to current available levels thereby accounting for 25 percent of the total operating expenses in FY 1999. In FY 2000, this source of revenue will decrease another 50 percent, and is totally eliminated by FY 2001. Bay Coordinated Transportation operating and caprtal infonnation is contained in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. In Table 5-5, operating expenses and revenues are estimated through FY 2000 according to projections in the Bay County Coordinated Transportation Development Plan. The capital imp rovement program including replacement vehicles and new vehicles for Bay Coordinated Transportation is outlined In Table 5-6. 226 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 263

Table 5 Bay County TranSit Development Plan Estimated Cost of Recommendations (in 1996 dollars) Number Annual Annual Recommendation Unlt Cost Operating of Units Cost Revenue 10.111. S l gnage S35fsign 90 nla nla 1 2 Kiosks $200/l
PAGE 264

Exis.t:inQ Service Extended Servioe Hours Improved Saturday_ Service Operating Subtotal New Vehicle Replacement Vehicles Capital Subtot>l TOTALS FTA Sedion 9 Operating Assistance FOOT Block Grant Farebox Revenue Looo l Match Operating Subtotal FT A Section 9 Assistance Table 5-3 Expense Summary-Five-Year Transit Deve lopment Plan Bay Town Trolley I FY 1996 FY 1997 FV 1998 FY 1999 FV 2000 $248 .800 $261 240 $274.302 $288.017 $302.418 568 465 $7 1 .888 $96.758 $101.596 -565.613 568.894 $248.800 $261.240 $274.302 $518.853 $544,796 I I $105,000 --$3 1 5,000 ----$315 000 $105,000 -$248 ,800 $589.302 5623,853 $544,796 Table 5-4 Rev enue Summary-Fi v e-Year Transit Development Plan Bay Town Trolley FY 1996 FV 1997 FV 1998 FV 1999 FY 2000 $129,423 $141 190 $147 ,357 $129. 713 568. 100 $103,353 $ 1 12,749 $117,673 $194,570 $238 .348 $16.024 $7 ,301 $9,272 $12.103 $12.708 -$182,467 $225,640 $248 .800 $261.240 $274 ,302 $5 1 8,853 $544,796 -$252 000 $84,000 -FOOT C3pital Block Grant $31,500 $10.SOO Local Capital Match --$31.500 $10.500 -caPital Subtotal -$315 000 $105.000 TOTALS $248,8 0 0 $261,240 $589,302 $623,853 $544,796 FY 2001 Total $317,539 $1.692.316 $75.483 $2 1 5.836 $106.676 $305.030 $72,336 $206.845 $572,036 $2,420.027 -$105 000 -$315.000 $420,000 $572,036 $2,840,027 FY 2001 Total $0 5615 783 $286.018 $1.052.711 $ 13 ,343 $70,75 1 $272.675 5680.782 $572.036 $2.420.02 7 -$336.000 $42, 000 $42.000 3420,000 $572,036 $2,840 ,027 228 Boy County Transit Dev&IOPrrJ&nt Plan

PAGE 265

Table 5-5 Ope,.llng Expense and R evenue Projections Bay Coordinated T,.nsportatlon Expenses FY 1Di51 FY 1996l FY 19971 t.abor $423,625 $347,572 $422,870 Fringe Benefits $128,898 $99,603 $111,663 Services $17,.055 $28,124 $31 ,827 MateriaWSupplie $150,973 $82.993 $107, 891 utfies $6, 784 $9,445 $9,1118 Casualty & Lial>Oity $84, tOt $61 500 $67 ,500 Taxes $473 $800 $840 Purc:hasod nans.SGrviCM $150,489 $40,864 $42,907 Leases/Rentals $3,435 $4, 067 $25,691 Annual Depreciation $24.2116 $35,000 $36,750 Conlrbuted SeMoe$ $148 992 $228.000 $239,.000 $7,815 $8,908 $9,3$3 TOTAl. $1 125 124 $946,896 $1,106.811 R.....,ues FY 11151 FY 1996 FY 1997 Farobox so $25,120 $26 ,801 [TO Commission $187,014 $226,076 9241,211 FOOT Block Grant $50,589 $146 000 $148,000 AHCA Medicaid $561,731 $489,506 $234,918 HRS $14,840 $15, 125 $15,415 Dept. Of ED. $3,i28 $4,003 $4,060 OOEA (OM $38,534 $37,235 $37,850 OCA-CSBG $!12,455 $53,493 $54,519 OOLDLES $8,817 $6,948 $7,081 Looal Govt. $152,302 $ 1 55,226 $158.207 Local Non G>VL $58,884 $80,015 $81 ,187 TOTAL $1,125,124 $1, 21$,747 $987,347 1Ad:ual e.xpenses and NY6IUtS 81 ntpOfted by BCOOA's 1995AOR. B<:COA't199511996SeMcePion. 'Projections based on a fMt percem 1nnual increase Bay County Transit Plan FY 1998' $444,014 $117.246 $33,923 $113.286 $10,414 $70,875 $882 $45,052 $26,871 $38,588 $251,370 $9, 821 $1,161,942 FY1H8 $27,064 $243,576 $145,650 s.508,484 $15,711 $4,159 $38,679 555,568 $7,217 $161,244 $92,341 $1.269,691 FY 19g91 FY 2000' $466 214 $489,525 $123 108 $129,264 $3.5.200 $36,959 $118.950 $124 ,897 $10.1135 $11 ,481 $74,419 $78,140 $926 $972 $47,306 $49,670 $28,214 S29.825 $40,517 $42,543 $282 ,939 $277 135 $10,312 $10,827 $1,220,039 $1.281 ,038 FY1999 FY2000 $27,927 $27,590 $245,940 $248,305 $145,284 $149,900 5518,248 $928 ,197 $16,013 $1U20 $4,238 $4,320 $39,.022 $40,178 $56,633 $67,720 $7,358 $7,497 $164,340 $187,495 $63,538 $64,758 $1,288.337 St.312.2ao 229

PAGE 266

Table 5-6 Transportation Improvemen t ProgramCapita l Expe n ses Bay Coordinated T ra n sportation Type Of Expense F'( 1998 FY 1997 F'f1998 F'( 1999 F'( 2000 8bu ses 6buses 6 Buses 8 Buses 8 Buses we we we we we Paratransit Fteplaoement $356,000; 5270 000; $258,000 ; $360 000: $360 000: 3 M inivans 3 Minivans 2 M inivans 3 Minivans 3 M i niva n s we we we we we $99 000 $99,000 $99,000 $99,000 2 Buses 2 Buses 2 Buses we 2 Miniva.ns we we Paratransit Expansion 18usWC $90,000 ; we S90.000; $90,000; $44 500 1 M inivan $66,000 2 M inivans 2 M inivan s we we we $33 000 $66,000 $66 ,000 Mainten a n ce Shop/OffiC6 $12,000 $8 000 $10 000 $10.000 $10,000 Equipment Building $1, 250 000 TOTAL $511, 500 $500 000 $1,650,000 m5.ooo Source: Bay COunty COOn:Jinated T18nsportetion Oevelopmenl Plan . 1996 ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES F'( 2001 6 B u ses we 5270,000; 2 M inivai\S we I 1 Sedan $13 000 2 B uses we $30,000 ; 2 M i n ivans we $66, 000 $15.000 SS20 000 As shown in the p revious section there will be funding shortfalls beginning in frscal year 1999 after the demonstration period Is complete. These s hortfalls are primarily associated with the provision of additional service includ i ng increased span of service increased frequenci es, and the addition of Saturday service. It i s important to note, however, a sho rtfall would occur without the additional service due to d eclining federal funds and the need for a l ocal match. There are several local funding a lt ernatives that coul d be considered for BTT. First, indiv i dua l county transportation trust funds receive m o ney from sources including the constitutional gas tax (20 percent of which goes to the counties), the county gas tax (72 percent of which is directed to the county trust funds) the s tate' s fuel use tax (4 peroent of these revenues go to the county trust funds), alternat ive fuels tax (6 percent of which is directly d i stributed to the counties) a local option gas tax (revenues may be used for any transportation-rela ted purpose and a r e subject to the standard 7 3 percent state remittance to the general revenue fun d ), and the "ninth-cent" tax (also known as the Voted Gas Tax, after t he stat e surcharge, full proceeds may be used for any 230 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 267

county or municipal transportation purpose). From a one-cent tax per gallon on motor fuels, Bay County would yield $780,000 annually, according to the Local Government Financial Information Handbook (July 1996) prepared by the Florida Advisory Council on Intergovernmenta l Relations. Another method of local funding is through property tax districts Currently, four counties in Florida dedicate millage to their transit systems. Such ad valorem taxes have been a major source of revenue for the systems. In fiscal year 1991, more than 55 percent of Hillsborough Area Regional Transn's revenues originated from this source. In addition, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority was provided with more that 60 percent of its total resources from dedicated millage. The two other systems receiving revenue from ded i cated millage rates are VOTRAN in Volusia County and Lakeland Area Mass Transit District in Polk County. Another option available to counties is a local option sales tax with proceeds either partially or completely dedicated to public transit. FUTURE POTENTIAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Bay Town Trolley As identified in the recommendations, the short-term goals of Bay Town Trolley should be to focus on ridership within the current service area before considering expansion of service to additional areas BTT currently serves all of the transit dependent census tracts in Bay County. 1 st routinll:rilolonfiguratlon for the future, however, could include the separation of th o routes. In addition, if ridership does not improve on the North route, elimination of the route should be considered. Bay Coordinated Transportation Bay Coordinated Transportation currently serves the majority of Bay County. However, the planning staff for BCT is currently pursuing the establishment of zones throughout the county to more efficiently use the vehicles by grouping trips by origin and/or destination whenever possible. The MPO staff in the next update of Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan will examine and map generators and attractors of TD service in Bay County that will be used to evaluate potential public transportation corridors Bay County Ttansit Development Plan 231

PAGE 268

CONCLUSION As reflected by the above recommendations the focus of the limtted resources of Bay Town Trolley should go towards increasing ridership on the current routes The long-term success of Bay Town Trolley depends on people regularly riding the system and residents of Bay County will only regularly ride the trolleys if the system h as adequate frequencies to accommodate round trips and if there are timely connections between routes. The recommendations for Bay Coordinated Transporta tion focus on the nee d to continually find ways to provide service more cost effectively by improving the education of clients and providing programs such as the 'bus pass program. Compared to tts peers, BCT is providing qualtty service effectively and efficiently. This service can only improve wtth continuous monitoring and exploration of new ideas In the provision of service. 232 Bay County Transit Development Plan

PAGE 269

APPENDIX A BAY COUNTY CENSUS DATA TABLES

PAGE 270

A 2

PAGE 271

Table A Population and Population Density Bay County 1990 A3

PAGE 272

A-4 TableA-2 Age Distribution Bay County, 1990

PAGE 273

TableA-3 Household Income Bay County 1990 A-5

PAGE 274

A-6 Table A-4 Vehicle Availability Bay County, 1990

PAGE 275

Table A.S Travel Time to Wortt Bay County 1990 A-7

PAGE 276

A-8 Table A-6 Means o f Travel to Work Bay County, 1990 323 30 0 411 9 118 0 0 112 6 0 197 0 0 0 6 63 39 93 11 0 38 0

PAGE 277

APPENDIX B BAY COUNTY CENSUS TRACTS: DISTRIBUTIONS & SCORES

PAGE 278

B-2

PAGE 279

Tract 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 0012 0013 0014 0015 0016 0017 0018 0019 0020 0021 0022 0023 0024 0025 0026 0027 002699 Table B-1 Transit-Dependent Census Tract Analysis Distributions and Scores Bay County %Elderly Score %Youth Score %0-Veh. Score %Low Score Htls lno. Hhs 13.24% 0 28.67% 1 4.01% 0 20.80% 0 16.98% 0 27 .44% I 5 15% 0 22.24% 1 13.06% 0 27A2% 1 3. 1 5% 0 1 5 85% 0 11.63% 0 24.54% 1 0.89% 0 8 37% 0 30.75% 2 15.67% 0 2.99% 0 1 5 14% 0 0.00% 0 33.6S% 2 0.00% 0 1.29% 0 8 .93% 0 27.97% 1 2.68% 0 1 0.52% 0 1 8.29% 0 22.42% 0 2.92% 0 1 1 .67% 0 18.60% 0 28.77% 1 13.93% 1 28.27% 1 10.58% 0 31.11% 2 13.42% 1 29.5()% 1 16.70% 0 2 4.08% 0 5.41% 0 21.52 % 0 13.27% 0 29. 1 2% 1 5.96% 0 15.69% 0 15.04% 0 28.05% 1 2.34% 0 11.89% 0 17.27% 0 23.38% 0 2 94% 0 9 28% 0 23.59% 1 26.24% 1 27 73% 2 46.28% 2 .2-1.74% 1 28.80% 1 1 6 90% 1 35.91% 1 19.24 % 0 27.33% 1 20 9 7 % 1 38.48% 1 21.22% 1 20.24% 0 3.8:2% 0 11.63% 0 44 76% 3 2.02% 0 60.63 % 3 77.58% 3 29.89% 2 13.33% 0 13.58% 1 28.73% 1 23 61% 1 27.67% 1 18.24% 1 34.82% 1 24.46% 1 21.87% 0 7 81% 0 18.47% 0 1 6.42% 0 23 70% 0 6.70% 0 2o.92% 0 18 .86% 0 25.83% 1 2.71% 0 7 .96% 0 20.10% 1 19.61% 0 3 96% 0 11.18% 0 30.25% 2 16 54% 0 4.21% 0 16 17% 0 0 00% 0 0 00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Composite Score Statistics Average Compostte Score: 2.12 Standard Devation: 2.04 Average Compostte Score+ One Standard Deviation: 4.16 Average Composite Score+ Two Standard Deviations : 6.20 Composite SGorc 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 3 4 0 1 1 0 6 4 3 1 9 4 4 1 0 1 1 2 0 B-3

PAGE 281

APPENDIXC TRIP GENERA TORS AND A TIRACTORS IN BAY COUNTY

PAGE 282

C-2

PAGE 283

Table C-1 Major Generators and Attractors Identified In Figure 1-15 10 CATEGORY NAME ADDRESS 1 Sdlool Fk>rida State University 4750 W. Collegiate Dr. 2 School Gulf Coast Commun i ty College 5230 w Hwy 98 3 School Gulf Coast Seminary 318 School Av. 4 School Bay High 1200 Harrison Av. 5 School Mosley H i gh 501 Mosley Dr. 6 School Rutherford High 1000 SchooiAv. 7 School Everitt Middle 608 Schoo l Av. 8 Sdlool Jinks Middle 600 w. 11th St. 9 Sdlool Merritt Brown Middle 5601 Merritt Rd. 10 Sdlool Mowat Middle 1903 Hwy. 390 11 School Patterson Middle 1025 Redwood Av. 12 School Ros enwald Middle 924 BayAv. 13 School Surfside Middle 300 Nautilus St. 14 School Beach Elementary 560 Clara Av. 15 School Callaway Elementary 7115 Hwy. 22 16 School Cedar Grove Elementary 2826 E. 15th St. 17 School Highland Parl< Elementary 2507 Baldwin Rd. 18 School Lucille Moore Elementary 1900 Mich i gan Av. 19 School Lynn Haven Elementary 301 W. 9th St. 20 School Margaret K Lewis Center Elementary 1527 Lincoln Av. 21 School Merriam Cherry Street Elementary 205 Hamilton St. 22 School Millville Elementary 203 N. EastAv. 23 School Northslde Elementary 2001 Northside Dr. 24 School Oakland Terrace E lementary 2010 W. 12th St. 25 School Parker E l ementary 640 s. Hwy. 22A 26 School Patronis Elementary 7400 Patronis Dr. 27 School Southport Elementary 1839 Bridge St. 28 School Springfield E le mentary 520 School Av. 29 School St. Andrew Elementary 3001 W 15th St. 30 School Tommy Smith Elementary 5519 Merritt Brown Rd. 31 School Tyndall Elementary Tyndall Airforee Base 32 School Waller Elementary 11331 E Hwy. 388 33 School West Bay Elementary 14813 Sdlool Dr. 34 School A.D Harris 819E.11thSt. 35 School Hany VoTech. 3016Hwy. 77 36 School ShaW Adult Cente r 162 Detrlot Av. 37 School Mary Macki n 1804 Carolina Av. 38 School Covenant Christian 2350 Frankford Av. 39 School Fellowship Christian 318 School Av C

PAGE 284

10 CATEGORY NAME ADDRESS 40 School First Presbyterian too e. 1111 St 41 School Good Shepherd Ultheran 929 S Tyndall Pkwy 42 School Holy Nativity Episcopal 222 N. Bontta Av. 43 School Panama City Christtan 1104 Balboa Av. 44 School St. John Evangelist 1005 Av. 45 School Rock School 2413 N Han!s Av. <46 School Victory C hristian 1616 Allison Av. 4 7 School Islamic Convnunity 700 Transmitter Rd. <46 Tourist Allraetion EbroOogT.-Hwy. 79 50 T ouris1 Attraction Gulf Wol1d Marine Parte 1541 2 Front Beach Rd. 51 Tourist Attr.>etion Junior Museum of Bay County 1 731 N. Jenk s Av. 52 Tourist Attr.lction Theatre 207 E 24th St. 53 Tourist Attr.lction Martin Theatre 409 Harrison Av. 54 Tourist Attr.>ction M iracle Strip Amusement Partt 12000 Front Beach R d 55 T ouris.t Attraction Museum of Man and the Sea 17314 Bad< Beach Blvd. 58 T ouriSI Attr.lction Ocean Opry Show 8400 F ron t Beach Road 57 T 0U1ist Allraetion Shipwreck I $land Water Pari< 12000 Front Beach Rd. 58 T ouriS1 AIIJaction Vrsual All Center of-Florida 19 e st. 60 Tourist Anraction ZooWotld 9006 w. Hwy 98A 61 Hospttat Bay Medical Center 615 N Bontta Av. 62 Hospital HCA Gulf Coast 449 W. 23rd St. 63 Hospttal National Health Care Center o f 2100 Jenks Av. Panama City 64 Hospttal & M edical Cent e r NAVHOSP Branch Medical Center 6703 W Hwy 98 65 Hospttal Rivendell Psych iatric 1940 Harrison Av. 66 Hospttal Tyndall Airforce Base TyndaD Airforoe Base 6 7 Shopping Center Panama City Mal 2150 N Cove Blvd. 66 Shopping Center Alvin's Magic Mountain MaD 12000 w Hwy 98A 69 Shopping Center Baldwin Plaza 2909 State Hwy. n 70 Shopping Center Bayland Plaza Harrison Av. and 23rd St. 71 Shopping Center Beachwat k Centre Hwy 98 and Thomas Or. 72 Shopping Center Cal laway Plaza T yndall Pkwy & Cherry St. 73 Shopping Center Callaway Village Square 219 Tyndall Pkwy 74 Shopping Center Cove 901 Cherry St. 76 Shopping Center Eleventh Street Center 892 W. 11th St. n Shopping Center Fleld's Plaza 1 2700 w Hwy 98A 78 Shopping Center Gilbefg's Plaza Hwy. n 79 Shopping Center Hathaway Crossing Back Beach Rd. and Vvlldwood Rd 80 Shopping Center Hickory Center Hickory St. and Tyndall Pkwy 81 Shopping Center Hol iday Plaza 6608 W. Hwy 98 82 Shopping Center Long Beach 10510 W. Hwy 98

PAGE 285

ID CATEGORY NAME ADDRESS 83 Shopp ing Center Lynn Haven SR 77 and 17th st 84 Shopping Center Magie MOtioitafri . . Front Beach Rd. and CR 30H 85 Shopp ing Center Magnolia Plaza CR 747 and CR 3031 86 Shopp ing Center Manufacturers Out let 1 05 W 23rd St. 87 Shopp ing Center Mariner Plaza 621 Hwy. 231 88 Shopping Center Mini M all 441 Grace Av. 89 Shopp ing Center Mi racl e Mile P laza 7328 Thomas Dr 90 Shopping Center Panama City Beach 7932 w. Hwy 98 91 Shopping Center Panama Crty Square 23rd St. and Square Av. 92 Shopping Center Panama P laza 1358 W 15th S t. 93 Shopping Center Parker 208 S. Tyn dall Pkwy 94 Shopping Center P romenade Mall 8317 W. Alt. Hwy 98 95 Shopping Center Sands Front Beach Rd. 96 Shopping Center Southwood 5300 E. Hwy 99 97 Shoppi ng Center Springfield P laz a 3201 E. Hwy 99 98 Shopping Cente r St. Andrew Plaza 2913 w. Hwy 98 99 Shopping Center st. Thomas Square 8600 T h omas Dr. 100 Shopping Center Stanford Station 820 W. 23rd St. 101 Shopping Center Sunshine Shopping Center 2389 State Rd 390 and S..ck Av 102 Shopping Center The Shoppes at Edgew ater Hwy 98 and B<>ckrich Rd 103 Shopping Center TheY Hwy 98 and Hwy 7g 104 Shopping Center 23rd st. Plaza 650 W. 23rd S t. 105 Shopping Center Waysid e 16000 W. Hwy 98 106 Shopping Center Wes t P laza Hwy 98 and Chandlee Av. 107 Civic Center Marina 8 Harrison Av. 108 City Hall Bay County 310 w 6th St. 109 City H all Callaway 5708 Cheny St. 110 City Hall Cedar Grove 2728 E. 14th St. 111 City Hall Lynn Haven 825 OhioAv. 112 City Hall Mexico S..ach 1 4th St. Mexico Beach 113 City Hall Panama City Beach Highway 79 114 City Hall Panama City 9 Harrison Av. 115 City Hall Par ker 1001 w. Park St. 116 City Hall Springfield 3529 e. 3rd st. 117 Library Bay County 25 W. Government St. 118 Library lynn Haven 901 OhioAv. 119 Library Panama City Beach 1 1 0 S. Arnold Rd. 120 Library Parker 1001 W. Perk St. 121 Library Springfie ld Li b rary 408 Sch ool Av. 122 Social Service Office S..y County Councol on Agin g 1116 Frankford Av 123 Social Service Office HRS soow. 11th. st. C-5

PAGE 286

ID CATEGORY NAME ADDRESS 124 Social SetVice Office HRS Usenby Av and Airport Blvd. 125 Major Employer Arizona Chemical Company S. EverittAv. 126 Major Employer Bay Bank 509 Harrison Ave 127 Ma jor Employer Bay Point Yacht and Country Club 100 Delwood Beach Rd Resort 128 Major Employer Berg Sleel Pipe Corporation Port Indus tria l Park 129 Major Employer Correction Corp of America 314 112 Hannon Av. 130 Major Employer Eastern Shipyard 6100 Eastern Av. 131 Major Empk>yer GuWPower 1230 E. 15th St. 133 Major Employer Marriott's Bay Point Resort One Marriott Dr. 134 Major Employer Merridc Corporation 10 Ar111ur Dr. 135 Major Employer Panama City News Herald 501 w. 11th St. 136 Major Employer Southern BeD 604 Nautilus st. 137 Major Employer Stone Container Corporation 501 S. East Av. 1 38 Ma j or Emp loye r Sun Cornmer<:ial Bank 638 Harrison Av. 139 Major Employer Sallie Mae 1002 Ar111ur Dr. 140 Major Employer Tommy Thomas Chevrolet 2251 W. 23rd St. 142 Major Em ploye r Panama City Beach Chamber of 415 Beckrich Rd Commerce 143 Major Employer Sea Witch Motel 21905 W. Front Beach Rd 144 Major Employer Port of Gall 15817 Front Beach Rd 145 Major Employer Fiesta Motel 16623 Fronl Beach Rd. 146 Major Em ployer Bright Star Motel 14705 Front Beach Rd. 147 Major Employer Miracle Mile Resort 9450 S. Thomas Dr. 148 Major Employer Suger Sands Motel 20723 Front Beach Rd. 149 Major Employer Quality Inn 15285 Front Beach Rd. 150 Major Employer Sea Chase 17351 Front Beach Rd t51 Major Employer Dunes of Panama 7205 Thomas Dr. 152 Major Employer Allied Signal Braking System 1006 Arthur Dr. 153 Major Employer American Telephone and Telegraph 111 E. 5th Street 154 Major Employer Argus Services lne. 3910 Avon Rd. 155 Major Employer Bell Signs 1200 Amoldware Dr. 157 Major Employer Edgewater Beach Resort 11212 Front Beach Rd 158 Major Employer Holiday Inn 11127 Front Beach Rd 159 Major Employer Sam's Club 1702 w. 23rd St 156 Major Empk>yer Coastal Systems Station W. H ighway 98 161 Major Employer WaiMart 10070 Front Beach Rd C-6

PAGE 287

APPENDIXD PUBLIC INPUT: INTERVIEW GUIDE AND CITIZEN COMMENTS

PAGE 288

0-2

PAGE 289

A. Where We Are Bay County Transit Development Plan Interview Questions 1 How much interest in and support for transit is there in the community? Have the level s of interest and support changed in the last two years? 2 How is the Bay Town Trolley perceived in the community? 3 What is your perception of trans i t's current and potential r ole in the community? 4. Are there community needs that could be met by transit? Is the current system responsive to those needs? 5. Is traffic congestion a problem in Bay County? If so, what ro le might transit play in alleviating this problem? 6 Is there a p arking problem in Bay County? B. Where We Want to Be 7. What goals have the community and elected officials voiced f o r transportation in the county? What do you see as appropriate goals for a transit system? 8. How can a transit system better meet community needs? 9. What is happening in Bay County i n terms of residential and commercial development? How much? Where? Does this development suggest a need for tran sit that does not previously exist? 10. What groups are most lik ely t o use transit service? 11. Is the r e a willingness in the community to consider additional local funding sources to support a transit system? I f so, what type of funding methods? C. How we Get There 12 What improvements are needed in the transit system to attract more riders and meet community goals? 1 3 Are there areas currently not served or underserved by transit that should receive a higher priority? 14 Are there policies that should be changed to help better support a transit system? D-3

PAGE 290

CITIZEN COMMENTS Suggested Changes In Routes D-4 On the North route, it has been sugges ted that we should go to the bridge. On the Downtown route, we should have the trolley go from 4th and Harrison to Cove Blvd Down to 2nd Street to Jenks, and on to Jenks to 8th Street to MLK. On the East Route, it is suggested for the trolley to go on Sherman to where East Street and Sherman meet and then to 1 1th Street. On the East Route the trolley should go straight on 7th Street to Bob Little and t h en make right on HWY 22. On Cherry St. and Berthe, the trolley should make a right on Bertha and proceed to Boat Race and make a right there to Gay Street where ft needs to make a left on Cherry Street. On the West Route, it is suggested that we should go to the Airport via 390 from Lynn Haven. On the Beach Route the tro lley needs to go to the end of the beach (West side) and come back on Front Beach Road therefore, eliminating the trip back to Panama City on Back Beach Road. By doing this we can pick u p more passengers especially the ones we droppe d off along the route. Trolley should go to the main gate at Tydall AFB. Ru nnin g route s in reverse every other time allowing a person to go to a nd from a particular destination within a reasonable amount of time. Follow the existing southerly route on 3-A from Cherry S t. to Soule Dr. Follow Soule Dr. westerly to Ethlyn Rd. Where it turns North and redirect to Business 98. From there it would follow existing westerly route until i t intersects with Bob Little Road. Tum North past Parker Elementary to Cherry Street back to original route. Trolley to go from the West Route to the East, North, or Downtown Routes West Route is compatible for tra nsfer with every route but the Beach Route. Would l ike trolley bus to turn on North East Avenue. Add middle of the day route to the North Route, and extend services on North Route to include current Downtown Route. Reverse West Route so it would go downtown from the mall first. Eliminate Downtown Route completely

PAGE 291

The three existing routes should stop at different major retailers at the mall. Add one middle of the day route to the East Route. Would like route to be extended to Southport. Suggested Changes in Schedule We should make more frequent stops at Haney Trolleys should run later in the day allowing a person to go to and from work. The routes should be run in reverse every other time within a reasonab l e time. The trolleys should run a lim i ted schedu l e on weekends (at least Saturday) Trolleys should run later i n the day allowing a person to go to and from work after comp l eting an 8-hour workday. The trolley should have earlier arrival times at GCCC so students can get to class on time. The trolleys should run at least a limited schedule on the weekend to allow people who work all week to have reasonab l e priced weekend transportation (at least Saturdays) The routes are not timely enough f o r people t o go to work between 7 :00 and 8:00 am They do not run late enough for people to go off work around 5 :30 and 6:00pm. Run later in the evenings and earlier in the mornings especia ll y to the college. The trolley should run on weeken d s and have extended hours throughout the week. Longer evening hours on weekends and holi d ays. Trolley service should start earlier. Run t rolleys later (9:30 pm). Expand ridership to after-work hour clients. Stops are too far and few in between Gen e ral Comments Get ride of the additiona l Beach Zone Fare and just charge the additional $0 .25 for transfer Coordinate transfer schedu l es Insta ll a change machine on each troll ey. D-5

PAGE 292

D-6 Advertise more often on potential schedule changes and future plans. Involve the citizens on proposed routes, and get the general public involved Keep present times if we are going to extend the current routes Beach routes only a transfer point to go to the city. City routes only with a transfer point to the beach Coordinate transfer schedules. Dollar to quarter change machines on each trolley if 'change only" is required as fare. More information about the trolley system given to the public at regular intervals. Follow-up stories on 1V and in the newspaper about schedule changes; people who ride and why; future plans for trolley operations; and progress the trolley system is making. A trolley to fun from "Winn Dixie Marketplace' on the comer of Back Beach Road and US 98 to town and back from December to April each year. Encourage the idea of trolley service along Berthe Avenue and Gay Avenue in lieu of service along Tyndall Parkway. Trolley needs to enter apartment complex (Edgewood Garden Apts) to assist elderly resident of the complex. More trolley service in Parker. More trolley service on the beach. More trolley service West of HWY 79.1 Trolley to run East side of 77 in Lynn Haven at HWY 390. Trolley should pas the Wai-Mart on Tyndall Parkway. Carolina and Tennessee don t intersect Residents are confused. Please advise. Implement something acceptable between trolley and mall. Create a simplified map all routes on it. Sam's Club would like to become a stop on a route.

PAGE 293

Complaints Pick up points are not obvious enough. The signs are too small Driver did not stop at posted time Continued on his route ahead of schedule and drove past passengers Passenger was there at posted t ime and troll ey never passed the stop. The stop on Business 98 at W. Park Street poses a danger. Can it be relocated slightly? No routes through the Doctor's Blo c ks". Elderly can not access these offices and complexes from the nearest route Need school routes that serve community parks, etc. Trolley does not go past the theatres with new movies Trolley stops do not have small maps and t ime tables. Advertise wit h r ad io, TV stations, and promotional b illbo ards. Does not meet the needs of the working class. Stops are not in the neighborhoods. North and East Routes have no middle of the day service A ll trolleys stop at the same mall exit; causes c o nfusion. 0-7

PAGE 294

D-8

PAGE 295

APPENDIXE SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

PAGE 296

E 2

PAGE 297

2! DEAR TROLLEY R IDER: Please take a minute t o help us plan for you r transit nee""'I 5 What will you clo when you get off tills troley? (pleue .f only O N E) _Wal k 0-3 blocks 1D roote _Wal k more than 3 blocks a_ Dri ve Be picked up Other ._Ride bicycle 6 Where ere y o u going n ow? (p lease .f onl y O NE) Home D o cto r /Dentist __ Othe r 2 Worl< s Shopping/Errands Schoo l Visiting/Recreation 7. Which fare category are you in? _Base (regular aduft) Speda l (senior/d i sabled) 2_Studerri 8. How cfld you pay for your fare on tills troHay trip? Cash _Monthly Pa .. '_ Specia11 T1d_25to34 years ,_351D 4<4yearo 13. You are ... Male 45 t o 54 ye0111 o_55to84 yNrO 65 years or more z_FemaJe 14. Youre t hnl c or l gln is ... ( ploase.f on l y O NE) t Whit e 2 B lack 3 H i s p an i c .. other 15. Your total 1nnual household income is .. -Less than $10, 000 ,_$20,000 t o $29,ggg -$10 ,000 to $19 999 $30 ,000 and over 16 How many vehides are a vailable in your househo ld? 1 None a One s Two 4 _Three Of' more { P LE ASE C OMPLETE OTHER SIDE )

PAGE 298

X 17. Please answer t.ne touowtng quest1ons oy p1acmg a cneCK {-1) n me appropnate co1umn. 1n general. now ao you rate eacn or me toUowing aspects of Bay Tow n Trolley service: A. Days ofservlce B. Houl'$ of sorvlu c. Frequency of service {how often trolleye run) D. Convenience of routes (whero trolleys go) E. Dependability (on Urnt) F. Travel tlme on tM troney G. Cost of riding tht trolley H. Availability of trolley route lnf011Ntlon I. Trolley eteanllneu and comfort J. Operator eourtesy K. Safety on the trolley and at trolley stops L. How would YOU rate oytrall troUey Mf'VICt? Very Good 18. If you could make only ONE improvement lo the lrolley syslem, what would n be? Comments and Suggestions: Good Fair Poor THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Very Poor PLEASE PLACE THE SURVEY I N THE COLLECTION BOX AS YOU EXIT THE TROLLEY, OR HAND IT TO THE SURVEYOR.

PAGE 299

BAY TOWN TROLLEY OPERATOR SURVEY 1. The following is a list of possible c omplaints passengers may vo i ce to bus operators. Please rank the 5 complaints you hear most frequently (I being the most frequent) __ fare is too high _ infrequent service __ passengers cannot get information __ trolley schedule too liard to understand __ trolley doesn't go where I want __ trolley is la t e __ trolley leaves stop too early __ trolley is not clean __ eating or drinking on the trolley smoking on trolley --route or destination not clear __ no trolley shelters/benches __ need evening service __ trolley is not comfortable __ need Saturday service __ security __ OTHER(specify) ____ 2. What is your opinion of these complaints? Aie they valid? 3. The following is a list of possible improvements to the transit system. Please rank all the improvements that you think would be helpful (''I" most helpful). better coordination of transfers between routes -provide better route and schedul e information _ maintain trolleys more frequently __ give more time in schedules __ OTHER (please specify) _____ __ __ lower the fares __ put up shelters at trolley stops __ operate S aturday service __ reduce headways 4. Do y o u know of any safety problems on any routes? Please describe. (Please complete other side) E-5

PAGE 300

S Are there any schedules or parts of schedules which are difficult 10 maincain? __ yes DO If)"'s, which routes ? ---------------6 Are there any routes which should be mod ified in any way? If so, how? (Please feel free to draw on the route maps provided with your survey and/or to use addltlonal paper) 7 In your opinion, is night service necessary? __ y es __ no 8 In your opinion is Salurday service necessary? __ yes __ no 9. Are there any other comments that would be help ful to us? THANKS FOR YOUR HELP! E-6

PAGE 301

DEAR BCT RIDER : Please take a minute to help us plan for your transportation needs by completing the following survey Please hand t he survey to the SURVEYOR as you exit the vehicle Please fill out this survey even if you filled one out earlier 1 2 How many d ays per week do you use Bay Coordinated Transportation ? One 3 _Three s Five 2 Two Four Did y o u pay a fare to ride on this vehicle? Ye s 2 N o I f Y e s, what was th e am o unt o f th e fa re? _____ 3. How would you rate the overall quality of our service? Excellent Fair 2 Good s Poor -._Average 4 How would you rate the comfort of our vehicles? _Excellent _Fair 2 Good s Poor --._Average 5. How often do you a rrive at your appointments o n time? _Always N e ver 2 S o metimes 6 Do you require ass i stance from the driver to board the vehicle? Yes 2 No If Yes how would you rate the quality of our assistance? Excellent Fair 2 Good Poor --._Average 7. 8. How did you become awa re of Bay Coordinated Transportation? Are you familiar with our Nonsponsored Program/Ride Une? Yes 2 No If Yes, how did you become awa re ofthi s program? 9. If fixed-route transH (B a y Town Trolley) was available In your area would you b e able to use it? ,_Yes 2 No 10. How would you make this trip if not by thi s vehicle ? Drive _Walk 2 _Ride with someone _Taxi Bicycle ._wouldn't make trip 1 1 Your age i s ... 1 17 years or und e r 2_ 18 to 24 ye ars 25 to 34 ye ars 35 to 44 years 12. You are... 1 Male 45 t o 54 yea r s 55 to 59 years 1_ 60 years or more 2 Female 13. Your ethnJc orig i n i s ... ( p l ease .J' only O N E ) _White 2 Black 3 _Hi spanic _Other (PLEA S E COMPLETE OTHER SIDE )

PAGE 302

14. Your tOtal annual nouseno1a 1ncome 1s .. I;), nVW II Vt:IIIUit::; Ill YUUI tiUUilttUIUIU f ,_Less than $10,000 >_$20,000 to $29,999 ,_None One Two _Three or more m c!o $10 000 to $19,999 $30 ,0 00 and over 16 Do you have any sugges t i ons which you feel would i mprove the quality of our serv i ce? 17. P lease comment on your transportation needs wh ich are currently not met Other Comments and Suggestions: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPE. RA TI O N PLEASE HAND THE SURVEY T O THE SURVEYOR OR DRIVER AS YOU EXIT THE VEHICLE

PAGE 303

APPENDIXF INVENTORY OF TRANSIT PROVIDERS IN BAY COUNTY

PAGE 304

F-2

PAGE 305

INVENTORY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS The purpose of this review is to identify all existing public and private transportation services operating in Bay County. An Inventory of existing transit services was developed to serve as the basis for the later demand estimates and a needs assessment. Data include service providers, types of service, agreements/contracts with other agencies, service areas days and hours of service ri d ership, vehicle fleet and facilities, fare structure, capital and operating expenses and revenues, as well as other service r elated information. The review consists of th ree categories of trans p ortat i on services in Bay County: transportation disadvan taged (TD) operators, non-coordinated social service transportation providers, and taxi/limousine companies The primary data sources for TD operations include the Statewide Operations Report FY 19 95 prepared for the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged In addition, CUTR conducted a telephone survey of those TD operators to obtain a detailed profile of TD operations. Information about non-coordinated socia l service transportation p roviders and taxi/limous ine companies was gathered through a telephone survey conducted by CUTR in March 1996 A detailed discussion of existing transportation services in Bay County is provided in the following sections. F-3

PAGE 306

Transportation Disadvantaged Services As the local CTC, the Bay County Council on Aging provides through Bay Coordinated Transportation several levels of service to transportation disadva ntaged persons in the county. Those services include medical, life sustaining shopping, rehabilitation physical therapy, train ing and educa t ion, jobs, and soc i al activities t rips In addition to providing trips t hrough Bay Coordinated Transportation Bay County Council on Aging a lso co ordi nates service with the Bay County School Board for school bus trips and contracts out services to Gulf Coast Pat ient Transport and Tender Care Medical Transportation, Inc A deta iled inventory of each provi de r is provided on the following pages. F-4

PAGE 307

BAY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION 1116 Frankford Avenue Panama City, FL 32401 (904) 785-0808 Contact: Beth Coulliette GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service : Service Area: Service Users: Total Employees: Service Agreements/Contracts: OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips: Tota l Passengers: Vehicles Operated: Paratransil bus with lift : FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses: Fare Structure: COMMENTS Paratransit Bay County Transportation Disadv an taged, Disabled, Elderly 55 Under the CTC (Bay County Council on Aging) 170,230 7,473 $1,125,124 See attachment SERVICE HOURS Mon -Fri. 6:00 a m.-6:00p.m. Bay Coordinated Transportati on is the major transportation provider for the Bay County Council on Aging. F-5

PAGE 308

BAY TOWN TROLLEY 1116 Frankford Avenue Panama City FL 32401 (904) 785-0808 Contact: Beth Coulliette GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service : Service Area : Service Users: Serv ice Agreements/Contracts: OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Tri ps : Total Passengers: Vehic le s Operated: Tr olley bus with lifts : FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses: Fare Structure: COMMENTS Fixed-route Tran sit Bay County General Public n/a SERVICE HOURS 20,544 estimated trips Mo n -Fri. 6:00 a.m .6 :00p.m. nla 4 (1 spare) nla Regular fare$1.00 Senior/Disabled/Student Fare$0 50 Bay County Council on Aging operates Bay Town Trolley F 6

PAGE 309

GULF COAST PATIENT TRANSPORT 435 Oak Avenue Panama City, FL 32401 (904) 785-6236 Contact : Joseph GoodeiVScott Sample GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area : Service Users: Service Agreements/Contracts: OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips : Total Passengers: Vehicles Operated: Vans: FINANCIAL INFORMATION T otal Expenses : Fare Structure: COMMENTS Paratransit Bay County Transportation Disadvantaged Medicaid, Disabled, Elderly CTC, Med i caid SERVICE HOURS (TO i ncluded in BCT) 2 500 Mon.-Fri. 6:00 a .m.-8:00p. m. 3 $140 000 Stretcher$44.00 trip plus $1.60 mile Wheelchair-$16 .96 each way plus $1. 60 mile F-7

PAGE 310

TENDER CARE MEDICAL TRANSPORT 12088 W 19th Street Panama City FL 32405 (904 ) 535-2728 Contact: GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service : Service Area : Service Users : Service Agreements/Contracts : OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips: Tota l Passengers: Vehi c l es Operated: Lift Equipped Vans : FINAN CIAL INFORMATION T ota l E xpenses : Fare Struct ure: COMMENTS F-8 Paratransit Bay County Medical Trips for Transportation Disadvantaged and M edicaid CTC M ed i caid {TO Included in BCT) n/a 5 nla SERVICE HO U R S Mon Fri. 8:00 a.m -5 :00p. m M ed i caid $25 pic!< up plus $125 m ile

PAGE 311

EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES, INC. 450 Jenks Avenue Panama City, FL 32401 ( 904) 769-8316 Contact: Ruth Buchanan GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: Service Agreements/Contracts: OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips : Tota l Passengers: Vehicles Operated : 40 passenger bus: FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses : Fare Structure: COMMENTS Paratransit Bay County Children, Headstart CTC, Medicaid nla 70,000 1 n/a no f ees SERVICE HOURS Mon.-Fri. 7:00 a .m.tOO p.m. F-9

PAGE 312

Non-Coordinated Social Service Transportation Providers Other transportation services are provided by public and private agencies and volunteer organizations who are not part of the CTC's coordinated system (non-coordinated operators). Most of those agency-sponsored trips are provided for their own clients. Volunteer organizations provide medical and some other trips for the elderly, eccnomically disadvantaged, and persons with A number of them do not own a vehicle but use volunteer private vehicles and drivers when there are demands. Most types of services are demand response. A detailed inventory of the non-coordinated transportation providers is presented on the following pages This section also includes an inventory of taxinimousine/charter services available in Bay County. F-10

PAGE 313

BAY CONVALESCENT CENTER 1336 St. Andrews Blvd. Panama City, FL 32405 (904) 763-3911 Contact: Judy Chovan GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: Service Agreements/Contracts : OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips: Tota l Passengers: Vehicles Operated: Lift-equipped van: FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses: Fare Structure: COMMENTS Paratransit Bay County Medicaid (Elderly in rehabilitation) Medicaid SERVICE HOURS n/a 200 Mon.-Fri. 7:30 a.m .-5:30p.m. 1 n/a $35 round trip F-11

PAGE 314

BLUE HAVEN A C DF 2734 E. H i ghway 390 Panama City Fl32405 (904) 265-4397 Cont act: Gloria Marculhleannette GEN ERAL INFORMATION Type of Serv ice: Service Area : Serv ice Users: Service Agreements/Contracts: OPERATING S T ATISTICS Annual Passenger T r i ps : Total Passengers : Vehicles Operated : lift-equipped van: F I NANCIAL INFORMATIO N Total Expenses : Fare Structure: COMMENTS F-12 Paratransrt Bay County Med i caid Medica i d nla 20 1 n/a no charge SERVICE HOURS By Appointments

PAGE 315

BAY MEDICAL CENTER STRETCHER SERVICE 518 N Cove Blvd Panama City, FL 32401 (904) 769-1368 Contact: GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: Service Agreements/Contracts : OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips: Total Passengers: Vehi cles Operated: Ambulances: ES Vehicle FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses: Fare Structure: COMMENTS Paratransit Bay County Medicaid (Emergency Medical Service) Medicaid n/a 20, 000 2 15 nla nla SERVICE HOURS All hours emergencies F-13

PAGE 316

CATHOLIC SO CI AL SERVICES 3128 E 11th Street Panama City FL 32401 (904) 763-0475 Contact : M illi e Dickens GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service : Service Area: Se rvice Users : Service Agreements/Contracts : OPERATING STATISTICS Annua l Passenger T rips : Tota l Passengers : Vehicles Operated : Lift-Equipped Van: F INAN CIAL INFORMATI ON T otal Expenses: Fare Structure: CO MMENTS F-14 Paratransit Bay County Low -Income, Homeless nla nla 75 1 $225 000 no fee SERVICE HOURS Mon-Fri, 8:00 a m. -4 :00p.m.

PAGE 317

HRSDEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 500 W 11th Street Panama City FL 3240 1 (904) 872-7652 Contact: Hele n D C roswell GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: Service Agreements/Contract s: OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips : Tot a l Passengers : V e hicl es Oper ated: Auto: FI NAN CIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses : Fare Structure: COMM ENTS Bay County Children in shellers Med i caid n/a nla 1 nla nla SERVICE HOURS nfa F-15

PAGE 318

SHAW ADULT CENTER 162 Detroit Avenue Springfield, FL 32401 (904) 872-4555 Contact : Sandra Brown GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: Service Agreements/Contracts: OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips: Total Passengers: Vehicles Operated: School buses FINANCIAL INFORMATION Tota l Expenses: Fare Structure: COMMENTS F-16 Paratransit Bay County Students age 16 and older nla SERVICE HOURS n/a Mon-F ri, 7:30 a.m.-2:10p.m. 30 per day nla no charge

PAGE 319

HAPPY DAYS EARLY CARE & EDUCATION C ENTER 2724 E 17th Street Cedar Grove, FL 32405 (904) 769 5536 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: Service Agreements/Contracts: OPERATING STATISTICS Paratransit Bay County Children with Special Needs (primarily medical) nla SERVICE H OURS Annual Passenger Trips: n/a n/a Mon-Fri, 6:30 a m.-6 :00p. m Total Passengers: Vehicles Operated: 1 Passenger Van (1-1 5 pass) FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses : Fare Structure: COMMENTS nla n/a There is an interest in coordinating their services with the CTC. F-1 7

PAGE 320

RIVENDELL HOSPITAL 1940 Harrison Avenue Panama City, FL 3240 1 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service : Serv i ce Area: Service Users: Service Agreements/Contracts : OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips: Total Passengers: Vehicles Oper ated : 2 Vehicles FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses: Fare Structure: COMMENTS Paratransit F lorida P anhandle Hospital Clients n/a nfa n/a nfa nfa There is an interest i n coordinating their services with the CTC F-18 SERVICE HOURS 7 days per week, 24 h ours

PAGE 321

PROFESSIONALLY YOURS TOURS 9123 Back Beach Road Panama City Beach, FL 32407 (904} 234-3459 Con1act Mr. and Mrs. Autis GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service : Service Area: Service Users: Service Agreements/Contracts: OPERATING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips: Total Passengers: Vehicles Operated : 47 passenger buses FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses: Fare Structure: COMMENTS Charter Bus Service Panhandle General Public nla nla n/a nla $2.40 mile SERVICE HOURS Mon Fri, 8:30 a m .-4:30p. m F 19

PAGE 322

AFFORDABLE LIMOUSINE SERVICE 6824 Sunrise Rise Drive Panama C i ty, FL 32407 (904) 233-0029 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Serv i ce : Service Area: Service Users: Serv ice Agreements/Contr acts : O PERA TING STATISTICS Annual Passenger Trips: Tota l Passengers: V ehicles Operated: 4 l imousines 1 1 5-passe nger van FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses: Fare Structure : COMMENT S ParalransiVC harter Service Pr ima rily Panama City Beach Gener a l Public nla n/a n/a $85 000 nla SERVICE HOUR S 7 Days per W eek, 2 4 Hours There is an int erest in coordinating their services with the CTC. F-20

PAGE 323

DELUXE COACH TAXI SERVICE AND YELLOW CAB 703 W 13th Street Panama City, FL 32401 (904) 763-0211 Contact : GENERAL IN FORMA TION Type of Serv i ce: Se rvice Area: Service Users: Serv ice Agreements/Contracts: OPERA TING STAT I STICS Annual P assenger Trips : Total Passengers : V e hicles Operated : Autos: FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expense s : F are Structure: COMMENTS Paratransit Bay County General Public Med i ca i d nla nla 10 nla $1.50 plu s 1.25 per mi le SERVICE HOURS 24 hours per day F-21

PAGE 324

EXECUTIVE TAXI & AIRPORT LIMOUSINE 906 Beach Blvd. Panama City Beach, FL 32408 (904) 233-8299 Contact: GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: Service Agreements/Contracts : OPERATING STATISTICS Annua l Passenger Trips: Total Passengers: Vehicles Operated: Autos : FINANCIAL INFORMATION Total Expenses: Fare Structure: COMMENTS F-22 Paratransit Panhandle General Public nla n/a nla 6 nla flat fee of $15 to $102 SERVICE HOURS 24 hours per day

PAGE 325

APPENDIXG LIST OF DEFINITIONS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND MEASURES

PAGE 326

G-2

PAGE 327

PER FO R MANCE I NDICATORS County/Serylc:e Area Popula tion -For 1991 and prior years, county population is used to approximate the serv ice area population for each of the Florida systems and is taken from the Florida Statistical Abstract for each year. The only exception is Smyrna Transit System (STS), for which the population of the c ity of New Smyrna Beach is used to approximate the service area population for these years. This !lleasure provides a suitable approximation of overa ll market size for comparison of re l ative spending and service l evels among communities in the absence of actual service area population. Howeve r in 1992, FTA began requiring transit systems to provide service area population in their Section 15 reports. As a result, this is the measure that is now utilized i n this study. National I nflatio n RateUsed to deflate the operating expense data to constant 1984 do ll ars. Inflation-adjusted dollars provide a more accurate representat ion of spending changes resu l ting from agency decis i ons by factoring out the general price inflation. The inflation rate reported is the percentage change in the Consume r Price Index (CPI) for all items (including commodities and services) from year to year. During the 1984 to 1993 period, service and labor costs tended to increase at a faster rate than did commodity prices Therefore, transit operating expenses which are pre d ominant l y comprised of service and labor costs, may be expected to have increased somewhat faster than Inflation even if the amount of service provided were not increased. Passenger Trips Annua l number o f passenger boardings on the transit vehicles. A trip is counted each time a passenger boards a vehicle. Thus, if a passenger has to transfer between buses to rea c h a destinat i on, he/she is counted as making two passenger trips. Passenger Mll!!l!Number of annua l passenger trips multiplied by the system s average trip length (in miles). This number provides a measure of the total number of passenger mi l es of transportation service consumed. Vehicl e Milgs Total distance traveled annually by revenue service vehicles, including both revenue miles and deadhead miles. Revenue Miles -N umber of annual miles o f vehic l e operation while in active service (available to pick up revenue passengers). This number is smaller than vehicle m il es because of the exc lusion of deadhead miles such as vehicle miles from the garage to the start of service, vehicle miles from the end of service to the garage, driver training, and other miscellaneous mi l es that are not considered to be in direct revenue service. G-3

PAGE 328

Vehicle Hours-Total hours of operation by revenue service vehicles including hours consumed in passenger service and deadhead travel. Revenue Hours-Total hours of operation by revenue service vehicles in active revenue service Route Mjlu Number of directional route miles as reported in Section 15 data; defined as the mileage that service operates in each direction over routes traveled by public transportation vehicles in revenue service. Total Operating Exoense Reported total spending on operations, including administration, maintenance, and operation of service vehicles. Iota! OPerating Expense (1984 $) Total operating expenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of determining the real change in spending for operating expenses. Iota! Maintenance Expense Sum of all expenses categorized as maintenance expenses; a subset of total operating expense. Iota! Maintenance Exoense (1984 $)-Total maintenance expenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of determining the real change in spending for maintenance purposes. Iota! Caoltal Expense-Dollar amount of spending for capital projects and equipment. Iota! Local Revenue All revenues originating at the local level (excluding state and federal assistance) Ooerating Reyenye I ncludes passenger fares, spe<:ial transit fares, school bus service revenues, freight tariffs charter service revenues, auxiliary transportation revenues, subsidy from other sectors of operations and non transportation revenues. Passenger Fare Revenue Revenue generated annually from passenger fares Total Employees-Total number of payroll employees of the transit agency It is useful to note that the increasing tendency to contract out for services may resuH in some significant differences i n t h is measure between otherwise similar p roperties H is importan t to understand whi ch servioes are contracted before drawing conclusions based on employee levels. All employees classified as capital were excluded from this report G-4

PAGE 329

Transportation Operating Employees All employees classified as operating employees: vehicle drivers, supervisory personnel direct personnel. Maintenance E mp!QYJ!ti -All employees classified as maintenance employees who are directly or indirectly respons i ble for vehicle maintenance Administrative Employees All personnel positions classified as administrative in nature This report includes all general administration, ticketing/fare collection and system security employees as classified by FTA in Form 404. Vehicles Available for Maximum ServiceNumber of vehicles owned by the t ranstt authority that are available for use in bus service Vehicles Operated in Maximum ServiceThe largest number of vehicles req uired for providing service during peak hours (typ ically the rush period). Spare Ratio Vehicles operated in maximum service subtracted from vehicles available for maximum service divided by vehicles operated in maximum service. This measure is an indicator of the number of spare vehicles available for service. A spare ratio of approximately 20 percent i s considered appropriate in the ind ustry. However this varies depending on the size and age of fleet as well as the condttion of equipment. Total Gallons Consumed-Total gallons of fuel consumed by the vehicle fleet. Average Age of FleetTradttio nally a standard transtt coach Is considered to have a useful life of 12 years. However, longer service lives are not uncommon. The vehicle age and the reliability record of the equipment, the number of miles and hours on the equipment, the sophistication and features (i.e., wheelchair lifts electronic destination signs, etc.), and operating environment (weather roadway grades, and passenger abuse) all affect the maintenance needs and depreciation of the bus fleet. Number of Incidents Total number of unforeseen occurrences resulting in casualty (injury/fatality), collision, or property damage in excess of $1,000. For an incident to be reportable, it must involve a transit vehicle or occur on transit property Revenue Service Interruptions -A revenue service interruption during a given reporting period caused by failure of some mechanical element of the revenue vehicle or for other reasons not included as mechanical failures. G-5

PAGE 330

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Vtbicle Miles Per Capita Total number of ann u al vehi cle miles d i v ided by the service area's population. This can be characte rized as the numbe r of miles of servi ce provided for each man, woman, and child in the serv i ce area and is a mea sure of the extensiveness of servi ce provided in the service area passenger TriDJ Per Capita Average number of transit boardings per person per ye a r. This number is larger in areas w here public transportation is emphasized and in areas where there are more t ransit dependents and is a measur e of the extent to which th e public utilizes i n a given service area. Pauenger Trjos Per Revenue Mile The ratio of passenger tri ps to revenue miles of serv ice ; a key indicator of service effectiveness that is influenced by the levels of demand and the supply of service provided Pauenger Trips P e r Revenue Hour The ratio of passenger trips to revenue hours of operation ; reports on the effectiveness of the service since hours are a better representation of the resources consumed in providing serv ice. Average Speel! Average speed of vehicles in operation (In cluding to and from the garage) calc ulated by dividing t o tal v ehi cle miles by total vehi c le hours. Revenue Miles Between Incidents N umber of revenue m i les divided by the number of incidents; reports the average int erval in miles between i ncidents Revenue Miles Between Interruptions N umber of revenue miles divided by revenue service In t erruptions; a n in d icator of the average frequen cy of delays because of a problem with the equipme nt. Revenue Miles Per Route Mile Number of revenue miles divided b y the number of directional route miles of serv ice. G-6

PAGE 331

EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ooerating Expense Per Capita Annual operating budget divided by the county/service area population; a measure of the r esource commitment to transit by the community Qperat!ng Expense Per Peak Vehicle Total operating expense per vehicle operated in maximum service (peak vehicle) ; provides a measure of the resources required per vehicle to have a coach in operation for a year Qperating Expense Per Pusenaer Trip Operat ing expenditures divided by the tota l annua l ridership ; a measure of the efficiency of transporting riders; one of the key Indicators of comparativ e performance of transit properties since H reflects both the efficiency with which service Is delivered and the market demands for the service QperaJjng Exoense Per Pusenger Mile Reflectio n of operating expense divided by the numbe r o f passenger miles ; take s into account the impact of trip length on performance since some operators provide lengthy trips while others provide short trips Qperating Exoense Per Revenue Mile-Operating expense divided by the annual revenue miles of service; a measure of the efficiency with which serv i ce Is delivered and is another key comparative indicator. Qperllt!ng Expense Per Revenue Hour Operating expense divided by revenue hours of operation; a key comparative measure which differs from operating expense per vehic4e mile in that the vehicle speed is factored out. This is often important slnce vehicle speed is strongly i nfluenced by local traffic conditions Maintenance exoense Per Beyanua Mile Maintenance cost divided by the revenue miles Maintenance Expense Per Qperatinq Expense Calculated by dividing maintenance expense by operating expense ; expressed as a percent of total operating expense. Earebox Recovery Ratio of passenger fare revenues to total operating expenses ; an indicator of the share of revenues provided by the passengers Local Revenue Per Operating Expens e Ratio of total local commitment with respect to total operating expense. G 7

PAGE 332

Operating Revenue Per Operating Ex Dense Operating rat i o ca l culated by dividing operating revenue by total operating expense Yl!hicle Miles per Peak Vehicle Vehicl e miles divided by the number of peak vehicles It is an indicator of how intensive l y the e qu ipme nt is used and i s influe nced by the bus travel spee ds as w ell as by the levels of service In the off-peak time periods. A more uniform demand for service o ver the day would i n a higher number. Ye hjc(t Hours Pe r Peak Vehicle Substitutes veh icle h ours for veh i cle m il es and again r eflects how intensiv ely equ i pmen t is utilized Revenue Miles Per Veh icle MileReflects how much of th e total vehicle operation is in passenge r service. Higher ratios are favorable, but garage location training needs, and other consideratio ns may influence the ra tio Revenue Miles per Total vehicles Total reven u e m i les of service that are prov i ded by each vehic l e available for maximum serv i ce. Reyenue Hours Per Total Vtbjc!es Indicates total revenue hours of serv ice provided by each veh i c l e availab l e for maximum service Revenue Hours per Emolovee Reflects overall labor productivity Pilssenger Trips Per Emptoyn Another measu r e of overall labor product i Vity Vehicle M iles per Gallon Veh i cle mile s of service divided by total ga llons consumed and is a measure of energy uti lization Average Fare Passenger fare revenues divided by the tota l number of passenge r trips. G-8

PAGE 333

APPENDIX H TRANSIT PEER TABLES

PAGE 334

H-2

PAGE 335

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TABLEH-1 System Total Perfonnance Indicators 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category

PAGE 336

H-4

PAGE 337

EFFECTlVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUI'PI. Y 'f "' TABLE H -2 System Total Effectiveness Measure 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category -TOC.I lalle Chatln TAlbany TOC.f Bryan TClaJI
PAGE 338

a. <>: t:E t. .. E E1l "'{?. l z - .. 3:!! >:: :o .. ., 'i :ES Ill .. .!! c: c.> c.... o!! C c-o 0 c.,!:! .... u C) .. N .,> = .. % w :J e w -i! 0 ... :10 .o-CD o<( .... 0 I,_ 1-E:E ...... 0 -;;.-,.. fl) "' w 0: ::> "' "' w liE "' "' w z "' ::; a. Q. ::> ..
PAGE 339

TABLE H-3 System Total Efficiency MeaautH 1-9 Motortlus Vehicle Category EFFICIENCY MEASURES Operating =zse p., 1 .If. -Tolal LakoCiwtH Toto! "{=r = ClarlcsviJJe Total

PAGE 340

TABLE H-3 (continued) J: System Total Elflelaney Measurn o, 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category EFFICIENCY MEA SURES OMnsbo& '. ..... ......... ,.,..,. ...... ()pefating EXj)ense Per Peek Vehlt1e (000) $106.37 $132 43 $176.60 $87 .41 $135 .19 . ..,., --, ..., __ """""'-. -,. .. .. Per Pastenge;r Tri p .. $1 .92 $2.61 .. :i-. $f.54T ;;.. $2.72 .... $0 .71 $2.34 $0. 93 Yo Expense Per Rovenue Hour $31.46 $37 60 $83.351 $43.09 $42 22 _, .. ("' .... . '" "'.. "' "> _,..,.. P.rRevenueMile '/. so.11 s1.os -t" $o:&7 Maintenance Expense Per Operating' 25:01% 28.&5% O.Oo%* ., '... 18.67% OPERATING RATIOS __ ............ ---.. fOtoboX Reoovel)' 23 ,7111 21.1111 I 7.381\ r.... 1.7.9511 loc:a.!_Revenue Pe< Operating Expense .;;.. 49.3111 10 10 % 6i.4311 R....,...PogElcpense 19 80% 23.11% 143.44% ., 36. 1011 VEHIClE UTiliZATION PorPook vehlt1e (000) I 4&,45 48. 80 41.73 49 .43 .. -,1; 3 .75 3 68 us 2.51 3.51 "'.lc > .t_. ... "!' ,. u.97 0.95 o.te O.S7 \ 0.95 ... < A 0 ,.; V 33.83 33 20 17.31 32 .01 32 30 ..._...,. .... :-.)'<"><'"K:'Y""' t' ..... i.:,.,,..,.., .... ., '""" '"'" .,., __ .. ,. I . I 1.oo 1 1 oo ?

PAGE 341

=F .26 -4.77 .. .. o ... 5,tl 17.12 -6.00 ... 1.41 20.4$ t.S3 1.AO .. 17.02 .... .... .... 14.11 1S.SO 0.84 O.G7 0.8) 12.80 15 .13 3.188 uz .. :r 12.07 c. :. 1Ut ; Mtosrb ,.,.,..,.. D9p "!!rWJB !!,...., tMp UHft COST EffiCIENCY OS**9 Ellpef"St tt. ea,M Ope ralfng P., Pl VtNdO (000) &pentt ,_ OperalinQ expt n r.r P-.;er Milt OperatstQ E)Jicnto Ptr Vttllett Milt Ope r aling Eqlcnto Ptr R IIII IWI Milt Operat"hg &ICMO Ptr Rllltnut Hour OPERATING RATIO$ Fa!Cilbox ReCOYet)' VEHIClE UTILIZATION Vohk16 IBM Pet Vtl*lt (OCXI) Jlilea P n:.t.1 Vll't:AOS (000) fttcoue tblrl Per Total v.hk:ftt (000) ..... .... .,..., t:ttUG ..... $2.2 1 JZ Z 1 $2 20 $33.55 t1.S3V. 54.22 31.37 .... ...., ..... $132 .43 $1.92 $1.98 $2.71 $2.11.$ $3UO 2a.719'o ..... 33.20 2.SO ..... ... 7 ...... ,..,. $1.01 $1.04 11.07 $18.114 25.Znct .. ... ..... 1 ... $0.81 ...... $17S.60 $2.$1 ... ,. $3.60 $3.67 ..... .21.1 8% 40 .13 17.39 1.20 111.$$ $3.150 $135.46 $7,3,2 $0.21 $2.41 $2.44 $tt.51 20 .06% 5G.1i ..... Ul $1.47 ... 70 S13fl.21 ..... S0.84 $2:.34 $2;!12 tl\0.86 '"''" .... 31.17 .. -..... $22 .04 $1.38 $!).45 St. tO $1. tS $17.36 ... 1.9.98 9.81 0.64 ... ., ... S 11UO ..... tiAO 1:. 20 .... 134.17 20.07% ..... ... ,. U2 ...,.

PAGE 342

H-10

PAGE 343

APPENDIX I PARATRANSIT PEER TABLES

PAGE 344

1-2

PAGE 345

Paratran51t Poe,. PERFOR!:W;fiEJN()!CATCRS -Bay Cll8f!o!l! Hern $5.61 $5.76 $13 .68 $7 92 $8 .47 $13.58 $7.76 $8.72 $9. 23 Operoling El
PAGE 346

1-4

PAGE 347

APPENDIXJ BAY TOWN TROLLEY ROUTE AND SCHEDULE CHANGES

PAGE 348

J-2

PAGE 349

J-3

PAGE 350

DOWNTOWN ROUTE 11TH 11TH ST BAY+ MEDICAL. CD BAY COUNtY I.J8RARY 0 PANAAIA CllY CITY HML OilY NARINA ST 0 MARINA CMC CENTER J-4

PAGE 351

EA S T ROUTE !CEDAR LN I Slll ST <-0. ""'" .. -*

PAGE 352

J-6 NORTH ROUTE

PAGE 353

li' t a.; Iii -li J -7

PAGE 354

c.. & ..... Of -em .... -WEST-SOUTH ROUTE tOfM Sf t CD,, I 1 Q) BAY COUNN LJeRAR'( p-CI1Y CI1Y IW.L. @ PNIAw. CllY IIARINA @ MAAINA CMC CDIIER @ POSr omcE >:!RO ST ...... -

PAGE 355

BEACH A B c D SR77 PC 23rdGulf Gulf Coast 23rd Mall Coastllmp. COII\III. CoU 7:30 7:32 7:36 7:45 9:30 9-.32 9-.SO 12110 12:02 12:al 12:20 2:30 2:!12 2:38 2:50 L M r..: Fronts-A PmntS.ach Front Beach Oara Hill SR '79 8:13 8:16 8:20 10:28 10:35 1& .37 12:58 t:OS 1:07 3:28 3:35 3:37 J [ H Middle &och Thomas Thomas Miracle Strip joan Quarts 8:U 8:47 8:50 ll:lJS 11:09 11: 13 1:35 1:39 1:43 4 :05 4:09 4:13 A Recovety Next 23rd Time Trip 9:20 10 9:30llead! 11:55 5 12: 00Beach 2:25 s 2:30S.ach 4:55 10 5:05Nortll '-
PAGE 356

DOWNTOWN L. -R B c D E F G H I J K L M S R77 PC MU< MU< Bay Mt'd. MLIC Cken')' Beach Harrison R1rri5on. Harrisoo Gteyhou.nd Han!son 23td Mall 15th 12th 4th MIJ( Cheay GCS IO: C 10 :54 111'.57 11:00 11:1)2 11:04 11:06 11:08 11:10 12:00 12:02 12:06 12m 12:09 12:10 1.2: 12 12: 15 12:17 12: 19 l2:2.J 12 : 23 12:25 2:30 2:32 2 : 36 2:37 2:39 2 :40 2:42 2:-rl 2:49 2:51 2:53 2:55 4:25 4:27 4:31 4 :3 2 4:34 4:35 4:37 4 : 40 4:42 4 : 44 4:46 4 : 48 4:50 HO 5:42 5:46 5:4 7 5:49 5:5(1 5 :52 5-.55 5:57 5:59 6:02 6 :()4 6:06 D c B A MU< MU< PC SR 77 Rea>very Ne>ct 12th lSth J.WI 23td TIDw T r!p 6 :48 6:49 6;53 6:55 0 6:55North 7:57 7:59 8:03 8 :05 10 8:15 West South 9:12 9:1 4 9:18 9 :20 10 9:30 Wast South 11:12 11:14 11 :1 8 11:20 5 11:25 N o rtll 12:27 !2:29 12:33 12:35 10 12:'5 West South 1:.>7 2!59 3:03 3.0S 5 3cl0 Wesl South 4:52 4:54 4:58 5 : 00 5 &05 Wet South 6:08 6 :10 6 :1( 6;16 0 Pulllrl

PAGE 357

'EAST A B c 0 E F G H I J X L M N SR7? PC Ml.X MLK l5lh Gannoa Cilde Sherman C.CWI.-. an 11th 7th 7lh 3td Wewa 23td Mall l5lh 12lb ShAnnon Shmnan East Easl EVI!dtt School Tr.li1SIIIIuer 1'yn1 3:54 3<56 4 4 : 00West Not'th 6:06 6:09 6:12 6:14 6:16 6:18 6 : 20 6:22 6 ::23 6:25 6-:0 6:30 6::32 0 Pullin.

PAGE 358

REVISED SCHEDULE ..., A B c D E F G H I J ]( L M SR77 PC Haney ZSth Pint Fo"'st 14th 9th-10th 9th 14th Uth Gooee Ba)'OO SR390 Floyd 23rd Mall Tech. MiM. Minn. Penn. PoM Tenn Maine N .Shor e N.Shore 26th 6:55 6:51 6:59 7:01 7:03 7:05 Hfl 7:09 7:l1 7:13 7 :15 7 : 17 7 :19 11:25 11:27 11:31 11:33 11:33 11 :37 11:39 11:41 ll: U 11:4.5 11:47 11:49 1:.:>7 1:59 2:01 2:03 2:05 2:fD 2:09 2:11 2:13 2:1 5 2:1 7 2:19 2:21 S
PAGE 359

REVISED SCfil!.UULI:!. WEST-NORTII " : A B c D B F F G H I J K B A SR77 PC 15th lS'ch GCC occ 98 19th 17th 1.lsmby Gulf PC SR77 23rd Mall MLK Florida Fortune Anive Leave Alabama Michigan Fronldo rd 17th Co.utHosp. Mall 23rd 7:30 7:32 7:36 7 :40 7>M 7:52 8:00 am am 8:10 8:19 8:18 8:24 8:26 11:00 11:02 11:06 11:10 11:14 11:22 11:30 11:33 11:37 11:40 11:43 11:48 11:54 11:56 1:30 1:36 1:40 1 : 44 1:52 2:00 W3 2.f/] 2:10 2:13 2:18 2:U :2,26 4:00 4:ol 4:06 4 : 10 4:14 4:22 4:30 4:33 4C!1 4:40 4:43 4:48 4:54 4:56 Recovery Ne>
PAGE 360

REVISED SCHEDULE WEST-SOUTH A B c D E F G H I J r. ]( L M E SR77 1'C 15th 12th 11th 11th 11th 12th CCC CCC 98 15th 15th 11th 23rd :\{;ill MLK MLK Harrison Arnold Lisenby COA Beclc: Arrive Leave Alabama Fodune Florida Harrison 6:15 6:17 6:21 6:23 6:25 6:Xl 6:29 6:31 6:33 6:40 6:43 6:46 653 6 :57 6:59 8:15 8:V 8:21 8:23 8:25 8 : 27 8:29 8:.31 8:33 8:40 8:43 8:4/i 8:5.1 8 : 37 8:59 9:30 9:32 9:36 9:38 9:40 9:42 9:44 9:46 9:43 9:55 9:58 10:01 10:08 10:U 10:14 12:45 12:47 12:51 12:53 12 :SS 12:57 12!59 1:01 1:03 1:10 1 : 13 1:1 6 1:23 1 :27 1:29 3:10 3 : 12 3:16 3:18 3:20 3:22 3:24 3:26 3:28 3:35 3:38 3:ll 3:43 3:52 5:07 5:11 5:13 3:15 5:17 5:19 5:21 5:30 5:33 5:36 5:43 5:1/7 5 :49 N 0 p Q R s T u D c B A Greyhound Harrison Hanison HarriJon Beach ChelT)' 4th BayMed 12th 15th PC SR77 Recovery Next Station 6th 4th Gov1. Cherry MLK MLK Center MLK Ml.K Mill 23rd Time Trip 711J 7:02 7:04 7:06 7:08 7 :\l 7:13 7:14 7 :16 7:18 7:22 7 :2 4 6 7:30 Beach 9:00 9:02 9:{)4 9:08 9:11 9:13 9:14 9:16 9:18 9:22 9:24 6 9:30 East 10: 15 10: 1 7 10 :1 9 10:21 10:23 10:26 10:28 10:29 10:31 10:33 10:35 11>'39 6 10:45 Downtown 1:30 1:32 1:34 1 : 36 1:38 1:41 1:43 1 : 44 1:4/i 1:43 1:52 1;54 3 1 :57North 3:55 3:57 3:59 4:01 4:03 4:()6 4:08 409 4:11 4:13 4:17 4:19 6 4:25 Downlown "50 0: 5:52 .5:54 3:.36 5:58 6:01 6 :03 6:04 6:116 6:08 6 :12 6:14 0 Pullin

PAGE 361

. !! APPENDIXK BAY TOWN TROLLEY PROPOSED BUS SHELTER LOCATIONS

PAGE 362

K-2

PAGE 363

d .. I g z mm K 3

PAGE 364

t I I o I _J 0 I _J I I II ::>z 2 2 til-.I( A.: 3tm 61 .,6 lid a K-4

PAGE 365

. .. K-5

PAGE 366

K-6 DOWNTOWN ROUTE BAY TOWN m:x.LEY (j) .. ., OCMf1'T ........ IWWII. cnv em .. :-@ ......,. 0-CMCCDmJI ..

PAGE 367

I I NORTH ROUTE BAY TOWN TROLLEY LEQEN): PROPOSED SHB..:IER LOCATIONS K-7

PAGE 368

K-8

PAGE 369

APPENDIXL BAY TOWN TROLLEY ROUTE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

PAGE 370

L-2

PAGE 371

l: Table L-1 VOTRAN FY 1995 Route Statis tics Passengers Revenue Miles and Hours by Route October 1 1994 through March 31, 1995 (6-month statlatlca) Scoring l ndlcotors J .:::._ .. -/ii,y .. : > .-Ji,. .: _. -_ l ,. _-. .. -; 1 'f >., ... : [ fHOk\ .I; (YoiHI dW,l'o f' .,:,.,.,*)1'>1 3:. f, ;f";ru-;". .. : ..... ll:.L: .. n ....... . .. -'""""-!,.,,.,.'!f..-. . . Y . ..-.J : .. lab 181.023 85.393 8,448 $80,002 $223,35 0 2.12 28.07 $0.94 $12A1 IC 36,843 23, 292 2,129 $15,664 $73,760 1.66 1 7 .31 $0.67 $7 .36 3 80,015 44,933 3,363 $33,80 2 $118.483 1 .78 23.79 $0.75 $9.99 4 0.,504 43,790 3,322 $38, 438 $115 ,078 2.16 28.45 $0.88 $11.57 5 28,729 22,239 $10,208 $66,977 1 .29 17.48 $0.48 $6. 21 6 80,947 123,049 8,209 $33,450 $284,345 0 .68 9 .88 $0.27 $4.07 7 77,327 70,988 4,388 $29,399 $ 152,002 1 .09 17.82 $0A1 $6.70 8 37,889 35,887 2.341 $15 ,434 $81,088 1.06 18.18 $0A3 $6.59 -93,693 48.756 3.1555 $32 945 $ 1 26,603 1 .92 25.63 so.ea $9,01 1 0 134,2B8 69.290 5.021 $$3, 534 $ 173,937 1 .94 28.75 lO. n $10.66 II 79,10. 62,559 3.918 $31 045 $135,725 127 20.21 $1),50 $7.92 12 43,342 Z4,J:17 2,052 $18,126 $7 1 ,071 1.$3 21 .12 $0 .84 15 72.484 24, 158 2,158 $28 ,553 $74,683 3.00 33.81 $1.10 $12.32 17ab 1 32,882 100 ,176 7,313 $59,901 $253.306 1.32 18.14 $0.80 $8 .19 18 nls Ilia "'' nla n/8 nla nla nla nla 20 44,509 95, 766 8,199 $19,429 $213 ,3 8 1 O .
PAGE 372

l: lob 173 519 65,65 1 6,443 lc 36,600 22,835 2 ,069 3 43 239 3;277 4 95.242 4 3 ,539 3 296 5 29,474 19,355 1 ,431 6 79, 831 1 09,201 7 135 6s (1) 6,003 14,638 669 7 63,86 3 69,938 4,225 8 3 1 ,499 35,233 2 ,308 9 a b 97,922 4 8 249 3,838 10 134 209 69,607 5 054 11 7 4 988 67, 530 4 ,030 12 39, 5 4 4 30,621 2,216 1 5 75, 580 24,36 3 2 16 2 17ob 130. 550 99,845 7 ,280 18 17 965 46.077 1,863 20 65,319 113 ,780 6 ,31-4 21 nla nla nla 22 39,780 71,097 3 ,977 40 (2) 7,001 14,83 0 882 41 (2) 6,82 1 12,705 751 42143 (2) 8,585 24,077 1,687 700 35,414 27,233 1,846 1 ,232,060 908,766 62,462 105 ,099 164,677 10 ,291 1. R oute was s.eparat&d from Route 6 on 11 -96 2. Routes began service o n 1 t496. T ab l e L 2 VOTRAN FY 199 6 Rout e Statistics Passengers, R ev e nue, Miles, and H our s by R o ute Octob e r 1 1995 throug h March 31, 1996 ( 6-month s t atistics) $80. 094 $238,569 2 .03 26 .93 $0.94 $ 1 2 .43 $15,86 1 $76, 6 2 3 1 .60 17.69 $0.69 $7.67 $37 4 4 6 $ 1 2 1,356 2 .02 26.69 $0. 6 7 $11.43 $41, 161 $1 2 2,047 2.19 26.90 $0.95 $ 1 2 .49 $11,182 $52,982 1.52 20.60 $0.58 $7. 81 $35,202 $264. 208 0 .73 11. 19 $0.32 $4.93 $2,160 $32,179 0.41 6 .91 $0.1 5 $2.51 $25,5 1 7 $156,465 0.91 15 12 $0.38 $6.04 $13,758 $65 ,455 0.89 13 .65 $0.39 $5.96 $39,1 2 2 $134,697 2 .03 2 6 .92 $0.81 $10.75 $57 250 $187,153 1 .93 26.56 $0.82 $11.33 $32 ,418 $ 1 49,246 1 .11 1 8 6 1 $0.4 8 $8. 04 $16,061 $82,053 1.29 1 7 .64 $0.52 $7.25 $28,3 1 3 $80,073 3 .10 34.98 $1. 18 $13.10 $82,892 $ 269, 561 1.31 17 .93 $0.63 $8.61 $6,584 $68 ,979 0 .39 9 .64 $0.19 $4.61 $27,949 $ 24 0 ,072 0 .57 10.35 $0.25 $4.43 nlo n/a nla nla nla nla $16,866 $ 1 51,210 0 .56 10 .00 $0. 24 $4.24 $2, 433 $32 ,6 5 1 0 47 7 .94 $0.16 $2.76 $2,489 $27,813 0 .54 9 .08 $0.20 $3. 31 $ 3 264 $62 ,468 0 3 6 5.09 $0. 14 $ 1 .95 $20 593 $68,341 1.30 1 9.18 $0.78 $11.16 $535 ,642 $ 2,312 ,9191 4 4 ,815 391 ,282 1.361 0.57 19.721 1 0 2 1 $0.5 9 1 $0. 24 $8.58 I $4.35 33.6% $1 .37 156.0% 3 2 20.7% $2 09 107 9% 9 9 30.9% $1.39 151 .1% 4 5 33. 7% $1. 2 8 164 3% 2 3 21.1% $1.60 109.0% 8 1 2 13 3% $3 31 61. 1 % 15 15 6.8% $5.36 33.3% 21 nla 16.3% $2.45 76. 6% 13 1 3 16.1% $2 .71 74.2% 14 14 29 0% $1.38 147 .1% 6 6 30.8% $1 .39 147 8% 5 4 2 1 .7% $1.99 97. 7% 11 1 1 19. 8% $2.07 96. 6% 12 8 35. 4% $1.06 197.1% 1 1 23 3% $2. 06 1 06.2% 10 10 1 2 .4% $3.64 48 0% 18 nlo 11.8% $3.68 5 2 .4% 16 17 nla nla nla nla 18 11 2 % $ 3.80 50.5% 17 18 7 .5% $4.66 3 7 .6% 20 nla 8.9% $4. 08 4 3 .8% 19 nla 5 .3% $7.2 8 26.5% 2 2 nla 30.1% $1.93 123.0% 7 7 23.2%1 11.5% $1.88,108. 7% $3.72 51 7%

PAGE 373

:;;; Table L-3 1990 Census Characteristics by VOTRAN Route (1/4-MIIe Buffer ) -. ---..-Tj' !" .. ---"--.. "' .. -!' ......... c_ '\' -f o'l.j.:-l::tYr.T\ 1 ,.. .. "' 1 - ,\ .: :"' \'_!:.1 .. .. ,-:,. .!J ; .. ,,.; _._ ... .,, r : ,J" '..!.:....,\). 1 "J:: ::.,-';: . .... I :co:"" .. . ; 'I BUl .. r' '"1'1 't"'''''""' '"""'"11 ; ,.,, "I rW!! .,. I '".;'"''<1"'d ]' r .r .... .. \;! _,, -,,,"""''>"II;: l ,:-.-.::;v': ., .:.o J -""'-r. tt 1 ) I ': -. J.JJ,'1;1' ';) "'"' :.: 1 .;; ... -::.:-:. '' ... >-1 .. ;.::. .. .. )-i_-:l l,..,.i:, : .. L ......... J . r S..-.' ... l-:J.,'.: .u J ,: lab 13,584 521 2 ,517 27,453 7.99 3 436 3,883 10,156 1 729 1o 7,632 383 2,2 14 16, 754 3 .61 4,64 1 3,601 5 054 fiZ7 3 5,101 233 1,240 11,351 4.35 2 ,609 2,194 3,385 727 4 8 ,353 347 2.237 17,800 5.33 3,34Q 3 1 74 5 968 1,179 5 1 1 ,816 476 3.207 26,272 7.53 3 499 5,078 8 ,003 1 732 6 20.978 8 1 1 4, 128 47,032 18. 24 2,579 9 015 15,125 3,331 6s n/a n/a nta n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 9,36 1 353 2.075 21,115 7 .77 2,7t7 4,178 6,585 1 765 8 9 659 400 1,704 1 9 970 7.75 2 577 2.895 7 081 640 9ab 3,014 100 8e1 7,498 5 .07 1,479 1,291 1,416 420 10 3 1<46 139 1 ,051 8.491 3 .4 5 2 ,481 2 ,050 1 ,392 533 11 5,499 188 1 ,441 13, 478 5.23 2 577 3 120 2 ,598 .. 924 . 12 8 ,384 309 1 ,964 1 7 983 5.05 3,561 2,787 5,932 1 036 15 2,748 150 1 256 7,535 1.66 4 539 2 ,544 1 671 409 17ab 11, 180 423 2,071 23,299 8.59 2 ,71 2 3,068 7 ,891 . 1.946 18 3,973 125 934 10, 2 2 2 15 .12 676 1 952 2 ,660 992 20 8,703 315 1 653 21,307 16 97 1 256 4,545 6 ,8112 2,543 21 4 635 190 588 1 1,530 7.84 1,47 1 2,760 3 693 2,114 2 2 6 ,852 229 782 17, 499 12.24 1,429 4,499 5 139 3.593 40 3 ,205 167 646 7 093 4.56 1 ,556 1 ,314 2,548 732 41 4,483 149 739 10, 154 5.51 1 643 2,185 3,332 1 ,306 42143 5.614 255 1,233 1 1,987 6.42 1,424 2,037 5,192 1 092 700 7,633 334 1 ,239 14 ,868 3 97 3,745 1,700 5,823 94Q Avg. Eastside Route 7,680 308 1,724 1 6,861 8 .811 2 735 3 055 5 ,358 1,172 Avg. Westside Route 6 730 245 1 008 16,776 12.35 1 ,385 3,931 5,278 2,750

PAGE 374

6; Table L-4 Ridership Estimation VOTRAN 1ab 27 ,4!">3 7.99 3,436 1 73 ,5 1 9 85,651 2 03 2.05 3 1c 16, 754 3.61 4,64 1 36,600 22,835 1 .60 2 05 1 1 3 1 1 ,351 4.35 2,609 87,450 43,239 2.02 1 .20 4 17,800 5.33 3 ,34 0 95,242 43,539 2 19 2.05 2 5 2 6 .272 7.53 3,489 2 9 ,474 19, 355 1.52 2.05 10 6 47 032 1 8.24 2,579 79,831 109,201 0 73 1 20 17 a. n l a nla nla nla nla nla nla nla 7 2 1,11 5 7 77 2 717 63 ,863 69,938 0 .9 1 1 20 15 8 19, 970 7.75 2,577 31, 499 35,233 0 .8 9 1 20 16 9ab 7, 498 5.07 1 479 97,922 48.249 2 .0 3 1 .00 6 10 8,491 3 .45 2 46 1 13 4, 209 69 ,60 7 1.93 1.20 5 11 1 3 478 5 23 2.577 74,988 67 ,530 1.11 1 .20 13 12 17 ,98 3 5.05 3 ,581 39,544 30,62 1 1.29 2 .05 14 1 5 7,535 1.66 4,539 75,580 24, 363 3.10 2 05 1 17ab 23.299 8.59 2,712 130.650 99,845 1 .31 1 .20 12 18 10,222 15. 12 676 17,965 46 077 0.39 0.50 20 2 0 21,307 16.97 1,256 65,319 113 780 0.57 1.00 18 21 11, 530 7 .84 1 4 7 1 nla nla nla nla nla 22 17,489 12. 24 1,429 39,780 7 1 097 0 .56 1.00 19 40 7,0 93 4 .56 1,555 7 001 1 4 ,830 0.47 1 .00 23 41 10,154 5 .51 1,843 6,821 12. 705 0 .54 1.00 2 1 42143 11, 987 8 4 2 1,424 8 ,585 24,077 0 .36 1 .00 25 700 14.868 3.97 3,745 35,414 27.233 1.30 2 .05 7 Avg. Eastsid-e Route ( 1 6.861 I 6.60 2 735 64 ,5291 47,0591 1 .35 Avg. Weatslde Route 16 776 1 2 .35 1 ,385 52,550 9 2 .439 0.57 1 Based o n first &ix months of FY 1996. 2. Based on January 3, 1996. BRW, Inc., Ridership Forecasts for New Service Areas.

PAGE 375

s Table L-5 1990 Census Characteristics by Bay Town Trolley Route (1/4-MIIe Buffer) --.,_ .,.,_,.,,. ----. ,,1>=[ .. ,, .: r:::: ;, : <..:_.. .. -, -c l ,: : ; : :' : ,._,; .: < /:.::.,-:.-. r:c.:.:..;:; _:,:-: ; .. :\> .:._ ... --:. ';.._ _.,. .. _ .,. _.: --. . '-.. ........ , .. _._._ '"' ............. '-" . .. ; ";;t -.-... . .-_ C' ..... -.-..... .... ';,_.,_._,.,_ "'" .. __ ,., s.::.{..:..:: -: _':.; ::'. ,. .. ..... -:::. :r. --_._. ti. .:.c .. --....., --'-. -.:!<.:.;_ Downtown 1,344 302 513 3,295 1.88 1 ,75 3 802 836 187 Nort11 1,270 88 175 3.471 2 .72 1,276 9o41 545 211 E a $l 4,814 622 1,294 12,563 6.82 1 ,842 3,475 2, 123 824 Wost 5,406 740 1,462 12,924 5.95 2 172 3,058 3,02 4 622 Beach 1,942 131 332 4,785 5.00 957 1,083 975 279

PAGE 376

L-8


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 00000nas 2200000Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 026638814
005 20110909152051.0
008 070420s1996 fluab b 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00198
035
(OCoLC)123342699
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE4491.B39
b B39 1996
0 245
Bay County transit development plan :
final report /
prepared for, Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Panama City, Florida by, Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
1 4 246
Bay County transit development plan, 1996-2001
260
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida,
[1996]
300
1 v. (various pagings) :
ill., maps ;
29 cm.
500
"December 1996."
5 FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references.
530
Also available online.
FTS
650
Local transit
z Florida
Bay County
x Planning.
Transportation
Florida
Bay County
Planning.
2 710
Panama City Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.198
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
910
tp2010
951
10
SFU01:001786399;
FTS