USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Manatee County Area Transit transit development plan, 1995-2000

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Manatee County Area Transit transit development plan, 1995-2000 final report
Portion of title:
Transit development plan, 1995-2000
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Manatee County Area Transit
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:
Bus lines -- Planning -- Florida -- Manatee County   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Planning -- Florida -- Manatee County   ( lcsh )
Transportation -- Planning -- Florida -- Manatee County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for Manatee County Area Transit by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"May 1995."

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 - 026220041
oclc - 85773740
usfldc doi - C01-00211
usfldc handle - c1.211
System ID:
SFS0032307:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader 00000nas 2200000Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 026220041
005 20110908175654.0
008 070306s1995 fluab b s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00211
035
(OCoLC)85773740
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE4487.F6
b M36 1995
0 245
Manatee County Area Transit transit development plan, 1995-2000 :
final report /
prepared for Manatee County Area Transit by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.
3 246
Transit development plan, 1995-2000
260
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida,
[1995]
300
1 v. (various pagings) :
ill., maps ;
29 cm.
500
"May 1995."
5 FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references.
530
Also available online.
FTS
650
Bus lines
z Florida
Manatee County
x Planning.
Local transit
Florida
Manatee County
Planning.
Transportation
Florida
Manatee County
Planning.
2 710
Manatee County Area Transit.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.211
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001759778;
FTS



PAGE 1

MANATEE COUNTY AREA TRANSIT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1995-2000 FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Manatee County Area Transit Bradenton, Florida By: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Flor i da Tampa, F lo rida May 1995

PAGE 2

Manatee County Area Transit 1108 26th Avenue East Bradenton, Florida 34208 (813) 747-8621 Fax (813) 742-5992 Transit Section Manager: Carl Gaites Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Aorida 33620-5350 Director: Project Managers: Project Staff: (813) 974-3120 Suncom 57 4-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Gary L. Brosch Dennis P. Hinebaugh Daniel K. Boyle Victoria A. Perk Joel R. Rey Michael R. Baltes David Gillett Shelly Happel NilgOn Kamp

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS L1st of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Llet of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . xi.ii Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Chapte r One: Demographic Data, Surveys, Focus Groupe, and lntervleW8 . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Manatee County Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Popul ation and Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Population Age Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 T ransportatlon Oisadvan taged Pop u l a tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Incom e Chara ct e ristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Vehicl e Ava ilab ility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Employment Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Travel to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Travel nme to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Means of Trave l to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Demo gra phic Summary .... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Roa dway Defi ciencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 MCA T On-Board Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Comp ariso ns with Earlier Surv eys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 32 Overview of MCA T System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Survey Methodo log y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 MCAT On-Board Survey Analysis ........ .......... .. . . . 33 MCAT Rider Demograph ic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 MCAT Rider Travel Beh avio r Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 MCAT Rider Sat i sfaction Inform a tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 MCAT Rider Sat i sfaction Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Conc lu si ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 MCA T Operator Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Focus Groups with N on U se rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

PAGE 4

Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Interviews with Key Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Policy I ssues of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Chapter Two: Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 MCAT Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Chapter Three: Performance Evaluation of Existing Transit Service . . . . . . 71 II Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 The Purpose of Perfonnance Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Perfonnance Review Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Overview of System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Fixed-Rou1e Trend Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Perfonnance lndica1ors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Ridership and Level of Service . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Expenses and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Employees and Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Service Supply and Service Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Service Consumption and Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . 90 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Cost Effic iency and Farebox Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Labor Productivity and Fare Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Fixed-Route Peer Review Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Perfonnance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Population Ridership. and Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Expenses and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Employees and Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 06 Service Supply and Service Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Service Consumption and Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . 108 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 0 Cost Efficiency and Fare box Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

PAGE 5

labor Productivity and Fare Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 App li cation toMCAT Goals . ...................................... 1 14 Conclusions ................ .......... ... . . . .... .... . 118 Chapter Four: Deman d E stimation and Needs Assessment ......... ... . 121 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . 121 Current and Future Demand for Transit Serv ice . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Fixed-Route Demand Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Ridership Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Peer Group Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Fare and Service Elasticities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Census T ract Analysis ................ ........ ....... . 128 Intervie w Focus Group, an d Survey Results ...... ....... .... . 130 Demand Responsive Service Ridership Estimates . . . .... .... .' . 135 Americans with D i sabilities Act ..... ....... . . . . . . . . . 135 Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Ftxed-Route Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Evening Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Improved Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Express Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Service to Major ResldentiaVEmployment Sites ...... ........ . 140 Comprehensive Operations Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Improved Serv lc:e Coverage in Tracts . . . . . . . 141 Mobility Needs and Transit De m and: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Cha p te r Five : Trans it A l ternatives an d R e co m mendations . . . . . . . . 1 43 Introduction .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Alternatives ....... ............. .... ................. . . . . . 143 E x pand the Transit System to Existing Unserved and Underserved Areas of the County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Respond to Growth In Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Future D i rections for MCAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 MCA T VISi on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Five-Year Transit Development Plan: Find i ngs and Recommendations . . . . . 1 47 Actions to be Initiated Immediately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Actio n s to be Initiated over the Next One-to Two Years . . . . . . . . . 150 iii

PAGE 6

Actions to be Initi ated over the Next Three-to-F i ve Years . . . . . . . . 152 FiveYear Transit Deve l opment Plan: Rnancial Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Appendices i v Appendix A: Manatee County Census Data Tables ......... ..... ... . . A 1 Appendix B: Survey Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 Appendix C : Selected MCAT On-Board Survey Results by Route . . . . . . C-1 Appendi x D : Focus Group Discussion Outl i ne and Interview Questions . . . . D-1 Appendix E : Transit-Related Goa l s in the Ma natee County Comprehensive Plan . E-1 Appendix F: L i st of Definit i ons : Performance Indicators and Measures . . . . F-1 Appendi x G : Inventory o f Transit Providers in Manatee County ........... . G-1 Appendix H: Complete Trend Data Tables : MCAT 1989-1994 .... ... . . . H-1 Appendix 1: Complete Peer Review Data Tables : MCAT, 1993 . . . . . . . 1 Appendix J: Manatee Cou nty Census Tracts: Distributions and Scores . . . .

PAGE 7

Figure ES-1 Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 F igure 1-3 1-4 Figure 1 -5 Figure 1-6 Figure 1-7 Figure 1-8 Figure 1 9 Figu re 1-10 F ig ure 1-11 Figure 1-12 Figure 1-13 Figure 1-14 Figure 1-15 Figure 1-16 Figure 1-17 Figu re 1-18 F ig ure 1-19 Figure 1-20 Figure 1-2 1 Figure 1-22 F igure 1 -23 Figure 1-24 Figure 1 -25 Figure 1-26 Figure 1-27 Figure 1 -28 Figure 1-29 LIST OF FIGURES Manatee County Bus Routes and Transit Dependent Tracts . . . . . xix Population Density: Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Population Under Age 18: M anatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Population Over Age 60: Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Percen t of Households with Annual I ncome Under $10,000: Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Percent of Households with No Vehicles Available: Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Percent of Workers with Travel Time to Work 30 Minutes and Over: Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Percent of Workers Usi n g Carpools: M anatee County . . . . . . . . 27 Percent of Workers Using Public Transporta tion: Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 Vehicle Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Annual H ousehol d Income . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Ethnic Origin ................. ...... .... ..... ........ : 36 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Length of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Frequency of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Fare Category ........... . : ..... ... ................... 4 1 Fare Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Alternative Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Reason for Riding MCA T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Mode of Access . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 42 Mode of Egress . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 42 Days of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Hours of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Frequency of Service ... .............. .. . . . . . . . 4 6 47 Convenience of Rout es ................. ............... Dependability of Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Travel Time on Bus ......................... ......... 47 Cost of Riding Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Availability of Bus Route Informat io n 0 48 v

PAGE 8

Figure 1-30 Figure 1-31 Figure 1-32 Figure 1-33 F i gure 1-34 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 3-6 Figure 3-7 Figure 3-8 F ig ure 3-g Figure 3-10 F igu r e 3-11 F igure 3-12 Figure 3-13 Figure 3-14 Figure 3-15 Figure 3-16 Figure 3-17 Figure 3 -18 Figure 3-19 Figure 3 20 F igure 3-21 Figure 3-22 Figure 3-23 F ig ure 3-24 Figure 3-25 Figure 3-26 Figure 3-27 Figure 3-28 Figure 3-29 Figure 3-30 Figure 3-31 Vehicle Cleanliness and Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Operator Courtesy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Safety On Bus and At Bus Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Overall Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Validity of Passenger Complaints as Reported by Bus Operators . . . 54 Factors Affecting Transit Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Manatee County Bus Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Total Operat i ng Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Total Maintenance Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Operating Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Vehicles in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Vehicle Miles per . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Passenger Trips per . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Operating Expense per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . . 93 Fare box Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Revenue Hours per Emp lo yee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Passenger Trips per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Service Area Populat i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Revenue M il es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Maintena nce Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Operating Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 05 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 05 Vehicles Operating in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . 1 05 Vehicle Miles per . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Figure 3-32 Passenger Trips per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 vi

PAGE 9

Figure 3-33 Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ............ . . . . . 109 Figure 3-34 Figure 3-35 Figure 3-36 Figure 3-37 Figure 3-38 F igure 3 -39 Figure 3-40 F igure 3-41 Figure 3-42 Figure 4-1 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Operating Expense per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Operating Expense per Passenger Trip . . . .. . . . . . . . 111 Operating Expense per Revenue Mile ..... '. . . . . . . . . 111 Farebox Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Revenue Hours per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Passenger Trip per Emp l oyee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Average Fare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 113 Manatee County Bus Routes and Transit Dependent Tracts . . . . . 133 Figures C-1 C-25 Selected MCA T On-Board Survey Results: Route 1 . . . . . C-3 Figures C-26 C-50 Selected MCAT On-Board Survey Results: Route 2 . . . . C-8 Figures C-51 C-75 Selected MCAT On-Board Survey Results: Route 3 . . . C-13 Figures C-76 C-100 Selected .MCAT On-Board Survey Results: Route 4 . . . C-18 Figures C-101 C-125 Selected MCAT On-Board Survey Results: Route 5 ... . C-23 Figures C-126C-150 Selected MCAT On-Board Survey Results : Route 6.... . C-28 Figures C-151 C 175 Selected MCAT On-Board Survey Results: Route 8 . . . C-33 Figures C-176C 200 Selected MCAT On-Bqard Survey Results: Route 9 . . . C-38 Figures C-201 C-225 Selected MCAT On-Board Survey Results : Route 10 . . . C-43 vii

PAGE 10

Table ES-1 Table ES-2 Table 1-1 Table 1-2 Table 1-3 Table 1-4 Table 1-5 Tab le 1-6 Table 1-7 Table 1-8 Table 1-9 Table 1-10 Table 1-11 Table 1-12 Table 1-13 Table 1 -14 Table 1-15 Table 1-16 Table 1-17 Table 1-18 Table 1-19 Table 1-20 Table 1-21 Table 1-22 LIST OF TABLES MCAT Transi t Development Plan, Estimated Cost of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxviii MCAT Transit Development Plan Estimated Operating and Capital Cost by Fiscal Year (in 1995 dollars) . . . . . . . . . xxix Population and Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Tract Population for Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Tract Density fo r Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Population Age D istribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Population Age Characteristics for Manatee County . . . . . . . . 6 1994 Transportation Disadvantaged Population by Group . . . . . . 11 Household Income Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Income Characteristics for Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Vehicle Availability Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Vehicle Availability Characteristics for Manatee County . . . . . . . 15 Employment Characteristics for Manatee County ......... . . 19 Work Commuting Pattern Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Work Commuting Pattern for Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . 20 T ra vel Time to Work Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Travel Time Characteristics for Manatee County . . . . . . . . . 21 Means of Travel to Work Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Means of Travel to Work Characteristics for Manatee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Response Rates by Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Rider Demographic Comparisons of the 1994 and 1990 MCAT On-Board Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Trip Purpose Matrix Showing MCAT Rider Origins and Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Fare Category and Fare Type Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Rider Travel Behavior Comparisons of 1994 and 1990 MCAT On-Board Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 1-23 Rating System Numerical Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 1-24 Rider Satisfaction Comparisons of 1994 and 1990 MCAT On-Board Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Table 1-25 MCAT Typical Rider Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 viii

PAGE 11

Table 1-26 Table 1-27 Table 1-28 Table 1-29 Table 1-30 Table 1-31 Table 2-1 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 Table 3-5 Table 3-6 Table 3-7 Table 3-8 Table 3-9 Table 3-10 Table 3-11 Most Frequent Passenger Complaints about to1CAT Identified by Bus Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Improvement Areas for MCAT Identified by Bus Operators . . . . . 55 MCAT Safety Problems Ident ified by Bus Operators . . . . . . . 55 Routes with Schedu le Problems Identified by Bus Operators . . . . 56 MCAT. Routes to.Modlfy Id entified by Bus Operators . ...... : . . . 56 Response to Questions 7 and 8 MCAT Operator Survey . . . . . 56 MCAT Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 Sel ected Performance Review Ind i ca t ors and Measures : Fixed-Route Transit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Overview of MCAT-Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 . .... ......... 79 MCA T Ridership and Level of Service .............. : . . . . 82 MCA T Expenses and Revenues .... ... .. ... ......... . . . 84 MCAT Employees and Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 MCAT Service Supply and Service Consumption . . . . . . . . . 88 MCAT Service Consumption and Quality of Service . . . . . . . . 90 MCAT Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery . . . . . . . . . 92 MCAT L abo r Productivity and Fare Structure . . . . . . . . . 94 Comparison of MCAT to Peer Group Means 1993 . . . . . . . 98 MCA T's Peer Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Table 3-12 Peer Analysis Population, Ridership, and Level of Service Table 3-13 Tabl e 3 14 T ab l e T able 3-16 FY 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Peer Analysis Expenses and Revenues FY 1993 . . . . . . 102 Peer Analysis Employees and Vehicles, FY 1993 . . . . . . . . 104 Peer Analysis Service Supply and Serv ice Consumption FY 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Peer Analysis Service Consumption and of Service FY 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Table 3-17 Peer Analysis Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery, FY 1993 ......................... ................... . 110 Table 3-18 Peer Analysis Labor Productivity and Fare Structure, FY Tabl e 3-19 T able 3-20 1993 . ........... ... ..... ...... ... ... ..... .... ... 112 MCATGoal s ....... .......... ............ ...... ......... 115 Performance Measures Applied t o MCAT Goats . . . . . . . . . 116 Table 3-21 Status of Goal 1 : Part i cipate tn and Ensure Availability of an Effective Pubnc Transportation System that Safely Moves People Throughout, tn, and Out of Manatee County . . . . . 117 ix

PAGE 12

Table 3-22 Status of Goa l 2 : Provide New and Max im ize th e Use of Table 3 T able 3 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Tab le 4 Table 4-6 T able 4 7 Table 4-8 Ta b l e 5-1 Table 5-2 Table A Table A-2 Tab l e A-3 Tabl e A-4 T able A-5 T able A-6 Table H-1 Table H-2 Table H-3 T able H-4 T ab l e H-5 X Ex i s ting Quality Passenger AmenRies to Enhance Bus Service and Attract Discret ion ary Riders . . . . . . . . . 117 MCAT Performance Strengths and Weaknesses, Trend Analys is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 MCAT Performance Strengths and Weaknesses Peer Review Analy sis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Pro j ected Fi xed-Ro ut e Ridersh i p for M CAT . . . . . . . . . . 123 Pee r Group Comparisons wRh MCAT . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Peer Subset Comparisons with M CAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 25 MCA T P rojections Based on Per Capita Averages in Peer Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Im pacts of Fare and Service Scenarios . .... ................ . 1 27 Base and Enhanced Fixed-Route Ridersh i p Projections for MCA T ......... ................................ . 128 Transit-Dependent Census Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 ADA Para tra nsit Trip Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 MCAT Transit Deve lopment P l an Estim ated Cost of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 MCAT T ransit Development Plan Estimated Operating and Capital Cost by Fiscal Year (in 1995 dollars) . . . . . . . . . 155 Population and Population Density Manatee County, 1990 ..... ...... A-3 Age Distribut ion Manatee County 1990 ........................ A-4 Household Income Manatee County 1990 . . . . . . . . . . A-5 V e hicle Ava ilability Ma n a tee County 1990 . . . . . . . . . A-6 Travel Time t o Work Manatee Coun ty 1990 . . . . . . . . . A-7 Means of Travel to Work Ma natee County 1990 . . . . . . . . A-8 Ma n atee County Area Trans i t Directly Operat ed Mo torbus Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-3 Manatee County Area Transit Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-4 Manatee County Are a Trans i t System Total Perform ance Indicato rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-5 Ma na tee Coun ty Are a Transit D i rectly Operated Motorb u s Effectiveness Measures .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. H-6 Ma natee County Area Transit Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-7

PAGE 13

Table H-6 Table H-7 Tab l e H-8 Table H-9 Table 1-1 Table 1-2 Table 1-3 Table J 1 Manatee County Area T ianslt Total Effectiveness Measures ........... ............... .... ....... . . . H-8 Manatee County Area Transit D i rectly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-9 Manatee County Area Trans i t Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1 0 Manatee County Area Transit System Total Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H -11 System Total Performance I nd i cators 1-9 Motorbus Vehicle Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 System Total Effectiveness Measures 1 9 Motorbus Vehicle Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 System Total Efficiency Measures, 1-9 Motorbus Veh i cle Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Manatee County Census Tracts: Dis t ributions and Scores . . . . . J-3 x i

PAGE 14

xii

PAGE 15

f:OREWORD The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has contracted with Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) to produce a five-year Transit Development Plan (TOP) for Manatee County. Each transit property in Florida that receives State Transit Block Grant funding is required to prepare a TOP. This requirement is intended to ensure that the provision of public transportation service is consistent with the trave l needs and mobility goals of the community. In establishing a strategic context for transit planning, the TOP can serve as a guide in the future development of the transit system. Five chapters were developed for this final TOP document. Chapter One presents the demographic base for Manatee County. Also included are the results of ride r and bus operator surveys, non-user focus groups and interviews with key l ocal officials. Chapter Two outlines goals and objectives for MCAT and demonstrates their connec tion with goals specified in other planning documents. A performance rev i ew of MCAT is included in Chapter Three which consists of a trend analysis and a peer comparison. Chapter Four contains ridership and demand projections as well as a needs assessment for the system. The final chapter Chapter Five evaluates alternatives and proposes recommendations for public transportation services in Manatee County. xiii

PAGE 16

Xiv

PAGE 17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has contracted with Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) to prepare a five-year Transit Development Plan (TOP) for Manatee County. Each transit property in Florida that receives State Trans i t Block Grant funding is required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) to formulate a TOP. This requirement is Intended to ensure that the provis i on of public transportation service is cons i stent with the travel needs and mobility goals of the local community. By establishing a strategic context for transit planning, the TOP can serve as a guide in the system's future development. FOOT's intention in requiring TOPs is to encourage the consideration of strategic issues, mobility needs within the context of overall planning and development efforts and prioritization of needs in the form of a staged I mplementation plan. Relevant plan features include an extensive focus on transit, an emphasis on transit's ro l e at the community level, and explicit consideration of external factors affecting the viability of the transit system. Several concepts of strategic planning (vision, external orientation, and future focus) are applicable In the preparation of a TOP The transit system was created by the Manatee County Comm i ssion as the Manatee County Transit Division on June 4 1974, with services beginning in January 1976 following the approval of a grant from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) At the time the system consisted of six fixed routes operated with four buses. In October 1978, paratransit service, specifically designed to provide public transportation for the elder1y and handicapped, was implemented. In fiscal year 1979,the system generated 692,234 passenger trips; ridership then peaked at875,687 trips by fiscal year 1981. In May 1989, the system entered into a one-year trial contract with Florida Trails, Inc., to provide personnel and maintenance services for one fixed route (Route 5, the beach route) and one paratransit route, both of which had been directly-operated. The purchased service carried through fiscal year 1989 and part of fiscal year 1990. An evaluation of the service determined that it was generally unsatisfactory, unreliable, and more costly These findings prompted the Manatee Board of County Commissioners to discontinue the program in May 199!) and return Route 5 (as well as the paratransit route) to directly-operated service Currently, MCAT is a function of the Manatee County Department of Transportat i on and is governed by the Board of County Commissioners. All transit personnel are county employees. XV

PAGE 18

MCA T provides public transportation services to the urbanized port i ons of Manatee County by operating fixed-route motorbus serv i ces on nine routes with 18 vehicles available for maximum service. In addition complementary demand-response transportation serv i ces are offered. The system serves Bradenton, Palmetto, Anna Maria I s l and, Longboat Key and the Sarasota B r adenton Internat i onal Airport. This executive summary presents the key findings from each chapter of the Development Plan. The recommendations developed in the final chapter are also included in the executive summary for easy reference. The first chapter examines the distribution of relevant demograph i c and economic characteristics of Manatee County such as populat i on density, age, income, vehicle availability, employment, and work travel behavior. I n general, Manatee County residents tend to be older when compared to the Aorida population Househo l d income and vehicle data suggest that the population of Manatee County is largely middle class, with lower percentages in the county than in the state at the opposite ends of the scale. Although a majority of workers in the county drive a l one for their commutes when compared to statewide figures, workers in Manatee County are slightly more likely to carpool and slightly less likely to utilize Also inc l uded in this first chapter are the results of an on-board passenger survey. The objective of the on-board survey was to collect MCA T rider demograph i c Information travel behavior and sat i sfaction with specific aspects of MCAT fixed-route bus service This information was compared with appropriate qualifications, to the results obtained from the on-board survey of MCAT riders conducted in April 1990 A typical MCAT rider profile was developed through the compilation of responses to demographic and travel behavior-related questions. MCA T's typical rider is a wMe female between the ages of 25 and 34, whose household has zero vehicles available and an annual income of less than $ 1 0 ,000. She rides the bus four or more days per week, and has been using the system for two years or longer. This representative rider rides the bus for the work trip and pays the regular adult cash fare. The main reason for using the system i s that she does not drive and, if the bus were not availab le, she would ride with someone e lse for transportation In addition to the on-board survey, a survey was also prepared for the MCAT bus operators The operators were que ri ed concerning frequent rider compla i nts and potential safety problems on the routes They were also asked where they believed i mprovements should be made as well as which routes should be mod i fied and why Finally. findings from interviews with key l ocal officia l s and focus groups with non-users a r e discussed in Chapter One. The overall opinions of the transit system were generally pos i tive xvi

PAGE 19

However, some of those interviewed land use patterns and low d ensity of Manatee County are not favorable to extensive iransit use These interviewees believed MCAT is just not convenient enough to generate the demand necessary to make the transit system self sufficient to a greater degree. Also there does not seem to be a high level of public support (fiscally) for public transH in the county. Positive comments about the system included commendations for operating well despite limited resources and for serving those who depend on transit for their personal mobility needs. Some of the most common suggestions for attracting additional riders (specifica lly discretionary riders) included increased frequency, increased service hours, initiation of "group-oriented" services (such as lunch shuttles and mall trips), and implementation of express bus service, primarily to major employment centers. In addition, both groups agreed that exp l oring vari o us methods o f distribut i ng an inc reased amount of system information to the public was necessary and that MCAT must also analyze different marketing techniques. The specificat i on of goals and objectives is a major e l ement ofthe TOP. Chapter Two develops system goals based on a workshop conducted with the TOP Review Committee findings from the surveys, interviews, and focus groups, and discussions with MCAT personnel. Some areas and issues addressed by the goals are the availability and efficiency of transit service, passenger arl)enHies and mar1
PAGE 20

Sta te s Results from the t rend analysis are genera l ly mixed as are the peer resu l ts MCAT provides an above average level of serv ice when compared to its peers . In 1993, MCAT supplied a larger number of revenue miles than any of i t s peer systems In addition, the system generated the second -hig hest number of passenger trips in peer group However since M CA T's serv i ce area population is the largest of its peer group vehicle miles per capHa and passenger trips per capita are lowe r than average T hese service supply and consumption measures are examples o f cases in which the peer review approach does not necessarily reflect the of transit service : the l arge service area population wh ich i s essent i ally out of MCA T's contro l, bas icall y deflates these measures. One area i n which MCAT perfonns better than its peers i s in tenns of cost efficiency. The system's cost efficiency has improved; especially since 1992 Two of the three analyzeo operatin g ratios operating expense per capita and opera ting expense per passenger trip, are below the mean of the peer group for FY 1993 Wh il e trend and peer rev i e w analyses can be useful I n developing a better understand i ng of MCAT perfonnance and i n identifying target areas for add iti on a l attention and improvemen t, performance evaluat i on mea sures do not comprehensively cover a ll of the obj ectives of a transit system Ma ny objectives cannot be measured with th i s mechani sm and require additional in f ormation or more subjective evaluation. However, the results of the trend and peer revie w analyses provide a useful starting point for fully understanding the perfonnan ce of M CAT and comple ment the other components of this study. The fourth chapter discusses mobility needs with in Manatee County and provides several estimates of current a nd Mure dem a nd Methods of estim a ting transit demand i nclude cl assica l linear regress i on analys i s peer group comparisons fare and service e lasticities and results of intervie ws. focus groups and surveys In the demand for paratransit trips was project ed according to the American s with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements FOOT has continually stresse d the importance of accounting for all mobility needs within a transn system's service area w hen preparing a TOP. An analysis ofthe county's census tract data was undertaken i n th e fourth cha pter to compare demographic infonna t ion particularly those characteristi cs that a re highly correl a ted wnh transit-dependency wnh MCA T's ex i sting transit n etwork configuration. Based upon the ana lysi s i t has been determined that. at present a ll primary transit-dependent tracts are adequa t ely served by MCAT. Figure ES-1 i llustrates MCAT's bus routes along w ith an overlay of transit-dependent census tracts MCA T must also consid e r growth pa tterns in the coun ty particularly in and around E llenton, t he In t erst ate 75 xviii

PAGE 21

, 1 7 .01 . &Y '\. 0 ' Milt$ -\ Manatee County Bus Routes and Transit Dependent Tracts ''' ., ,'\"'; Bus Routes l i o 8 03 8 .04 1 1.02 -------; Transit Dependent Tra<:U 9 00 8.06 .......... - Te
PAGE 23

corridor, and other areas of new development suc H as the Schroeder-Manatee development between State Road 70 and University Parkway. Concerning ridership, taking i nto account historical ridership trends and allowing for service increases (between zero and 1 0 percent annually} it is est i mated that MCAT will generate approx i mately 900,000 annual trips by fiscal year 2000. Also In Chapter Four several mobil ity needs are addressed These issues are associated with MCAT's service area, the possibility of later evening service, improved frequency, express service, service to major residential and employment sites a comprehensive operations ana l ysis, and improved service coverage I n trans i t-dependent tracts. The peer and census tract ana l yses from this chapter suggest that there may be some level of demand for transit service in Manatee County but that overa ll MCAT does a good job in providing service where it i s needed. Demand projections suggest that ridership will continue to grow, hel ped along by appropriate service extensions. The final chapte r Chapter Five, looks forward over the next five years and presents alternatives for MCAT, such as expanding the system to exi sting unserved and underserved areas of Manatee County and effectively r esponding to growth w i thin the county. Recommended short term priorities include the establishment of a long-term dedicated funding source for MCAT, increased marketing efforts and information dissemination, increased emphasis on passenger amenities (such as bus shelters and kiosks), and increased public I nvolvement. The discussion of the alternatives leads to the process of defining a vision for MCAT. Chapter Five also includes the fwe year plan for MCAT. The plan is a culmination of all previous chapters and contains detailed recommendations to help the system realize its vision and achieve its goals. -The recommendations are listed in the follow i ng section. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations are prioritized by time frame for implementation: immediately ; over the next one to two years; over the next three to fwe years Within each time frame recommendations with a higher priority are genera ll y listed earlier, but related actions are grouped as appropriate ; thus, the numbering scheme is not str i ctly in priority order xxi

PAGE 24

Actions to be Initiated Immediately 1. Pursue the establishment of a long-tenn dedicated funding source for MCAT. MCAT is currently receiving funds as a division of county government from local property tax revenues as well as from other state and federal sources. Manatee County should work toward a permanent source of dedicated funding for MCAT. Based on interviews with l ocal officials, there appears to be support for partial funding of the transit service from a percentage of the available local option five-cent gas tax. A dedicated funding source will help ensure the continued fiscal heahh of the system. 2. Increase efforts towards supplying the public with transit marketing information. There is an identified need for additional marketing, public outreach, and overall education of the public and local officials. 3. Install bus shelters at key locations. Transfer locations, major street intersections, and stops near major trip generators are candidates for bus shelters An ultimate plan would be to locate bus shelters along a route every one-half mile in the urban i zed area of the county Approximately 100 shehers are envisioned to be placed during the five years of the plan at the rate of 20 per year. This would include a major shelter to be located at on e of the primary transfer locations. Metro Advertising currently locates benches along roadways in Manatee County as part of a project with the Kiwanis and lions Clubs 4. Provide information kiosks at major transfer centers. These kiosks should contain i nformation 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. I nformation on alternate payment options (passes, multi-ride punch passes) should also be included. Three information kiosks are planned for installation in the first year (FY 1996) of the plan. 5. Explore the potential for shelter advertising and/or priVatization of shelter ownership. xxii There are two alternatives to shelter advertising One a l ternative is to market the shelter advertising within MCAT and keep the advertising revenues. This would entail MCAT purchasing and maintaining the shelters. A second alternative many systems have opted to implement is through privatization of the shelters and their advertising. This program is usually run by an advertising company that will be responsible for the purchase and maintenance of the shelters as well as for the marketing/selling of advertising space A combination of the two alternatives can also be accomplished as is currently the case for MCA T's request for proposals.

PAGE 25

6. Implement the use of specially painted buses to market transit. Specially painted "Supergraphic" buses around the state have proven to be extremely popular and can be a major source of revenue to the transit system. These types of buses can "liven up" the streets and get the transit system noticed Similar advertising Is used on buses in Ortando, Tampa, and Fort Myers. MCAT should take care to ensure a consistent visual identification on all of its buses 7. Expand service north to serve Rubonla and Port Manatee. Extension of service to the growing araas north of the Manatee River will provide transit access to Port Manatee, and would be utilized by port and cruise ship patrons. This route will provide access to the fixed-route system to the low-income areas of Rubonia, the new community center the new public rural health unit, and the new county jail. Access to other parts of Manatee County will be available through a transfer point in Pal metto or at the downtown courthouse. 8. Apply tot State of Florida Transit Corridor Program funds to make transit improvements In congested corridors. The initial priorities for such Improvements are the increased frequency of service along Routes 1 and 3, which operate significant portions of their service upon State roadways All transit corridors will be further analyzed In future Congestion Management Systems projects . 9. Establish a vehicle replacement program and purchase new expansion vehicles. Four of MCA T's current buses are scheduled for replacement during the five years of the TOP. The proposed five-year budget in the following section assumes bus replacement on an ongoing basis. MCA T is currently in the process of replacing four fixed-route vehicles using Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. New buses will be lift-equipped to comply with ADA provisions Six new vehicles will need to be purchased for increased frequency of service on four existing routes, for service to areas of new development (such as the proposed Schroeder-Manatee development), and for the new express service from Sarasota 1 o. Expand the formal monitoring program to track the performance of Individual routes. This information Is the basis for making decisions on the routing and frequency of buses Although some data is currently being collected, a more formal data monitoring and analysis program should be set up and followed. This program will require a significant amount of person hours from the MCAT Planning Department. xxi i i

PAGE 26

11. Increase MCAT's involvement In the transportation plannin g process. The curr ent lntermodal emphasis a t the federal and state levels and the increased recognijion of the role that trans" can play in the suggest that MCA T should be involved in transportation decisions for Manatee County. This is probably best accomp lished through the Development Review Committee and the metropolitan planning process. 12. Educate local officials on the Impact of transit service In Manatee County. Based on ou r i nterviews with key local officials, a need was identified to educate these officials on the workings of the transit system. This includes bringing them up to date on specific related issues Including the recent cuts in federa l operating assistance, the impacts of ISTEA, the funding needs of the transit system, and the system's need for a dedicated funding source. 13. Maintain independent nature of transit management within the County structure. I n the last TOP document great detail was presented dealing wijh the organization of th e t ra nsij management within the workings of the Manatee County Government. Since that time many changes have occurred an d are in the process of occurring. It is recommended that sta b ility be brought to the management staff and as much autonomy as possible be given to that staff so as to be able to effective ly operate the transit system. This includes maintaining the functions of planning and finance personnel specifically w ithin the control of the transit director so as to be able to effectively implement the priority projects detailed in this TOP. 14. Continue to encourage public input by forming a Cltizel)s Transit Advisory Council. Increased public involvement should be promo ted Transit systems wijh open channels for public input tend to be successful. 15. Ensure that MCAT maintains compliance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). MCA T is in full compliance with the requirements for ADA complementary paratransit service but w ill need to update the ADA plan should later evening service or new routes be implemen ted 16. Install bike racks on existing and expanded large bus fleeL In order to highlight its sens it iv ity to the environment and alternative modes of transportation, MCAT should consider installing bike racks on its existing fixed-route fleet. These bike racks are planned fo r i nstallat ion on the exis ting fleet, and on t he new expansion buses as service Is imp lemented. xxlv

PAGE 27

Actions to be Initiated over the Next One-to-Two Years 17 Conduct a pilot program to Increase frequency on the busiest route s. Routes 1, 3, and 6 are the top candidates for increasing service to e very 30 minutes, based on current ridership and on ease of implementation. These routes have previously operated with 3D minute service. These routes should be carefully monitored after the service increase to determine the impact on ridership. 18 Conduct a comprehensive operations analysis of MCAT service. A fu ll ope ra t i ons analysis wou ld exam i ne the entire existing transi t network as we ll as unserved areas of the county, and make recommendations for specific route-level changes MCA T has not undertaken such a study in recent years 19 Identify an appropriate location for a park-and-ride lot and implement express bus service. MCA T needs to identify sites along U S 301 or U S 41 for a park-and-ride lot to operat e service between downtown Sarasota and downtown Bradenton. Shared church parl
PAGE 28

transit system but MCAT should keep these areas i n m ind when considering improvements In terms of mobility needs these areas are most critical 23 Begin planning transit connections to Identified areas of new major development One ne w development that Is scheduled to open in 1999 is the SchroederManatee development. MCAT must be involved in the early planning for sites such as this so that its buses can conveniently serve the development. At the same time, preliminary route planning can begin no w Actions to be Initiated over the Next Three-t o-Five Years 24. Increase bus service on Route 5 to Anna M aria Island and Longboat Key Route 5 serving Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key over the years has been reduced from one hour to two-hour headways because of the inc reas ing traffic congestion, specifically during the tourist season T wo-hour service is not seen as practical service headways to the riding public; therefore service t o the Island should be incre ased to one-hour headways This increased serv ice would necessitate the purchase of an expansion bus. 25. Monitor the use of alternative fuela at other transit systems for future potential at MCAT. Though MCAT should not necessarily take the lead in test ing new alternative fuels for their bus fleet, they must continue to monitor the progress of other test sites so as to be prepared to purchase fueled vehicles as the technology changes and federal regulations related to alternative fuels are revised. 26. Initiate later evening service o n selected routes. Candid ate routes include those serving the ma lls and other evening activity centers Connections with resident i a l areas of emp l oyees at these activity centers would be i deal A pilot program involving a small number of approximately one-half of the routes might provide an indication of demand for later service. Service could be operated until 9 : 30 p m. on these selected routes. It is anticipated that this action can be Imp l emented in the one-to-two year time frame if MCAT decides to postpone or forego recommended service expansion. 27. Implement service to Identified areas of new major development This is the implem entat i on portion of a previous recommendation Major developments such as Schroeder-Manatee should generate a l arge number of transit trips, and in volvement i n the planning for the new development will hopefully have ensured that access to transit is convenient. xxvi

PAGE 29

FINANCIAL PLAN Until this point, the TOP process has {IO t -be.efHGEiristrained by financial considerations in accordance with its strategic intent. Demograph i cs, survey results community input I n various fonns, and trend and peer analyses have all been used to assess the demand for transit service and identify mobility needs in Manatee County. The recommendations outlined above have been based on previous find i ngs and future directions. The final step in the TOP process is to est i mate costs associated with these r ecommendations and compare them against current and anticipated financial resources. Table ES-1 presents the costs for the recommendations and projected dates for imp l ementation These costs are based on several assumptions ranging from unit cost per bus she l ter to the average cost of a new route These are the most reasonable assumptions available, but cost estimates should be refined at the time the recommendations will be implemented, when greater detail will be available Table ES-2 presents the cap i tal and operating costs of the recommended projects by fiscal year of implementation : It should be noted that MCAT is currently operating under a constra i ned budget. Federal operating ass i stance is projected to decrease by as much as 30 percent i n the next year. A shortfall i n MCATs operating and capital budge t (more significantly on the operating side) is projected in order to implement the recommendat i ons. Thus, priorities must be rev i sed based on fiscal constra i nts, or pQtential new funding sources must be identified for implementation of the recommendations. Among potential sources are State Urban Corridor funds, State Service Development funds, STP funds available through the lntennodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act ( I STEA) and additional local funding sources. XXVII

PAGE 30

w ''ii?' ''<.J: ... ._, __ "., .. ,,,,_ ,q' i<: . : -l>: Y;.<-."'"". :_;v _,, ,1.' . ''""$i!'t&., ,.'"' )! .. "" .' "'*-' 2 Transit M arketing 3 She Iars 4 Kiosk s 7 Expansion of Service to Ruboni&IPort M a n atee 9 Bus ReplaoementJ&panslon 1 6 B ike R acks 1 7 I m prove F r equency' 18. Operations An alysis 19. Exp ress Bus Setvlce' 24. Increase Freq uency on Route S 26. Evenin g Setvice 2 7 Service t o Areas of New Development' -Tabl e ES-1 MCAT T ra n sit Development Plan E sti mated Co s t of Recomme ndation s :;;;:;:;:; ... :-; ,.t, _'*'lt'4<><. ''' --;< '' '' ' -'51 ;.:> -:p----l\.- . . '-"".' .. '"'\'11!!\ll!!l! ,., ... >< ;; ...,:;;,-'<\": ,...,,..,.. :-*w-t--v ,,_, 'l>/'-$10 000 n/a $ 1 0,000 n/ a $6, 000/sll l'' ,, ...,. :' i' >'l<:)'1; 'i' ,.,, COpltal ):olt' : ,:);.;$-) '' ,..,., '"' '; n/a 1 996-2000 $600,000 1996 $600 1996 nla 1996-2000 $2, 500,000' 1996-2000 $ 1 2,000 1996-2000 nla 1996 $75 ,000 1996 n/a 1997 nla 1998 nla 1998-2000 n/a 1999-2000 --' Uses ful lyall oca\ed costs per revenue mie to gen e rate estimated annua l operati n g co&t,. h owever actua l inoremental costs may be less for i nitia l ro ute expa n sion 1Portions of the projected o perating and capUI cos.ts will be fu n ded by no n-k>cal revenue sou r ces (federal. state). the caplal oos.ts are programmed lor fedefll funding, eost estimates are based on service to the Schroeder M a n atee developme nt.

PAGE 31

2. $10,000 $0 .. -$0 S1li>.ODD 4 ...... $0 1800 1 ExpamC!n of Setvlce 10 RubonlaiPort Manatee $170,820 so Bus Replacement/Expansion so $1 000,000 Bb Rack$ $0 $8,400 t7. .................... $0 $750 .000 ... """-.._.. $0 $D 19 Elqxeu Bu5 Scmct' $0 $250.000 24. lncteueo Frequenc.y on I $0 I $0 I ftoute 5' :26. Evening seMce SO "' 27. Scrvioe to Are" o1 Htw so 10 Table ES-2 MCAT Transit Development P lan Estimated Operating and Capita l Cost by Fiscal Yea r (In 1995 dollars) $10 000 $0 $10.000 $0 I $ 10,000 "' $120.000 "' $120..000 "' "' 10 $0 $0 "' 5 170,820 so $ 1 70,820 $0 $170,820 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $2,400 so leDO so $527,320 so $527.320 so m7.320 so $76,000 .. so I so $40,7SO I "' I $49,750 I so I $49.750 I I I $0 1 uso.ooo 1 St84.9oo 1 10 I ,, ...... I $0 so $0 $0 $1$8,000 $0 SO so $0 so $0 I 110;000 I ,......., 10 $0 "' so st70,120 so $0 SGDO $0 so $507.120 so I 10 I so I $41.760 I so I ........ I $0 $158,000 $250 ,000 $172.ott b Wri::e C05IS we tAt lie ;elM ayMem costs andlh '*' lt!Ckacl by poojeded lar:enMinloJI$. ld.lll.a OCII5b may be less for iiliaii'Cdl of lhe Ol*llii$ lind c.aPtlf costs w.J be Mded by "'*Vooe IOW'CeS (federal. &tafla) lCost eslina1es ere based on Hf'Vk:lt '10 1ht SdlroeclerManatee developnwlt. SO I $50,000 I so $12Q.OCIO $0 seoo,ooo $0 so Sll $0 $854,100 $0 .. $0 $0 .. st.ooo:eoo so SO I $0 $2.109,280 I $'TSO,o0o $0 I so I S75.ooo "' I , ... ooo I wo.ooo SO I $58<.94o I $2SO.ooo $0 $318.000 I so so s112.000 I s2llo,ooo

PAGE 32

XXX

PAGE 33

CHAPTER ONE Demographi c Data Surveys Focus Groups, and Interv ie ws INTRODUCTION To better plan for the continuing development and/or i mprovement of a transit system ij Is necessary to gain an understanding of the environment with i n which the system I s operating. To th i s end this chapter ana l yzes the demographic and econom i c conditions of Manatee County and I ts population utilizing Census data as well as informat i on from an on-board passenger survey, a bus operator survey and i ntervie w s with focus groups and key local officials. MANATEE COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS Manatee County is located on the west coast of Florida and occupies a land area of 747 square m il es The county encompasses several bod i es of water: the Manatee R i ver, the Braden River, and Lake Manatee i n to i ts coast on Sarasota Bay T ampa Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico The surrounding counties are : H ill sborough County to the north, Sarasota County to the south, and Hardee and DeSoto Co unt ies to the east. The most populous of the county is Braden t on with a population of o ver 43,000 followed In size by the cities of Palmetto and Holmes Beach. T hus, It Is not surp rising that a l arger proportion of the county s population is concen trated around the Bradenton area, south of the Manatee River. Manatee County experienced a lm ost a 4 3 percent increase from its 1 980 population of 148,445 to a total population of 211 707 i n 1990 Census data ind i cate that 89 percent of the 1990 county population l iv e i n urban areas wh il e only 11 percent l ive i n the rural areas. Furthermore over 75 percent of the county residents work in Mana t ee County Among the cit i es in the county Bradenton leads the others as a work destination by attracting more than 30 percent of the county's to ta l workers. In accordan ce with the population concentrat ion, all the current Manatee County Area Transit (MCA T) bus routes pass through the Bradenton area while indi vidua l bus routes cove r less populous areas For examp l e Route 1 runs north to Palmetto Route 5 goes we st to Perico and Ann a Maria Islands an d Route 10 extends south to the Sarasota-Bradenton Interna ti ona l Airport and to the border between Manatee and Saras ota Count i es This section s ummarizes demographic and economic data for Manatee County Specific demographic charact eristics related to potential trans it use are presented All data w ere

PAGE 34

obtained from the 1980 and 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Appendix A contains ta bles including data from all census tracts. Population and Population Density Tab le 1-1 displays population, population growth, and population density for Manatee County and Florida as a whole. Manatee County's population density is almost 20 percent higher than the state's population density. Table 1-2 shows population for the most populous census tracts in Manatee County, while Table 1-3 shows density for the most dense census trac ts in the county Generally, a high population density is more conducive to trans i t use. The densest tract is number 6.02 with 6,274 persons per square mile, which is located at the center of the county. Approximately half of the tracts in the county have more than 2,500 perso ns per square mile. The high density tracts tend to be located In the middle of the county, as well. The population density is further illustrated in Figure 1-1. Population growth for the county from 1980 to 1990 was over 40 percent, or an increase of 63,262 people. Because new census tracts have been added, it is no t possible to provide growth data for all census tracts in the county. Table 1-1 Population and Population Density ');?" . c . Pcipulatlon'
PAGE 35

.. ., 0 t .. ' ___ ..__:z:_ -(/) c Cl) c c 0 c ., :::::1 0 "' () ::::s a. Q) 0 0.. Q) -co I c co ... ::E I ... ::::s C) -u.

PAGE 36

this page 0 IS blank

PAGE 37

Tab l e 1 2 Trac t Population for Manatee County 3 .03 9 9 532 4 .04 9 ,138 7 .02 2 7,325 8.06 Ta ble 1 3 Tract D e nsity for M a natee County 5.03 3 .01 3.03 Population A g e Characteristics Table 1-4 shows age group percentages for the county and Florida. It is evident from the data that Manatee County's population is somewha t older overall, than that of the sta te. Manatee's age d i stribution data ind i cate sma ller percentages for each of the age categories under 55 years Only I n the 60 years and over category does Manatee exceed the state percentage, a s i gnificant difference of 11 percentage points This category also represents the largest percentage of the population wi thin the county. The 25-44 age group comprises the second largest percentage of the population (26 percen t ). Table 1-5 prese n ts tho s e cens u s tracts with hig h concen t ratio n s of persons under 18 years o ld. Tract 15. 02, alm ost 33 per ce n t of Hs populat i on under 18 ye a rs o f a ge, IJas the highest proportion of persons in thi s age category In the county This tract is lo cated along the Manatee River as seen in Figure 1-2. 5

PAGE 38

Also shown in Table 1-5 are the tracts that have greater than 50 percent of their population in the 60 years and over age category. Tract 2 has the highest proportion of persons age 60 and over {7 4 percent). This census tract is also one of the denser tracts with 3, 725 persons per square mile, and is l ocated at the center of the county by U.S 41. These two particular age groups are of significant Interest in regard to transit use because the young and the elder1y often do not have adequate access to automobiles and the r efore rely more on public transportation. The distribution of these two age categories in the county is also shown in Figures 1 2 and 1-3 Table 1-4 Population Age Distribution Manatee County 6 8% 8 8% 4 5% Florida 22.1% 9 2% 30.5% 10.1% 4.5% Table 1-5 Population Age Characteristics for Manatee County .. q_,. :::. w #'r, .. ,,; .. ..,_ -\ ;'l;" t'-15.02 32.9% 2 73.9% 15.0 1 32. 8% 19 03 71.4% 1.03 29.3% 17 02 65.2% 8.03 29.3% 14 .02 55.0% 7.02 28. 6% 4.04 52. 9% 3 .03 28.4% 11.01 52. 8% 20.02 28. 1% 7.01 28. 0% 19.01 27.9% 5.01 27.5% 6 34. 6% 23.6%

PAGE 39

co 'I"" Gl C) c( L. Gl ''0 c: ;:) c c: ::::l 0 0 -(.) Q) Q) ::::J -0. co 0 c Q. (U I N I ..... ll t: ::::J C) . u..

PAGE 40

this page IS blank

PAGE 41

Figure 1-3 Population Over Age 60 Manatee County N I -P e r c en t .... 39 .. 01!1 !lll:!$ .. 38 Undet22 ':-I I 0 2.5 5 Milos

PAGE 42

this page IS blank

PAGE 43

Transportation Disadvantaged Population Chapter 427 of the Florida StaMes defines transportati on disadvantaged (TO) persons as : ... those persons who because of physical or mental disability, income status or age are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore depandent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment education, shoppin g soc ial activities, or child ren who are handicapped or high-risk or at risk as defined in s 411.202 The Florida Coord in ated Transportat i on S y ste m (FCTS ) serves two population groups The first group, referred to in th is report as the Category I TO population, i ncludes disab led, elderly, and low income persons, as well as children who are "high-ris k or at-risk. These Category I persons are eligible for trips that are subsidized by social service or other governmental agenc ies The second population group, referred to as the Category II TD population ; includes those persons who are transportation disadvantaged according to the definition In Chapter 427 (I.e., they are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation). Mem bers of this population, a subset of the t o tal Ca t egory I popu l a tion, a re eligib l e to receive the same subsidies as C ategory I persons plus they are e l igible to receive TO Trus t Fund monies for trips that are not subsidized by a soc i al serv ice or other governmental agency. Table 1-6 presents information on the TD population for the county and shows the number of persons and the percentage of total county popula tion In both categories. TD data are 1994 estim ates derived using the methodology developed i n the CUTR publication "Methodology Gu i delines for Forecasting TD Transportation De mand at the County Level ,'' May 1993 Manatee County Table 1-6 1994 Transportation Disadvantaged Population by Group 33,166 56,135 17,326 106,627 ( 45.4% ) 22, 951 (9 6%) '1M 111$4 totaii>OI"''alion wu es&nated umg data ltwn 1990 CentuS and 1t1e lo
PAGE 44

Income Characteristics Tab l e 1-7 shows the distribution of household income in Manatee County and Florida Compared to the state, the county has a slightly lower percentage of households with income under $10, 000 and ove r $50,000 For the i ncome catego ries between $10,000 and $39,999, the county has slightly higher pe r centages than the state Med ian income for the county is $25 ,951. Table 1-8 presents the census tracts where 20 percent or more of the households have incomes less than $10,000 There are only three census tracts where approximately 30 percent or more of the households have an annual income below $10,000 These tracts are located on the south bank of the Manatee River i n Bradenton Like age, income is an important facto r i n determining usage of convent i onal public transit sys t ems I n general low-i ncome persons re l y more on the publ i c transit system for mobility and access to jobs shopping and entertainment. Figure 1-4 shows the percent of househo l ds w i th incomes under $10,000 /'' .. ,; .> : < <:... . Manatee County Florida 12 Table 1-7 Household Income Distribution . -:, ; Sto;OOO--, $049 999'. ; T.. ,. $19,999 . <--(" $39 9991"' . 13.7% 22.9% 20.9% 15.6% 15.1 % 20.1% 18.8% 14.8% Table 1-8 Income Characteristics for Manatee County s.co;ooo. :? 10.4% 10.4% ., .. T,.* n Percent witti:lnC:om. Under.-$1o;ooo, A N > 1.03 32.0% 7.01 30.9% 1 .01 29.4% 15.02 23.8% 7.02 23.2% 2 22.8% 15.01 22.2% 3 .03 22.0% 6 .02 20.5% 6 0 1 20.3% 1.04 20.2% : .; OYer. > ": $So,00o 16.5 % 20.8%

PAGE 45

: ,. : :. _: .. ,.-;; 'i 1/)0 ,o oq ,s::O CD"'" 1/)..,. ::::s ... 0 Cl) :::E:, _c -G) c E Cl) 0 e u I ftS ,.::::s ..... c c e< ::::s tJ) LL

PAGE 46

this page IS blank

PAGE 47

Vehicle Availability Table 1-9 presents the distribution of vehicle availability among households in Manatee County and Florida. I n Manatee County only seven perce n t of the househo lds do not own a vehicle, compared to the Florida average of nine percent. In addition almost half of the county's households have one vehic l e avai l able. Table 1 -10 i ncludes those census tracts where approximately 15 percent or mo r e of the households do not have any vehicles available. The census tracts with a higher proportion of zero-vehicle househo lds are in areas with concentrations of low-income households, and a r e genera11y located on the south bank of the Manatee R iver. Figure 1 5 graphically depicts the distribution of househo lds with no vehic les avai l able Table 1 9 Vehicle Availability Distribution Manatee County 7% 49% 34% 10% Aorida 9% 4 1 % 37% 13% Table 1 10 Vehicle Availability Characteristics for Manatee County 1.01 27.5% 1.03 26.2% 7.01 22.0% 15.02 19.1% 6.01 17.4% 7.02 1 4 .7% 6 .02 14.7% 15

PAGE 48

1 6

PAGE 49

' ..... ;. Figure 1-5 Percent of Households with No Ve"ichles Available Manatee County N I Percent ... 2$ ...... II ... a 0 ... 3

PAGE 50

this page IS blank

PAGE 51

Employment Characteristics Table 1-11 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 of M anatee County workers in the labor force Ia almost 15 percent le ss than the state percentage of 60 percent. Both the county and the s tate exhibit similar percentages of civilian employment. Table 1 1 1 Employment Characteristics for Manatee County Florida 60.4% 94.2% Travel to Work Table 1-1 2 shows work locations and the extent of i ntercounty commuting for Manatee County The largest portion of the labor f orce (4 4 percent) works in the suburbs while 32 percent work in the central cities. Table 1-13 shows the percentage of workers by destination. Bradenton and Sarasota are the two largest worker destinations among the cities, with almost 45 percent of the workers residing in Manatee County traveling to these two cities to work. Table 1-12 Work Commuting Pattern Dlatributlon 19

PAGE 52

Table 1-1 3 Work Commuting Pattern for Manatee County . ' Percent Working at >.'. "> ., ; Workfl,r>Destlnaton. Destination'' I '; Bradenton Clly 32.0% Palmetto City 4.9% Ho lmes BeaCh Cily 1 .4% Longboat Key Town 0 .8% Anna Maria City 0.2% Bradenton Beach C i ly 0 .5% Remainder of Manatee Counly 35.8% Sa r asota C ily 12.3% Veni ce City 0.4,% North Port Clly 0.0% Lon gboat Key Town 0.8% Remainder of Sarasota Counly 6.6% Tampa Cily 0.6% Remain der of Hillsborough Counly 0.9% Sl. P e tersburg City 0.5% Clea!Water Cily 0.1% Remainder of Pinellas Counly 0 .3% Hardee Counly 0.1% DeSoto Counly 0. 1 % Lakeland-Win ter Haven FL MSA 0 1% Worked Elsewhere 1 .6% NOTE: The 1990 number of wod
PAGE 53

Travel Time to Work Table 1-14 presents the distribution of travel time to worl< for Manatee County and F lorida. T he majority of Manatee County residents have worl< trip commutes of tess than 20 minutes Only 23 percent of county residents have work trips of 30 minutes or more, compared to 30 percent of Florida residents Table 1-1 5 and Figure 1-6 show tracts with high percentages of traveltime to worl< of 30 minutes and over. Four of the six census tracts with average travel times equal to or greater than 30 minutes are located in the north eastern suburban areas of the county The other two tracts (tracts 18 and 17.02) are locat ed on Anna Maria I s l and and Longboat Key. Table 1-14 Travel Time to Work Distribution Manatee County 16% 39% 22% 14% 9% Florida 16% 33% 21% 17% 13% Table 1-15 Travel Time Characteristics for Manatee County 20.02 49.8% 17.02 48.8% 7.01 37 8% 18 35. 0% 15.01 32.4% 8 .04 31.9% 21

PAGE 54

22

PAGE 55

l 17-01 . ...... .... ...... Figure 1-6 Percent of Workers with Travel Time to Work 30 Minutes and Over Manatee County N I Percent 1 .... !0 21to41 22to21 0,. 21

PAGE 56

this page lS blank

PAGE 57

Mea .rus o f Trave l to W orlc Table 1-16 shows the distribution of workers means of transporta tion to work in M anatee County and Florida. In comparison to the state, the u se of public transportation for the journey to w ork Is ra latively low in Manatee County The overwhelm ing majority of workers are driving alone. Table 1-17 shows those census tracts I n Manatee County wnh the highest proportion o f workers using carpoo li ngtvanpooling and public transportation for their work commute Tract 7 .01 has t he highest percentage o f carpoolers {35 percent) and i s located in Bradenton along th e Ma natee River. Thi s same census tract a lso has the highest percentage of p ublic transit use a t almost 7 percent. F igures 1 -7 and 1-8 illustrate the distribution of workers using carpools/van pools and public transportati on for their work commute for all the county's census tracts T able 1 -16 M eans of Travel to Worlc D is tribution Florida 77 1% 1 4.1% 2 0% 2.0% 4 8% Table 1-17 Means of Travel to Worlc Chara<:teristlcs fo r Manatee County 7 .01 35 3% 7 01 6 9% 15.02 31. 8% 15 02 6.3% 1.03 28.5% 7 .02 3.9% 15.01 28. 1% 7.02 22 .2% 3 .03 2 1 6% 1 .01 2 1 4 % 25

PAGE 58

26

PAGE 59

! j .. 0 ;:tn 0 0 r:::: ... o ::s ca. 0 Q) .. (.) (,) "' '-0 Q) Q)C) 2 10 I r:::: ..,.tn 10 :::: ::i1E 'l""' 1! :::s C) -l) ..: u.. ,.

PAGE 60

this page IS blank

PAGE 61

.... .. 11M 2D.o:t 17-01 ..... . t.OO Figure 1-8 Percent of Workers Using Public Transportation Manatee County N I Percent .... 0 2.5 5 -

PAGE 62

this page IS blank

PAGE 63

Demographic Summary Residents of Manatee County are more likely to be elderly than Florida residents in general. In addition, household income and vehicle availability data indicate that the county population is largely middle class, with smaller percentages in the county than in the state as a whole at opposite ends of the scale AHhough Table 1-16 illustrates that the majority of workers i n the county drive alone for their commutes when compared to statewide figures workers within Manatee County are slightly more likely to carpool and somewhat less likely to utilize transit for the work trip ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES The Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) provided the Concurrency Transportation Link Sheet which contained information on roadway segment deficiencies in Manatee County. The sheet included 1994 fourth quarter (October 7, 1994) data. According to the link sheet, there are seven road segments with a standar'd level of (LOS) rating of "E" or "F." These segments are all located on U.S 301 between U.S. 41 and University Parkway at the Manatee-Sarasota County line. Currently, no MCAT bus routes operate on any of these segments However, Route 8 operates on U.S. 41 where it meets U.S. 301, and Route 9 crosses U.S. 301 on 15th Street East. 31

PAGE 64

MCAT ON-BOARD SURVEY This section summarizes the results of a comprehensive on-board survey of MCAT fixed-route bus riders conducted in November 1994. The purpose of this survey was to obtain data about rider demographics, travel behavior, and satisfaction with specific aspects of MCA T fixed-route bus service. It should be noted that, while the survey was being conducted, the outer fringe of Tropical Stonn Gordon passed through Manatee County. It is anticipated that the weather (primarily wind along some rain) may have affected the survey results somewhat. Some transit riders might have chosen not to travel on those days: for example, the percent of elderly respondents was smaller than what would have been expected Comparisons with Earlier Surveys The last comprehensive survey of MCAT riders was conducted in April 1990. With appropriate qualifications mainly due to the fact that certain questions differed considerably from the present survey is possible to compare some of the data. The comparisons, when possible, are included in the appropriate sections. Overview of MCAT System During the time of this survey, MCAT operated nine buses on nine routes (Routes 1-6 and 8-1 0) serving Manatee County. During the 1993 fiscal year, MCAT provided approximately 626,000 passenger trips on directly-operated fixed-route bus service while traveling nearly 551, 000 vehicle miles MCArs service area size is approximately 90 square miles wnh a service area population of approximately 183,000 persons. Survey Methodology The on-board survey was designed to elicit descriptive infonnation regarding the demographic traits and travel behavior of MCAT riders as well as their satisfaction with specific aspects of MCAT fixed-route bus service. In addition, a question rating the overall quality of MCAT's bus service was included on the survey. This infonnation will enable MCAT to focus on relevant transit needs and issues such as modifying bus schedules, locating bus stops modifying fare structure planning focused marketing campaigns, and i dentifying histori ca l ridership trends The survey was administered on Tuesday Nove mber 15, and Wednesday, November 16, 1994. Buses were surveyed starting at noon until the end of service on Tuesday and from the 32

PAGE 65

. . . beg i nn i ng of service unt il noon on Wednesday Th i s approJCimate 12-hour t ime frame represents an ent i re day of MCAT service Survey distribut i on was carried out by CUTR staff For reference, a copy of the survey instrument is included i n Appendix 8. In all cases, one surveyor w as assigned to a particular bus on a particular route. Surveys were personally handed to boarders along the route as they boarded the bus or as they assumed their seats Riders were encouraged to return completed surveys to the surveyor as they alighted the bus I n addit i on as tlme permitted surveyors walked through the bus asking for completed surveys RidetS were asked to complete a questio n naire every ti me they received one M CAT On-Board Survey Analysis The MCAT on-board s urvey ana lysis is composed of three sections: demographics, trave l behavior, and rider satisfaction with specific aspects of MCAT bus service Each section provides I n formation that will be useful in improving the performance and service of MCAT. Appendix C provides summarized survey results by spe cific route. Demographic data cons i sted of age, gender annual household income, ethnicity and the number of vehicles i n th e rider's household These demographic data w ill facilnate i dentifying current market characteristics of MCAT riders and may also be used to determine how this market segment has changed over time. In addition, this information can also assist in determining the need for rider facilities such as the improved design and favorable location of bus stops, and facilities for persons with disabilities Trave l behav ior i ncluded data such as trip purpose length and frequency of use fare category and fare type aHemative transportation reason for ri d ing MCAT and mode of Th i s i nformation will ass i st MCAT in effective schedu li ng and general po li cy-decisions regard i ng overall MCAT service User satisfact ion is determined in Question 18. Question 18 asks riders to .rate their perception of MCAT service via 11 performance characteristics as well as the overall quality of MCAT service. Strengths and weaknesses of the system are i dentified as perceived by patrons from a li st of five discrete responses Riders were asked to rate MCAT service from "very good to "v ery poor. The identified weaknesses can poten ti ally be addressed through changes i n the system. By distingu i shing rider sensitivities regarding specific characterist ics of the system MCAT Is better able to pr i oritize improvements in the system 33

PAGE 66

A total of 736 surveys were returned from the nine fixed-bus routes Table 1-18 shows the number of returned surveys by route and the corresponding response rates for the entire 12-hour survey period as well as the overall response rate. Table 1-18 Response Rates by Route R.OYte Number Number of Retumecl Surveys Number 01 Boarders Response Rate 1 ., 104 21.1% 2 101 ... 28,S% 3 87 134 ... .,. 111 164 67.7% s 38 7 0 $4.3% 8 141 175 $0 ,6% 8 .. 181 ...... 9 S1 67 76.1% 10 68 227 30.0% T01111 ,,. 1 ,$46 47.6% 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 relevance of the findings being reported. All questions were included in the analysis regardless of whether or not the survey was completed entirely The following are the major findings from lhe on-board survey. MCAT Rider Demographic Information A number of questions were asked in order to establish a demographic profile of the typical MCAT rider. Demographic-related questions included gender auto ownership, annual household income, ethnicity, and age Figures 1-9 through 1-13 illustrate the MCAT demograph i c data from the 1994 on-board survey and Table 1-19 shows a comparison of demograph i c data, when possible, obtained from both the 1994 and 1990 MCAT surveys. Gender-Systemwide, more women use MCATserv ice than men As Figure 1-9 indicates 57.7 percent of MCAT riders are female and 42.3 percent are male; a dichotomy that i s typical of public transit ridersh i p. 34

PAGE 67

Vehjcle Ownership The survey results shown in Figure 1-10 i ndicate that 46. 4 percent of MCA T riders do not own a veh i cle This finding suggests that almost half of MCAT riders are ''ranslt captives," a typical finding among the ridership of a conventional fixed-fOute bus system. However, the survey results also indicate that 53.6 percent of MCAT riders reported owning one or more vehicles, and nearly 20 percent own two or more vehicles. Annual Household lncomThe survey resuHs indicate that 41.6 percent of MCAT riders have an annua l household income that is less than $ 1 0 ,000 and 32 3 percent have an annual between $10 000 and $19 ,999, as shown i n Figure 1-11 Of all the MCAT rid ers surveyed on l y 4 1 percent have an annua l Income of $50 000 or greater. Ethnicltv Systemwide, 53 5 percent of the riders are white, while 38.6 percent are black In addition, 5.9 percent of the riders indicated their ethnlcity to be Hispanic, while 4 1 percent Indicated "Other." It Is possible, however, that the percent of Hispanics who use MCAT has been underrepresented since the survey instrument was not translated into Spanish This ethnic origin information is illu strated in Figure 1-12. For the entire system 58. 2 percent of MCAT riders are between the ages of 18 and 44, while 19.2 percent are 17 years of age or younger as presented in Figure 1 -13. In addHion, 12. 1 percent of MCAT riders are 60 years of age or older Flgure1-9 Gender None One Two Th,.. or m0f'8 figure 1 Vehicle Ownership 80% 35

PAGE 68

3 6 Lne than $10, 000 $10 000 to $18,fil 120,000 to $2Utll $30,000 to $39,8tsl $40,000 to $4t,Ht $60,000 oncl .... ... -Hloponle Figure 1-11 Annua l Household In come 40% Flgure1-12 Ethnic Origi n othll' 2.0% Flgure1-13 Age 17y..,.undw 11to24 25toSO 35to44 4StoM 55 tole eo toM II y..,. or more .,. .... -.... -

PAGE 69

Table 1-1' 9 Rider Demographic Comparisons of the 1994 and 1990 MCAT On-Board Surveys MCAT on-Board Survay 19 90 MCAT St.IV8)' Female None One Two Three ot more I.e$'$ than $10,000 $10,000 to S19,999 $20,000 110 $29,999 $30 ,000 110 $39,999 S40,000 to $49.999 $60 ,000 and over ..... Hispanic Ottlar 3 4 years or undor 35 eo 69 601064 65 years or more Gender 42.S% 57.7% Auto Owner$hip 48.4% 33.9% 15.0% At'U'Iual Househd.d tn.o:ome 41.6% 32 3% 14.9% 4 .2'% 4.1% Ethr..'c Origi'l 53.6% 38.6% 5 .9% 2.0% .AQe 59.0% 28.9% 1.9% MCAT Rider Travel Behavior Information "'" $1.1% 32.0% 1 3.2% a.w. nla nla nla n/a "' nla 54 .9% 41.7% 2.6% o.a% 47.5% 29.fil'A 4.3% 18.6% A number of questions were included on the survey to obtain information about the trave l behavior of MCAT riders. This information includes trip purpose, length and frequency of use, fare category and fare type, alternative transportation reason for riding MCAT, and mode of access/egress. Figures 1-14 through 1-21 illustrate the MCAT travel behavior data from the 1994 on-board survey. In addition, Table 1-22 shows a comparison of travel behavior data, when possible, obtained from the 1994 and 1990 MCAT surveys. 37

PAGE 70

Trip Purpose-As shown in Table 1-20, the responses are dominated by the home-to-wor1< trip pairing with 19.3 percent of all trips taken originating at home and terminating at wor1<. In addition, 53 .3 percent of all trips originate and 45.9 percent conclude at home, respectively Other common trip pairings include home-to-school (5.7 percent), home-to-shopping/errands (7. 1 percent), school to-home (1 0 8 percent), and shopp in g/errands-to-home (4.8 percent) In the case of the home-to-home trip pairing where 14 .2 percent of the riders indicated their origin to be the same as their destination, there apparently was some misunderstanding regarding the question's intent. Some riders who indicated an Identical trip origin and destination interpreted the question to mean the destination at the end of the day as opposed to the end of the trip, although surveyors reported that a few riders appeared to be out riding the bus with no destination, and thus answering accurately. Despite the misunderstandings, the sample size is sufficient to maintain a high degree of confidence with the results being reported. Table 1-20 Trip Purpose Matrix Showing MCAT Rider Origins and Destinations Trip o..tination Tt;> OOOin HOMt """" Sd>ool OOcoo!l V4ltiftol Totlll oom;,. ..,. ... RoetUifOn Heme 1 4 .2% 1 8. 3% 5 7% 2.1% 7.1% 2.1% 2.7% 53.3% -9 8% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .4% O .S% 0.0% 13.6% -10.0% 0 .8% 1.1% O .S% 0.0% G .3% t O% 14.1% OodottcSenlist Ul% 0.1% 0.0% 0 .1% 0.4% 0 3 % 0 ,1% 2.7% Sl>opjling/Enandt 4 .8% 0.<4% 0.4% 0. 0% 1.6% 0 .:1% 0 .3% 7.8'4 Vlsl1ing/Reaeatlon 0.1% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.1% 0 .0% 0 0% 0.8% 0-4 3% .,. 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.8% 1 .7 % Total 45.9% 24.7% 8.1% 2 5% 10.2% 3.0% 4.7% 100% Length of UseAs revealed by the survey results shown in Figure 1-14 45.8 percent of MCAT riders have been using MCAT for two years or more These riders may be characterized as the long time users of the system. Conversely, 24.1 percent of MCAT riders have been using the system less than 6 months, representing new riders Frequency of UseFigure 1-1 5 indicates that approximately 60 percent of MCAT riders use the system four or more times per week and 23 9 percent use MCAT two or three days per week In addition, on average some riders use MCAT about once every nine weeks Interestingly 38

PAGE 71

du ri ng the time of the survey a small pemelrtllgl! 'llf MCAT ri
PAGE 72

Alternative Transportation MCA T riders were asked to indicate from six discrete choices how they would make their t rip if MCATwere not available; the resulls are presented in Figure 1-18. If MCAT were not available, 40.7 percent of MCAT riders would ride with someone, 12.4 percent would drive themselves, 14.9 percent would not make the trip, 14.9 percent would walk, 11.1 percent would use a taxi, and 5.9 percent would ride a bicycle Reason for Riding MCAT As illustrated in Figure 1, the reasons indicated most often for using MCAT are : I don't drive (45.1 percent), car is not available (35.1 percent), bus is more economical (6 9 percent), and bus is more convenient (5. 8 percent). Given the high percentage of riders who indicated "I don't drive" and "car is not available," 80. 2 percent, it is evident that MCAT riders are not riders by choice, but are dependent on MCAT for their mobility needs. Mode of Access/Egress Systemwide, 69.9 percent of MCAT riders walk to access the bus, while 53.5 percent walk to egress the bus In addition 21.0 percent of MCAT riders transfer to access the bus, while 35.7 percent transfer to egress the bus. Not surprising, only 0.3 and 0.4 percent of MCAT riders access and egress the system by driving, respectively. Again, this finding provides further confirmation that MCAT riders are reliant on MCAT for their mobility needs The access/egress data are illustrated in Figures 1-20 and 1-21. Figure 1 Figure 1-15 Length of Use Frequency of Use than 8 months 4 or more day per WMk \)nthl to 1 year 2 or 3 days po<1 to2yura About1 day po< -k JMJ'S or longer onc e every_ -... .... 80% 0% 40% .... 40

PAGE 73

Sbldent Regular Adult SeniO< Disabled 0% Cash Flasb Paa ,__ Super Rider Transfer Other (Golden Ago Pass) 0% Wouldn't make trip Flgure1-18 Fare c.tegory 40% Flgure1 17 FereType 40% Figure 1 18 Altematlve Tranaportation 80% 80% 41

PAGE 74

42 ldon1dlf .. Carlonctovoll ablo Bua la m ore economlc:at T rafltc; I I too bM Patldng d llllc ulll coolly au. mote conwntent DIOYO Walk 0-3 bloc:b Wa l k moM thin 3 b5ocka Boplo-up T111notw Flgure1 -19 Re .. on for Riding M CAT -Flgure1-20 Mode of Access Flgure1 -21 MocleofEgreea -80%

PAGE 75

Table 1-22 Rider Travel Behavior Comparisons of 1994 and 1990 MCAT On-Board Surveys Home WOrk SChOOl OoelorJDenliat Shoppln;!Emnd& VisltlngJRec:reation OU'Ier Less than 8 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 years or longer 4 or fi'IOf8 days per week 2 ot 3 daya per week AbOUt 1 day per week Onee every_ week.s student Regular adult SeniOr om.. Ride with $Omeotli& Taxi Woulc.tn't '"'* trip 01h0f {ltiOirdes b>:ycle) 1994 MCAT On-Board Survey 1990 MCAT On-Board Survey T$ Purpooo Destilallon 46.9% 24.8% $ 1 % 2.5'% 10.3% 3 .8% lAnglh Of use 24 .1% 14.9% 15.3% 45.8% Frequency of Use 4 1 .6% 32.3% 14.9% 4.2% 27.9% 53.6% 12.6% 5.6% 12.4% 40 .7% 14.9% 11.1% 1U% 5,9'.4 nla 38.3% 11.7% 8 3% 27.1% 7 .5'4 6 .6% n/a nla nla nla 8 .7% 68.8% 21.6% 3.0'4 7.5% 37.9% 13.3'.4 12.1% 22.9% $ ,3% 43

PAGE 76

Table 1-22 (co n tinued) Ride r T ravel Behavior Comparisons of 1994 and 1990 M CA T On-Boa rd Surveys C&18QCWY 1994 MCAT Oll-Boll'd Survey 1990 MOAT <vty Reason for Ri<'lng I don, drtve 45 .1% .t1.8% car 19 not a valible SS. 1 % 32.8% Bus i& more economical 6 9 % 1.2% Tralk i1 too bM 1 .3!11. ... ,. .. _., 0.4Y. 1.2% SU$ is tftOte con.....,. ...,. ...... Other (lndUdel "ffmlty doQ not ct(') S .S% tU% Mode or Aoeou Wllk;ed 0. 3 t)!Odo( t 58.6% .,. wanced more s blodtt 11.4% .,, WU OIOPJ>Od o ...... ., Tra.nsretred fi'Om but """' I 21.0% .,, !>er 0.0% nfa fate P.ayment T)'Pe Cash 80.2'1' '" ____ ) 1 4.1Y. ""' Euy R_. (tO.Ride Punel'l Pala } 1 2.5% .,, Ridet ( 40.Rldt """" Patt) ...... "'' ""'""' 6.5% .,, Oltlet ( 1 0"""" Ago p.,,l 3.6% .,. T (j> Orlg n ...... 53. 8 % nle ..... 13. 7 rJa ........ 1 3 .1% ... ..... ria 7 .7% "' VISIIfnglftecteation o t % n4 Other 7 S % ,,. 44

PAGE 77

MCA T Rider Satisfaction Information The quality of MCAT service was determined through a variety of questions tha t required ride rs to rate their perception of specific: aspects of MCAT servlce as well as overall service quality The strengths and weakne sses of the system were Identified as perceived by patron s from a list of discrete responses that ranged from "very good" to ''very poor In addition, an average (me an ) score was calcula ted for each service aspect using the numerical values ass i gned to the rating syst em (The mean scores are presented in Table 1-2 4 for eac h of the ra ted system aspects.) For exam ple using the numerical value assignmen t s an average or mean score of one (1.00 or "v ery go od") indica tes a hi g h e r degree of rider satisf a cti on than a me a n score of f?ur ( 4.00 or poor"). The numerical value assignments for determining the averages are shown in Table 1-23 Figures 1-22 through 1-33 illustrate the MCAT rider satisfact i on data from the 19 94 on-board survey. Also, Tab le 1-2 4 shows a compar iso n of the rider satisfaction data, when possible, obtained from the 1994 and 1990 MCAT surveys. Table 1-23 Rating System Numerical Values St-C-NI.JITIMcll v.ue Vtry Gcocl 1 Oood 2 ,.,, 3 Poor 1/Wy POOl 6 MCAT Rider Satisfaction Summary MCA T' s service received v ery favorable rat i ng, with 80 percent of the M CAT ri ders s urveyed rating service as either"very good" or "good." ln addit ion to the favorable overall rat i ng of MCAT service riders also rated operator courtesy (89. 1 percent), personal safety on the bus and at bus stops (86.9 percent), and vehicle cleanliness and comfort (84.6 percent ) as either "ve ry good" or "goo d." Thes8 favorable ratings ind ic at e that the vast majority of M CAT ride rs feel very positive about t he overall quality of MCAT service. 45

PAGE 78

Very Good Good Fair Poor Vtry Poot 0% Very Good Good Folr Very Good Good Fllr Poor Very Poor 46 Flgure1 -22 D1y1 of S.rvlee .... Flgure1-23 HOUI'I of S.rvk:e Flgure1 24 Frequency of S.rvlce 80% 80%

PAGE 79

Vory Good Good F air Very POOf ... Vory Good Goo d Fai r Poor Very Poor 0% Very Good Good Fair Poor VoryPoor ... Figure 1 25 Conven i ence of Routes -Figure 1-26 Dependability of Buses 40% Figure 1 27 Travel Time on Bus .. ,. 4 7

PAGE 80

F l gure1-28 Coat of R i d ing Bus V'f Good Good Ftir pVry Poor 0% -80% Flgure1 -2 9 Ava i lability of Bua Route Information VoryGood Folr Vef*t Poor -Figure 1-30 Vehicle Clunune .. and Comfort VY Good Ftir .... ... 48

PAGE 81

Very Good Good Falr Poor Figure 1-31 Operator Courtesy Very Poor B1B% 0% Very Good Good Falr Poor Very Poor Very Good Good Fair Very Poor 40% Figure 1-32 Safety On Bus and At Bus Stops Figure 1 Overall Quality of Service 80% 40% ..... 49

PAGE 82

50 Table 1-24 Rider Satisfaction Comparisons of 1994 and 1990 MCAT On-Board Surveys Category Vety GOOd GOOd Vory GOOd Good Poor Very Poot Vy Good GOOd Poor Very POOt Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor V ery Good Good Poor Vflr'(Poor 19'94 MCAT On-Board Surv ey 1990 MCAT On.Boerd $l.lt\tty .2.9% 38.8% t3,S% 2 $% 2.2% Hours of Sttvice { mNn = 2 233 ) 2$. 6% 35.0% 22 4% 8 .3% 4.7% 39,9% 16.6% 2.2% 30.1% S0.1% 27.3% 9.4% 3.1% FrtQI.IIfiCY of $entiCe (mean = 2.222) 27.5% ... 0% 22.2% 6.2% 5 .0% 28.7% 34 .4% 23.0% 9.0% 4.9% Conlf"&ttlenoe of Rovtea (mNn = 2.012} 3 5.7% 38,4% 17,8% 5.2% 2.8% nta nta .,. nla or Buses (mean a 2.1 75) 1'9 1% ... .,. 22.4% 6.6% 3.6% 2.5.4% 38 .2% 27.3% 0.2% 1.9%

PAGE 83

Tabl e 1-2A (continued) Rider Satisfa c tion Comparisons of 1994 and 1990 MCAT on-Board Surveys very Good Good fair """' ""' """' Vy Good Good F air Poo' very Poor ""'Good Good ""' Very Poor Very Good Good Fair Very Good Good Fair .... 1/e
PAGE 84

Table 1-24 (continued) Rider Satisfaction Comparisons of 1994 and 1990 MCAT On-Board Surveys CalOgO
PAGE 85

MCAT OPERATOR SURVEY In addition to the on-board survey completed tiy the riders, a survey was also prepared for the MCAT bus operators Since bus operators are in direct contact with passengers they are an invaluable source of infonnation concerning MCAT's dally operations. A copy of the operator survey i s contained in Appendix B. A total of 11 surveys were returned by the operators . The most frequent rider complaints expressed to the operators are presented In Table 1-26. The two most common complaints were routes not taking the m w here they want to go and buses arriv ing l a t e The riders also compl ained about infrequent service, lack of rater evening service, the low number of benches/shelters, J ack of Sunday service, and high fares. For the most part, the operators felt that the riders' complaints were valid as shown in Figure 1 -3 4 Table 1-27 shows where the operators believe improvements should be made. Almosi all of the oper ators expressed a need for more time in their schedules. More than half said that more maintenance i s needed for the buses. The operation of Sunday service lower fares and reduct i on of headways were the other major concerns expressed by the bus operators Operators were also asked about potential safety prob lems on MCA rs routes Seven operators said that there were no safety problems and two said that they are forced to speed to maintain t heir schedu les A number of other potential safety hazards were also mentioned by t he operators, as illustrated in Table 1-28. Eight operators responded t_hat Route 4 was espe cially d i fficult to maintain on time, as shown in Table 1-29. Route 8 was menti oned by seven operators as being hard to maintain No other routes were mentioned more than two times. The drivers were asked what routes should be modified and why; their responses are indicated in Table 1-30. The common change mentioned was having more time In their schedules Two operators said that more time is needed on all the routes and one operator exclusively mentioned nee d ing more time on Route 4. Route 4 wa s mentioned several times as needing some kind of modification No other modification was mentioned more than once by the oper a tors. The majority of drivers felt that night service and Sunday service were not needed Of the 11 operators surveyed, only four suggested night service and four suggested Sunday service. This Information i s presented in Table 1-31. 53

PAGE 86

Table 1-26 Moat Frequent Passenger Complaints about MCAT Identified by Bus Operators -,,. ( ' Prtortty,,sc.,.1 : # 'j>f;llfJpO ..... .; /'/ Bus doesn't go where I want 39 9 Bus i s late 31 9 I nfrequent service 26 7 Need evening service 25 8 No bus shelters/benches 17 4 Need Sunday service 16 7 Fare is too high 15 6 Bus schedule too hard to understand 12 4 Route/destination not clear 11 4 Bus i s not comfortable 11 3 Eating or drinking on bus 4 2 Security 3 3 Bus leaves stop too earty 3 2 Bus is not clean 2 2 Passengers cannot get information 2 2 Smoking on bus 2 2 Travel time from Washington Park to Court House 1 I 1 'Five points for each first priority ranking, down to one point for fiflh priority rank.ilg. Figure 1-34 Validity of Passenger Complaints as Reported by Bus Operators 54 Some 36.4% No Answe r 9.1% Yes 54. 5%

PAGE 87

T a ble 1-27 Impro vement Area s f o r M C AT Identi fied by B u s O p era t o rs Maintain more 24 6 Put shelters at bu s 19 5 Lowe r the fares 16 6 service 14 4 Reduce 11 4 More buse s and more routes 5 1 Elim i nate transfers 5 1 P r o v ide better ro u te/schedule i nfo r mation 4 2 serv i ce 4 1 Direct route t o Court H o use from Park 4 1 new s m aller ve h icles 2 2 'Ftve points for each first prlority ranking, down to one p oint for fifth p rior lly rankin9 T a bl e 1-28 MCAT Safety Prob le ms Identified by Bu s O perat o rs 2 P oor at on 1 A t Av e E. in Ell e nton, tum int o Coast FactOry S tore s the peo p l e on th e d i rt road have t he a n d m o toris t s atte n tion. 1 the bus and c r oss the stree t f ront of the bus 1 5 5

PAGE 88

Table 1-29 Routes with Schedule Problems Identified by Bus Operators Ma:intaiiJ 1,. Route 4 8 Route 8 7 Route 6 2 Route 5 2 Route 3 2 Route 2 2 Route 1 2 Route 10 1 Route 9 1 Table 1-30 MCAT Routes to Modify Identified by Bus Operators Need more t ime on all routes 2 6 Extend to the beach 1 5 Should on beach 1 4 Need more time i n schedule 1 4 Should not instead 1 4 Should 1 3 Should Route 4) 1 3 1 1 There should be two buses 1 Should service to Anna Mana Is. and Longboat Key 1 Table 1-31 Ruponse to Questions 7 and 8 MCAT Operator Survey IL: :: '''Ql ' <' ... ),.;: .:2 i: j.' ",}.f;,: ;; '' ... .. Is n ight service necessary? 4 7 Is Sunday service necessary? 4 7 56

PAGE 89

FOCUS GROUPS WITH NON-USERS Focus groups non-users provide highly useful information to a system. Current non users represent the potential riders of the system, and their perceptions and observations provide insight as to how the transit system is viewed among the general public. In addition, their opinions can provide the transit system with suggestions for improving service and increasing ridership. The focus groups are intended to provide cert!lin qualitative information regarding the transit system by promoting open-ended discussions Two focus group sessions for non-users were scheduled in Bradenton for residents who had not used the system in at least the past six months The first meeting was scheduled at noon on Tuesday, November 15, 1994. Invited participants in this first session included representatives from the Manatee County Citizens' Action Center. A second focus group was scheduled for 6 p.m. on the same day; however, possibly due to inclement weather because of Tropical Storm Gordon, none of the Invited participants (whose names were randomly selected from the area telephone directory), was able to attend. The meetings were intended to provide valuable Information regarding the impressions and attitudes non-users harbor about public transit i n Manatee County. Appendix D contains the outline used to facilitate the discussions Assessments The focus group outcome indicated that one of the main reasons the transit system in Manatee County is not used by more riders is the inconvenience. For many people, it is simply more convenient to drive their automobiles to get to work or to run errands. Some of the complaints were that the nearest bus stop is too far to be convenient, and that the frequency of the bus service is not satisfactory. It was mentioned that a reasonable wait time is considered to be about 15 minutes. A second reason for non-use was the lack of information about the system. Information regarding the route destinations was reported as not readily available. Furthermore, it was not clear how to get the necessary information regarding the fares and the operating hours Overall awareness of the bus system was very low. The existing route maps and schedules were confusing to those who had seen them. Another factor affecting the level of ridership was related to cost. During the focus group discussion one respondent noted that it Is cheaper to drive than to take the bus, especially since free parking downtown is available However despite all the criticism, it was indicated that the 57

PAGE 90

bus rid e can be r ea sonab l y relaxing a nd it w ould probably be a more v i able giv e n that a ll other prob lems about the s yste m are resolved Positi ve comments about MCAT included that the buses look clean, the system is safe, and the bus can be a somewhat relaxing way to travel. These positive perceptions did not outweigh con cerns regarding frequen cy, convenience, and inform a tion, but did suggest a foundation for inc reased support and utilization Suggestions On e of the quest ions addressed in the focus group discussion was how to improve the transit s y st em and what enhancements or improvements would attract more riders The Issu e of which factors make transH more appealing in other cHies wa s also discussed Answers in clude d : more clos ely spaced bus stop s; greater d is incentives for driving an automobile such as expensive and scarce parking in downtown areas ; and community peer pressure" to encou rage more people to use the transit system Incre a sing the frequency of servioe and lo we ring fares (so tha t taking the bus w ould become ch eaper than driving) are be lie ved to be h elp ful I n Incr easing th e ridership of M CA T Having more closel y spaced bus sto ps and better in formation dissemination were among other suggestions. Moreover, a marketing program and/or a v isible spo kesperson w ould also help to Increas e awareness about the transit system Other s ystems have had some s uccess i n Increasin g awaren es s through th e use of mascots Another suggestion was to provide "group ori ented services such as a lunch shuttle going to the mall or a shuttle going to t he be ach 58

PAGE 91

INTERVIEWS WITH KEY LOCAL OFFICIALS An import ant element In the preparation of a TOP is the identification of opi nions and perceptions of local officials and the general public A community s view of the system provides Insight in determining wh ether the current system' s goa l s and p erformance match ci tizens' expectations of a public tra nsa system. Also, the way In which transit is viewed can significan tly Influe nce the priority that is g i ven to public transit and othe r related transportation issues. Interviews with key local offi ci als and community leaders are seen as an essent ial component of the transit deve l opment plann i ng process, since such persons are usually responsible for policy formulation and the allocation of fund ing. MCA T compile d a list of key officials to interv iew re presenting Ma na tee County, the cities of Bradenton and Bradenton Beach, the area business community, and several community service organizations. CUTR condu c ted a total of 13 intervie ws in October and November 1994. This section summa riles the results of these interv i ews during wh ich the officials' impress ions o f the current transit system as well as thoughts about the system s future were discussed The synopsis is organized under three topics: percept i ons improvemen ts and po licy issues. Also included in Appendix D is an outline of questions that were used in the interv i ews Perceptions Over the past few years the overall perception of MCAT has improved, even if only slightly. However a few of the in tervi ewees did not be lieve that the perception of the system had ch a nged at a ll recently Many intervi ewees no t ed that MCAT ha s not attracted the discretionary rider A t this time, according to d i Scuss ions in the interviews, it seems that the only ri ders of the transit system are those who depend on the s y ste m for basic person a l mobliHy: predominantly those w ith lower I ncome and the elder l y. One Interviewee ventured to guess that most o f the transH trips are to and from workp laces, r ather than leisure tri ps. Some commented that more part-time residents, or "sno wb ird s ,'' utilize the system during the winter while during the summer months ridership to the beaches increases However ne arly everyone in t erviewed stated that a t a ny given time the buses are almost never full Ridership on the system has been discouragingly low. M os t of those interviewed mainta in ed that there is at least some awareness of M CAT in the communit y, although the awarenes s does not seem to translate into ridership Ma ny 59

PAGE 92

interviewees contended tha t the l a nd use patterns and lo w density of Manatee County a r e not conducive to widespread transit use. Most peop l e can get to wherever they need to go more easily i n their own cars than I f they were to take a bus Wrth the current system, there is the perception that people just are not able to travel where they want to go. Also some of those Interviewed noted that MCA T does not serve all of Manatee County: service is either very limited or nonexistent in more rural or outlying areas of the county. However. the interviewees realize that there are constraints on service availability Many o f the officia l s be li eved that i nformation such a s route maps and schedu les is avail able for those who do utilize M CA T In addi1ion much of the in formation i s spread by w ord-of-mouth, so newcomers to the area or those who have never used the system but wish to s tart may not know where to find the information. Also, many elderly riders disl ik e having' to transfer and somet imes do not clearly understand the information regarding transferring from route to route MCAT does some advertising, but it is the opinion of many interviewees that the system does not promote itself enough Some noted that in the past few years the transit syst em has inaeased its marketing efforts in order to increase a wareness and visibility throughout the service area It was t he perception of a considerable majority of those intervie wed that MCAT I s operating quite well considering its limited available resources : many of the system s "problems" are due simpl y to a lack of money T he management is considered to be approachable and comprised of "good listeners" who try to respond to the needs of the community. The slow service reported by some officials who have ridden the system i s a funcUon of the route structure and the infre quency of service Th i s group of interviewees believed that the schedu les are adequate, and that the system is serv ing those who really n eed the service at l east i n the more densely popu l ated areas of the county Only a small number of interv i ewees believed that M CAT i s a completely ineffective system which is not serving those who truly need it and has routes that do not go where people want to go (and if they do, it takes too long to get there) They felt that MCAT has not adapted to the needs of the community : one person referred to the system as a "dinosaur. However, nearly all of the interviewees agreed that the transrt rare i s reasonab l e, the buses are clean and well m a intained ( although they are not considered to be too attractive, at least to two of the interviewe es ), and the drivers are capab l e well-trained and generally courteous (though not overly friendly). Another strength is th at the system was complet ely access ible to wheelcha irs well before it was required by the Americans wit h 0\sabilil\es Act (ADA). 60

PAGE 93

The bus system is wl6ely considered to be safe by the interviewees. However, many see a perception of safety problems among poiential riders. Some people associate the buses crime, an d thus have higher safety concerns whether or not such concerns are valid Another major reason why MCA T does not attract more riders is people's love of their automobiles. Many of the interviewees remarked that people, including seniors highly value the in dependence that goes along with driving a car. An additional factor that keeps drivers in their cars is that traffic congestion in the area is not enough of a hindrance to driving alone. While some of those Interviewed believed congestion to be more of a problem than others, nearly all agreed that traffic problems are not serious enough to entice people to co nsider alternatives such as the bus system. Congestion is perceived to be troublesome only at certain times and in certain places. For example, almost all interviewees stated that during the Winter tourist season, when part-time residents and other visitors come to the county, traffic congestion does increase significantly. Specifically, congestion is more prevalent on the beaches, U.S. 41, and Cortez Road Parking is not seen as a major problem at this time, with a few exceptions. Some see parking on the beaches as difficult, due to visitors and the narrow roads. Also in the downtown Bradenton area, some interviewees believed a problem exists, while others asserted that parking is ample as well as quite inexpensive. People tend to tum to what is most convenient: with cheap, readily available parking, commuters have little incentive to alter their hab i ts of driving alone. From the interviews, there were indications that congestion and parking hassles will worsen as the county continues to experience growth. Some of those interviewed complained that planning has been inadequate in accommodating current and future traffic needs. A few interviewees observed that leaders hip seems to be lacking as far as long-term transportation planning is concerned. Most see the majority of the growth spreading to more rural areas in the eastern and southern portions of the county There is development a l ong Interstate 75, around State Road 70 and University Parkway. Some growth is also occurring In the northeastern part of the county, through Ellenton. The city of Bradenton is "boxed in" by the rest of the county; however, according to one interviewee it is estimated that the city will peak in s ize around the year 2015 at a population of approximately 58,000. 61

PAGE 94

The interviewees were generally supportive of transportation demand management (TOM) measures (such as transit or carpooling/vanpooling) in principle, but concurred that it is difficult to persuade people to stop driving their cars and try the alternatives, even on a part-time basis. Most agreed that more incen tives are needed to entice drivers to undertake commute options. Currently, the county is working on matching potential carpoolers or vanpoolers. However, many of those intervie wed do not think Manatee County is ready for widespread adoption of any of these alternatives. Interviewees were also asked about their perceptions of the role of public transit In Manatee County Nearly all maintained that transit should benefit the citizens of the county by providing transportation, especially to the elderly, the working class, and others in need. Priority should be given to residents first, then to visitors to the area. Transit should be provided as a social service, and people should know that a system is available for their use. A few mentioned that a bus system could have a hand in reducing congestion on the roads. Several of those interviewed believed that in addition to serving the needy, the transit system should look for ways to provide access to everyone One of the interviewees commented that the role of the officials should be to approach transit planning in a "site-specific" manner when examining service needs. In tenns of goals for MCAT the majority of interviewees agreed that the system should operate where the greatest needs are, that MCAT should become a viable alternative for anyone in the county, and finally that the system should work toward being able to pay for itself to a greater extent. Many of those interviewed, however, did not believe that the current system is best serving those who need service, especially in the outlying areas of the county. They realize, however, that this is a function of the lack of resources. Still areas that are underserved (or not served at all) but are believed to have a need for some transit service in clude Parrish, Tallevast, Rubonia, and Myakka City. Also, some in dustrial parks in the central and southem parts of the county are underserved. A small group of those interviewed agree that these areas are underserved but would never consider extending service to them due to a high cost-benefit ratio. Most of the intervi ewees agreed that transit is not as high a priority as it could be People see the need for the service, but are not necessarily interested in supporting it through additional taxes. There seems to be a willingness to sustain the funding, but not to increase it. One interviewee stated that if MCAT can show it can better develop and improve itself, then people might be more willing to additionally fund the system. However, several other interviewees concurred that without Increased fund in g it will be nearly impossible for the system to develop or improve significantly. 62

PAGE 95

As for the possibility of us i ng a percentage of a $0 05 local option gas tax for trans i t purposes approximately one-half of those interviewed would definitely support or consider supporting it. One Interviewee noted that such a tax would be an "excellent tool" in the development of MCA T. The remainder of the interviewees would not support a percentage for the transit system, and would rather see the money go to road improvements and highways. One intervi ewee remarked that for such a tax to be approved, citizens would have to be educated as to exactly how the money would be spent. Improvements A successful transit system must determine i ts market, determine the needs of that market, and then provide the service to best meet those needs. For MCAT, those Interviewed expressed many ideas for improving th e current system Some suggested that MCAT has not effectively Identified its market, and therefore has notdetermined the transit needs of the community One intervie wee proposed that the current system be "scrapped" and rebu ilt from ab solute zero." Others believed that, as a means to a ll ocate resources to best serve the public the route structure should be reexam i ned. In addition resources should be shifted from non-performing" routes to performing routes w hile expanding if and where necess ary One int ervie wee suggested utilizing shuttles from outlying areas to a more concentra ted central route structure. This person noted that MCAT tries to serve such a large area, that the routes are limited and frequency is low. The system shou ld be able to Increase frequency if some of the routes become smaller and more centralized: this may help boost riders hip. Also some of those interviewed said that MCA T should consider using smaller vehicles, as they would use less fuel require l ess maintenance and take up less space on the roads However others stated that the utilizat i on of smaller buses would have a negli gib l e effect on expenses Many i nterviewees believed that MCAT should examine whether to Increase service hours or possibly implement service on Sundays. Others advised that the placement of bus stops should be carefully studied, and nearly all recommended ensuring that each stop has at l east a bench, and that shelters be erected at most stops To attract and retain riders, MCAT shoul d ensure that those who wait atthe stops are comfortable and shielded from adverse weather conditions. To ent i ce people to use the system it must become more cost-effective than driv i ng alone One way this could be done is to I ni t iate an express bus service, possibly to and from Industrial parks or other employment centers within the county. One person proposed a program to match workers to transit routes by first distinguishing those who would be Interested, and then 63

PAGE 96

i dentifying those within one-ha l f block of bus stops Several intervie wees a l so thought that par1< and-ride l ots shou l d a lso be considered. A few believed that a trolley serv i ce along the beaches with access from a par1<-andride lot would be an attractive to driving to the beach. A proposal for such a system was turned down a few years ago, but some hope to see the issue raised again in the near future. Another means of i nducing ridership, according to one i nterviewee, would be to requ ire those who have l ost their driver's li censes (du e to OUts etc ) to uti l ize the bus system and to show passes or tickets as proof of transportation Still another suggestion enta i led a program for students to use MCA T instead of the school buses ( espec i a ll y s ince many of the transit routes are along school bus routes) This would help promote ridership on the system wh ile also saving the school system money A common recommendation was to increase mar1
PAGE 97

Polley Issues of Local Concern Many of the interviewees discussed policies that wou l d encourage the use of trans i t and other commute alternatives For example, encouraging large r area businesses to implement carpooling programs was suggested I t was wide l y agreed that in order to persuade commuters to carpoo l or use transit, clear incent i ves are necessary. Some maintained that it is the responsibi l ity of the local government to set the example by encouraging the use of transit and other TOM measures. Then, adoption of these ideas by private groups and the rest of the citizens will follow. Privatization of transit services was also addressed by several interviewees. It was bel i eved that by contracting out for motorbus services, MCAT would be able to focus on its demand-response service which is generally regarded as the system s greatest strength. Many think such a move would be very cost-effective and could be the solution to many of the problems with the current system There were a few, however, who feH that s i nce privatization has failed in Manatee County once before, i t has already proven not to be the answer for this system. In addition, some of those interviewed would like to see a more regional approach to transportation p l ann i ng One suggested exploring the possibility of a monorail system linking airports and urban areas. Nearly all of those interviewed acknowledged that everyone must work t ogether to ensure positive development of MCAT including county officia l s, city officials, those affiliated with community and social services the business community, and the general pub l ic It was often stated that better communication between county and city officials, specifically would facilitate improvements within the transit system Local officials and representatives of the community recognize that funding is llmHed and realize that the r e is scant public support for trans i t Some believe they have a responsibility to make MCAT a higher priority and l ead the community s education about transit's advantages. Raising awareness of the need to consider alternative forms of transportation is becoming i ncreasingly important as Manatee County grows Summary To summarize, those who were Interviewed freely shared their opinions and perceptions about public transit in Manatee County, as we ll as othe r transportation-re l ated topics The overall 65

PAGE 98

impressions of MCA T were mixed. A few of those interviewed be li eved that the system is ineffective and inefficient, and that perhaps the question of whether the system should even exist should be examined The rest of the interviewees felt more pos i t i ve about the current system and pra i sed MCAT for utilizing scarce r eso u rces intelligently : they observed that the system is doing its best to meet the needs of the community despite i ts constraints Many agreed that more money should be allocated to transit but also real i zed that actua ll y secu ri ng the funding is extremely difficult. Allowing for funding the interviewees all contributed many different suggestions for the improvement of MCAT. One of the most common responses was the analysis of the route structu r e. Many saw more direct routing, or routing to different locations, as the highest priority in the development of the system P l acing benches at all stops was also regarded as a priority. a l ong w i th the addition of shelters at most stops. Attract i ng discret i onary riders should be another priority. MCA T may better be able to do this by more aggress i vely and creatively marketing to b u si nesses and the general publ i c. Also educat i on about the system and its advantages, for local decision-makers as well as potential riders, was also seen as essential for the successful future of MCAT. 66

PAGE 99

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The identification of goals and objectives for a transit system is a fundamental step ln the development of a TOP Th i s chapter summarizes the po licy i ssues identified i n discuss ions that CUTR held with community leaders the TOP Review Committee transit staff and the general publ i c. The is s ues highlighted during these discuss i ons f orm the basi s for the proposed goa l s for MCAT In add ition, this list of goals was supplemented by an examination of existing translt relate d policies assembled from the Manatee County Comprehe nsive Pla n an on-board survey of passengers, and a survey of MCAT bus operators. The transit-related poli cies assemb led from the Manatee County Comprehen sive Pla n are presented in Appendix E along with a brief sta tement identifying w here they are incorporated into the proposed goals for MCA T MCAT GOALS The proposed goals for M CAT are the result of an approach design ed to solicit input from an array of community interests As previously mentioned numerou s interviews w ere conducted with key local offi cia ls and other transportation prov iders as part of this process The information gathered from the focus group meeting held with non-transit users were Incorporated as well. A goal-settin g workshop conducted with the TOP Review Committee, which has oversight respons i b ili tie s for the development ofthi s TOP proved particularly helpfu l i n the fina l summation of the proposed goals I n addit i on staff members of MCA T provided input during the goal sett i ng process. The proposed goals focu s on five In terrelated policy areas Important to the effective operation o f a transit system. Thes e Include: Availability and efficiency of service; Passenger amenities and marketing ; Transportation pla nn i ng coord i nation ; Funding; a nd Public involvemen t process 67

PAGE 100

Table 2 1 presents the proposed goa l s along with t h eir corresponding policy objectives. Each p olicy objective outlined in the table addresses in a broad policy context actions to be taken in o rder t o achieve the stated goa l. Goa/1: Participate In and Ensure Availability of an Effective Public Transportation System that Safely and Efficiently Moves People Throughout, In, and Out of Manatee County This goal focuses on the quality and accessibility aspects of the existing system and the potential to enhance the transit system The policy objectives under thi s goal address several of the major issues brought forth during discussions of the system such as I ncreasing the service span and frequency of service identifying the appropriate service area monitoring overall and route leve l performance to maintain/improve efficiency, and ensuring the safest poss i ble transit serv i ce. Goa/2: Provide New and Maximize the Use of Existing Quality Passenger Amenities to Enhance Bus Service and Attract Discretionary Riders In order to maintain existing riders and have the ability to attract the d i scret i onary rider transit systems must provide amenities which increase the riders' ease of utilizing the system as we ll as the i r level of comfort These amenities include shelters and benches, information kiosks and community outreach/education programs. Another major component of this goal is the intensification of marketing efforts to increase the v i sibility of MCAT. By increasing the amount of publi cized informat i on for routes and schedu l es and hiring a full time public relations coordinator to assist in the community outreach programs MCA T may be able to increase community awareness of the transit system and, in tum, increase ridership. Goa/3: Coordinate the Transit System and Its Improvements with Transportation Planning Efforts of All Government Entities T his goal focuses on the coordination of plann i ng efforts with other transportat i on providers and public agencies. The objectives of this goal emphasize a coordinated process for service planning I n the county s projected growth areas the planning and construct i on of bus stops and other amenit ies that improve accessibility. and the formulation of intermodal strateg i es. 68

PAGE 101

Goal4: Provide a Transit Systenithat i!i, td the Extent Possible, Financially Feasible by Securing Adequate Funding This goal focuses most important ly on !he lo ng term financial feasibility of MCAT Securing a dei;licated funding source and initiating sheHer and bus exterior advertising programs were discussed as important activities needing to be accomplished during the five-year time period of the TOP to achieve this goal. GoalS: Establish a Proactive Public Involvement Process The fifth and final goal calls for increased public inv olvement in the transit planning process. It is important that the public i s given complete information regarding transit lssues and Is afforded the opportunity to voice opinions concerning transit plans and improvement programs. I t would also benefrt MCAT to seek the guidance of experts in the field in optimizing the services it provides. The goals and policy objectives presented in this technical report reflect the strategic focus 9f the transit development plan and are purposely designed to address the broad concepts of transit system operation that were identified during the goal-setting process Consequently, the policy objectives range in their level of specificity. It is envisioned that these goals and objectives will p rov ide the framework from which MCAT can develop measurable objectives. 69

PAGE 102

Table 2 1 MCAT Goals Provide the ufe&t possible transit s e rvice; include safety provisions for pedestn.ns and bicyclists at a a transit facil ities Identify the appropriate service area fo.r MCAT. Provide tra nsit service that meets demand and needs. Optimize the ttansk system and facilities, for both ftxed.Joute and p11r1traMit operations. to provide c urrent level of service or better throughout the area. Incre ase frequency of s ervice on most cong-es.ted corridors and busie&t routes. Reconfigure system routing ro reduce n&ed to transfer Provide program and e xpress bos urvtce. Maintain. inprove, or expand servioel to major intennodal facilities, terminals, employment centers, activity centers, parks, recreational aren, cultural facilities, and social and medicaJ facilities. Continue to monitor overall system perfOrmance as wei as lndlvldu,al route performance. Provi!H a nerwortt of reasooabie transi and paratransit connections to counlies adjacent to Manatee County Compl"f wlh a l l ADA cequi rements: improve access to transit for persons with disabiities. o Provide adequate tran.sit and paratransit Mrvice to accommod a te h u rricane evacuation req u irements ResearCh the reasibllity of u.sing alternative fu e ls. .. o Provide bu.s shelters with infonnation kiosks and/or at highly us.ed bus stops and locations. o lnc rea.se the avaiability of and effectively disttl>ute rou t e and schedule infonnation. Continue the community outreach/ e ducation program for transit. o Provide and improve an Customer Information System ; investigate the use of automated t&ehnology. o Continue to lnereue the v is ibility of MCAT through martl:eting efl'orts o Hire a full--tim& public r elation s coordinator. o COntinue to coof'dinate transit HfVices with othef transportation providers in and adjacent to Manal&e County. . .. .. . ... ...... t . .. . .. . . m ... ;:;: 70 I n itiate planning to provide service in pro;ec:ted growth ar e u of the county. o Cootdlnate with local governments tor the construction of aooesU>Ie sidewalks, bus stops, and other bus stop improvements. Coordinate with s tate and local transportatiOn agencies for the e arly inclusio n of transit amenities in the planning prooe-ss. Integrate trans.it needs into the land ISM p&annln g and development prooesa Coordinate and encourage Wrtermodal s t rategies that leuen the dependency on vehicles. o Secure a Jongtenn dedicated fUnding source for the tran sit syst e m. Initiat e a shelter advertising program lntensltt the bus advertising program (supetgraphiCS on a l l buses) o Plan to develop m a nage, operate, and maintain, to the extent possi)le, a CO$IfeJ.sible trans.il system. : : .. ,.;; : ...... :; .. o Provide early and continuing opportunities for the public to express view& that rel a te to nnsit plans and improvement programs and projec:ta. Provide complete information about transit issues, adequate public notioe of t ime and place, a n d full public ae" to open public meetings where matters celat e d to transit programs are being con&idered. : Allow tiTle for public review and comment at key decision point s in the transit planning process.. o U t ilize public and expert opinion s abou t the overall quality and freQuency of transit services In optimizing fixe
PAGE 103

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER THREE Performance Evaluation of Existing Service This third chapter summarizes the resuHs of the performance evaluation of Manatee County's transit system, which is a fundamental task in the development of the TOP. The performance evaluation was conducted in two parts. For the first part, a trend analysis was conducted which represents the system's performance over a six-year time perio d (198!1 through 1994). Then, a fiXed-route peer review analysis was conducted. This peer review compares the performance of Manatee County's system with that of other selected Florida and non-Florida peer transit systems for the 1993 fiscal year. The Purpose ot'Performance Review S i nce performance analysis is only one method of evaluating performance and is limited to those aspects included in \he analysis, the reader sh?uld exercise considerable caution in interpreting the results.' These analyses are particularly strong in reviewing cost effectiveness and efficiency; however, they do not report on the extent to which other objectives of the transit system are being fulfilled For example the performance evaluation will not directly measure several relevant considerations such as passenger satisfaction with regard to levels of service, taxpayer and public attitudes toward the agency, employee morale, success in attaining minority hiring or contracting goals, quality of planning, contributions to economic development, air quality improvements, or other goals that may be i mportant to the agency. Also, several aspects of quality of service are not measured in performance reviews. These inc lude vehicle cleanliness and comfort; operator courtesy; on-time p erformance ; quality of marketing and passenger information support; and level of satisfaction with hours of operations, frequency of service and geographic coverage of the service. In addition to understanding the limits of this analysis, the reader should use caution in Interpreting the meaning of the various measures. The performance review does not necessarily provide information regarding which aspects of performance are within control of the agency and which measures are not. Figure 3-1 is a schematic of the factors that ultimately affect transit agency performance 71

PAGE 104

Perfonnance re vi ews are a us e fu l a n d i mportant t o ol in monijoring and i mproving transit system perfonnance. Ho wever, be recognized t h a t the resuHs of trend and peer an a lyses are only a starting point fo r fully understand i ng the perfonnance of transit systems The iss ues Identified as a result of the analyses provide the basis for a series of questions that can lead to an enhanced understanding of the "hows" and ''whys" of system perfonnance Figure 3 1 Factors Affecting Transit Perfonnance 72

PAGE 105

Performance Review Data Base To receive federal funds transit properties are required to report a variety of data In a standardized format resul ting In what is known as a Section 15 report. These documents provide standardized measures of reporting that enable a more accurate comparison of information between properties Since 1979, when this reporting requirement was instituted, additional refinements in data collectlon and reporting have incre ased the accura cy and comparab ili ty of the data The data are for the fiscal year used by each transit sys t em For Florida properties the fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30. For other properties the fiscal year may be d i fferent. Data Reliability-All Section 15 data submitted to the Federal Transit Admin istra t ion (FTA) are subject to considerable review and validation through manual and automated methods. Each report Is thoroughly examined to identify errors questions, and inconsistencies FTA identifie s problems and requires each reporting agency to respond to these problems before the final report is accepted For t h i s study, data were taken from published summary reports of Section 15 data !Jnd from I ndividual Section 15 reports provided by the transit agencies for fiscal year 1993 MCA T s trend analysis also makes us e of preliminary FY 1994 Section 15 data, though it has not yet undergone FTA s validation process. With the exception of data on the inflation rate, all Information was provided by the transit systems CUTR did not collect any original data or conduc t any audits or onslte analyses of the data or data collection procedures . Data Definitions -To fu ll y unders1and the d ata presented i n Sectlon 15 reports i t is I mportant t o understand the defin i tions o f the terms used i n the documents In many ins ta nces, these definitions differ from i nitial perception s and may be subject to interpretat i on Appendix F prov ides a detailed list of definitions for selected terms used by FTA. The data collection procedures further specify exactly what is being referred to by a given term For exam ple, "passenger trip" refers to an Individual boarding a transit vehicle. A person riding a bus from the comer to the office takes one passenger trip to work and a second passenger trip to retum home Like wise a person transferring from one bus to another is considered to' be making two passenger trip s to get to h i s or her destination In sp i te of these definitions and continued refinements i n data collect i on procedures there r emain some discrep ancies between systems as t o ho w terms are defined and ho w informat i on is collected. Accord i ngly, caution should be used In interpreting findings, especially for those variables that are more likely to be s ubject to variation in definitions. One example includes how employees are categorized among 73

PAGE 106

adm in istrative, transportat ion, and maintenance tasks with in different agencies Other discrepancies can result from differences in the organizationa l structure of the agency and the allocation of respons ibilities among the various governmental entities w i thin the service area. For example, street sweeping and garbage pickup at par1<-and-ride and other transit facilities may be provided at no cost by a given jurisdiction or may be a cont ract or in-house cost of the transit system Legal services, computer services, engineering al"d design support, administrative support and other costs are often shared costs that may or may not be accurately allocated between the transit system and a parent governmental body The nation al i nflation ra t e as defined by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items (including commodities and services) from year to year. was used to deflate cost indicators so that they could be presented in real t erms. Over the past decade, service and labor costs tended to increase at a faster rate than did commodity prices Therefore, transit operating expenses which are predominantly comprised of service and labor costs : may be expected to increase somewhat faster than inflation even if the amount of service provide d did not i ncrease. Performance Indicators end Measures -The evaluation measure s that are used throughout the performance review are divided i nto three major categori es : performance i ndicators effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures Performance indicators report absolute data in the selected categories that are required by Section 15 reporting. These tend to be key indica tors of overall transit system performance Effectiveness measures typically refine the data further and indicate the extent to which various service-related goals are being attained For example passenger trips per capita is an indicator of the effectiveness of the agency in meeting transportati on needs Efficiency m easures involve review in g the level of resources (l abor or cos t ) required to achieve a given l evel of output. It is po ssible to have very effic i ent service that is not effective or to have highly effective service that i s not efficient. T he substantial amount of data available through Section 15 reporting provides an opportunity to develop a large number of measu res Sets of performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures that are believed to provide a good representation of overall transit system performance have been selected for th i s report. Table 3-1 lists the selected i ndicators a n d measures provided i n thi s report for fixed-route transit services and a lso provides subcategories where appropriate 74

PAGE 107

Table 3-1 Selected Performance Review Indicators and Measures Fixed-Route Transit Services service Area Population S.
PAGE 108

OVERVIEW OF SYSTEM MCAT is now a function of the Manatee County Department of Transportation and is governed by the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners MCAT provides public transportatio n services to the urbanized portions of Manatee County by operating fixed-route motorbus services and compl ementary demand-response transportation services. The syste m serves Bradenton, Palmetto, Anna Mari a Isl a nd, Longboat Key, and the Sarasota-Brad e nton International Airport. Figure 3 presents a route map ofthe system The perform a nce evaluat ion focuses on directly operated fixed-route serv ice; t h erefore the demand-response service is not induded in the trend or peer review analyses Appendix G provides inform at i on on major ex isting pub lic and private transportation serv ices in Manatee County. In order to present a basic overvie w of t he transit system, sel ected performance indica tors, effectiveness measures and efficiency measures are reported in Table 3-2. The source of the data is MCA T's validated FY 1993 Section 15 report and preliminary FY 1994 Section 15 data. Table 3-2 shows tha t be tw een 1993 and 1994 the amount of service provided by MCAT, as measu red by revenue miles s l ightly decreased one percent a nd the number of passenger trips increased five percent. IMth the slight dedine in s ervice operating expense decreased two percent. All of the decline in op era ting expense can be attributed to a 30 percent decrease In maintenance expense between 1993 and 1994, which resulte d from the influx of newer buses ove r the l ast two years. The decline in operat ing expense has resulted in an overa ll increa se in cpst efficiency as evidenced by the decline s in three operating expense ratios: ope rat ing expense per capita decreased five percent, operating expense per passenger trip decreased seven percent, and operating expense per revenue mile decreased one percent. Additionally the fa rebox recovery ra tio increased four percent from 16 .11 percent in FY 1993 to 16 70 percent in FY 1994 76

PAGE 109

. . : .... -: . .. 1 t/) s ., ::J 0 =I 0::: t/) I ::J I m I c 5 I ::J D 0 0 0 0 Q) s cv c cv ( :liE .. ) .'1 .. ,..: . . . : .' '! ,...; : ; ': --Ell-

PAGE 110

this page IS blank

PAGE 111

Table 3-2 Overview of MCATFiscal Yea,. 1 993 and 1994 183,484 187,831 +2% Service Area Size m iles ) 90 90 Passenger Trips 625 897 657 ,5.88 +5% Revenue Miles 533 6 93 527 ,013 -1% Total Operating Expense $1 556 944 $ 1,521, 500 -2% Total Maintenance Expense $205 ,192 -3 0% Operating Revenue $342,414 $364 562 +6% Total 29.60 28.42 Available for Maximum Service 18 14 22% Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service 9 9 Vehicle Miles Per Capita 3 00 2.91 -3% Passenger Trips Per Capita 3 .41 3.50 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 1 17 1.25 +6% Per Revenue Hour 18 .31 21.00 +16% Average Age of Fleet (in years) 5.06 521 +3% Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $2.49 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile $2 92 $289 1% Farebox Recovery 16.11% 16.70% +4% Revenue Hours Per 1,155 1 ,102 5% Passenger Trips Per Employee 21, 145 23 138 +9% Average Fare $0.40 $0.39 -4% NOTE : Appondilc. H lnc:ludeo MCI\T'I oomplete lrend data tab161 for fiocll 1994 79

PAGE 112

80

PAGE 113

F I XED-ROUT E TREND ANAL VSIS A fixed-route trend analysis for the years 1989 through 1994 was conducted to follow the performance of MCAT's direct l y-operated motorbus service over a six-year time period. Data used in this analysis are from MCA T's Section 15 reports as well as CUTR's completed Performance Evaluation of Florida Transit Systems reports for the years from 1989 to 1993. The 1994 data comes from MCA T's preliminary FY 1994 Section 15 report that has yet to be reviewed and validated by FTA Performance indicators and measures are grouped into categories and presented in tabular form (Tables 3-3 t hrough 3-9), a l ong with a brief discussion of the data. The percent change over the six-year trend period in each indicator and measure Is also shown in the tables. The trends are also i llustrated in Figures 3-3 through 3-21 Detailed trend data tables can be found in Appendix H for the years 1989 through 1994. In May 1989, MCAT entered into a one-year trial contract with Florida Trails, Inc., to provide p ersonnel and main t enance services for one fixed-route (Route 5) and one paratransit route, both of which had previously been directly operated. The fiXed-route service was reported in the pur c hased motorbus category in both the FY 1989 and FY 1990 Section 15 reports An evaluation of the service found that it was generally unsatisfactory, unreliable, and more costly. These find i ngs prompted the Board of County Commissioners to discontinue the program in May 1990 and return Route 5 (as well as the paratransit route) to directly-operated service. Consequently, beginning i n FY 1991, this rou t e was once a g ain reported In the directly-operated motorbus category. Even though the service data fo r this route were reported in the purchased motorbus category for FY 1989 and FY 1990, the data are included in this trend analysis since the route has always been inc l uded in MCA T's regular fixed-route service. 81

PAGE 114

Perfonnance Indicators Ridershi p and Level of Service As shown in Table 3-3 system total ridership on MeArs fixed-route motorbus system Incre ased 15 percent s i nce 1989, w ith the number of passenger trips I ncreasing from 571,509 In 1989 to 657, 588 in 1994. The l a rgest increase in ridership over the t rend period was between 1 990 and 1 991 with a nnu a l passenge r trip s increas ing by approx i mate l y 44, 000 trips Annua l ridership i ncreased by fiv e percent between 1993 and 1994 The trend is also shown in F i gure 3-3 The level of service as measured by system total revenue miles. decreased two percent over the six-year period as shown in T able 3 3 and Figure 3-4. Revenue miles decreased through FY 1991 then increased five percent in FY 1992 after continued to decline. Between 1993 and 1994, revenu e miles declined from 533 693 to 527,013, a decrease of approximately one percent. Table 3-3 MCA T Ridership and Level of Servic e .Yi,ii;;1 '"t T ripe . M llee ,, 1 989 571,509 538,426 1 990 592 ,429 525 ,698 1991 636 724 514 572 1992 643,169 541 288 1993 625 897 533 693 1994 657,588 527 013 % Charif18: ,989-1994, : 15% .. ' -2% 82

PAGE 115

' Figure 3-3 Passenger Trips ( 000) Figure 3-4 Revenue Miles (000) 83

PAGE 116

Expenses and Revenues Total operating expense rose 1 2 percent i n nom i nal terms between 1989 and 1994; however, operat ing expense declined nearly nine percent wh en adjusted for inflation as sho wn in Figure 3. The operating expense increased steadily over the first four years of the period (1989 thr ough 1992} expanding 23 percent during tho se ye ars However Table 3-4 shows that, after 1992. operating expense began to decrease each year Since 1989, m a int e nance e x pense for d i rectly-operated service h as fluctuated, as illu stra ted in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-6. After dec linin g between 1989 and 1990, maintenance expense incr eased si gnificantly (37 percent} between 1990 an d 1992, from $288,636 to $394,204. Since 1992, ma i ntenance expense has once aga in declined dropping approximately 4 8 percent between 1992 and 1994. Table 3-4 also shows that operating revenue which includes directly-operated passenger fare r evenues and, i n MCAT 's case n on-transporta tion revenues from directly -oper a ted se rvice i ncre ased 12 percent ove r the six-year pe riod. The major in crease evident in 1992 is due to a reporting of other system revenues i n this lin e code and does not occur in o ther years Th e trend for operating revenue is presented in Figure 37 Table 3-4 MCAT Expenses and Revenues Yar Openltlng exp;;.. Falntena nce ExpenM Operating Revenue 1989 $1, 354,403 $368 975 $282 948 1990 $1, 400,818 $288,636 $286,576 1991 $1,521,952 $332,681 $ 293,684 1992 $1,667,495 $394 204 $354,748 1993 $1,556,944 $293.654 $3 07 176 1 994 $ 1,521, 500 $205 192 $318.395 % Chana-19Do11N 12% -44% 12% NOTE: 'The trends fof maintenance txpei\M and revenue inc:Ude clitedty-opeta\ed mottJtbus dta only. no data were IVJilab5e for purc:ha.sect motorbus during tf'le two years i was operlt.d 84

PAGE 117

Figure 3-5 Total Operating Expense Figure 3 6 Total Maintenance Expense Figure 3 7 Operating Revenue (000) 8 5

PAGE 118

Employe .es and Vehicles The total number of employees rose seven percent between 1989 and 1994, in creasing by two full-time employee equivalents (FTEs). The increase was primarily due to slight increases in transportation operating employees associated the increases in directly-operated revenue service during that time period that were discussed previously. Following FY 1993, Table 3-5 shows that the number of employees fell by more than one FTE a decline of four percent. F igu re 3-8 illustrates the trend in the number of FTEs for directly-operated service among transportation operations, maintenance, and administrative employee categories, as well as the tota l s. According to Table 3-5 and Figure 3 9. the number of vehicles available for system total fixed route max imu m service remained relatively stable between 1989 and 1993 and then fell by four vehicles in 1994. These four vehicles were transferred to the Handybus paratransit fleet where they were predominantly being used. According toMCAT. vehicles are transferred between the fixed-route fleet and the fleet from year to year as necessary. The total number of vehicles operated in fixed-route maximum service remained constant at nine vehicles over the trend period. Table 3 MCAT Employees and Vehicles .. m .1::' : :;' ... -:;s l.i.. :0:./ V,ehlcl.-. h': < l!h'+Jxlrl).wn : .. ''iii<':;;', ,.a ,; .. "4" .. '" ; AV,.A/A, '( ., ' 4<'1: '*-16"*"'"' -it NOTE: The ttend for tota l emptoyeeslncfudes directty--ope!'11ted motorbus dala o nty, since n o employee data w e re available for purchased motorbus during U\e two years il was operated. 86

PAGE 119

Figure 3-8 Tota l Employees Figure 3-9 Vehicles In Maximum Service 87

PAGE 120

Effectiveness Measures Service Supply and Serv ice Consumpt i on Vehicle miles per capita a measure of service supp ly, decreased steadily (17 percent) over the trend period except for a slight increase in 1992 Table 3-6 and Figure 3 10 depict this trend. During the last th ree years of the trend period, while system total vehicle miles were declining, the service area population was i ncreasing. One way service consumption can be measured is by t h e number of passenger trips per Over the trend period, this measure decreased three percent, as evidenced i n Tab l e 3-6. This slight decli ne, especially ove r the last three years of the trend period, can be attributed to the rapid Increase i n the serv i ce area populat i on along with a modest increase in passenger trips. This trend is also exhi bited In F i gure 3-11. Table 3-6 MCAT Service Supply and Service Consumption :t.eat.:rt;:,;:,; : z;" veiili:I.:Nnie. "l ;;!,;i f'< 5,;' 1989 3.52 3.60 1990 3.13 3.40 1991 3.00 3.60 1992 3.20 3.64 1993 3 .00 3.41 1994 2.91 3.50 ;: ; .. ' ; .. .. i,..,;,,; 88

PAGE 121

Figure 3 Vehicle Miles Per Capita .111111.11 ' ,rr.rr.. . .rm.. I'MWir.. .. Figure 3 Passenger Trips Per Capita 89

PAGE 122

SeNice Consumption and Quality of SeNice Two other measures of servi ce consumption are the number of passenger trips per revenue mile and per revenue hour. These are both generally influenced by the supply and demand of transit service Since 1989, the system total number of passenger trips per revenue mile rose 18 percent, as shown in Table 3-7. Between 1993 and 1994, this measure increased from 1.17 to 1.25, an increase of six percent. In addition, Table 3 shows that the system total number of passenger trips per revenue hour increased 20 percent between 1989 and 1994. The largest increase occurred between 1993 and 1 994 when this measure increased from 18.31 to 21.00 t rips per hour, an increase of 15 percent. These trends are furt her illustrated in Figures 3 and 3-13. In 1994, the average age of MCAT's vehicle fleet was more than five years, as presented in Table 3-7 and F igure 3-14. The fleet is fairly new by transit standards. Between 1 993 and 1994, the fleet's average age increased by less than one year due to the transfer of four olde r vehicles to the Handybus paratransit fleet Table 3-7 MCAT Service Consumption and Quality of Service p ---; ... "'"' : Rtr(tnU_, ,;,,.. . : .)i_ \:" . $. ..... A''' 1989 1.06 17.49 5.22 1990 1 .1 3 17.66 6.37 199 1 1.24 18.81 6 .93 1992 1 .1 9 18 .82 6 .44 1993 1.17 18.31 5.06 1994 1.25 21.00 5.21 :" :-:i;:;.z;,7 \ 1 < 1 o/t, . . .......... 4-t1 . v ... . ... NOTE : The 1989 average fleet age indudeS directly-operated motorbus dat a otlly Uice no purchased motorbU$ data were available to calCulate a system total Jverage age of fleet 90

PAGE 123

Figure 3 Passenger Trl.,. Per Revenue Mile Figure 3-13 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour Figure 3 14 Average Age of F leet (years) Jlllll ' .b.[ . ... . .. 91

PAGE 124

Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery Table 3-8 shows that operating expense per capita decreased five percent between 1989 and 1994, and operating expense per passenger trip decreased three percent during the same period of time. Both operat i ng expense per capita and per passenger trip had relatively large decreases since 1992. Operating expense per revenue mile steadily in creased through 1992, then began to decline. Overall, there was an increase of 15 percent in thi s measure between 1989 and 1994 All t hree system total operating ratios have declined in FY 1994: $8.10 was spent on operating expenses for every person living in Manatee County ; $2.31 was spent for each trip taken on MCAT; and $2.89 was spent for each mile of revenue service provided by MCA T. It should be note d that these cost-efficiency measures are presented i n nominal tenns. Ho wever, during the six-year trend period, the rate of inflation (as measured by the Consumer P rice Index) averaged approx i mately four percent annually Figures 3-15 through 3-17 illustrate these trends graphically The fare box recovery ratio for directly-operated service decreased eight percent between 1989 and 1994, as evidenced in Table 3-8. In addition, Figure 3-18 shows that, between 1990 and 1992, this operat i ng ratio fell nearly 20 percent. It increased in 1993, and again in 1994. Table 3-8 MCAT-Coat Efficiency and Farebox Recovery :: r"t't 9peratlng;, 0 j(. . ( .,.-';*' $ -y, ir '1 :'<'"l'"t ' Expense -pefr; ;,Ex:,_ : *;; > . "{., Ekpense t, RI!COV:ety r!L :;, ;caeltil+ Pasenger, Trip RatiO ; ; ., _., '--, \ "'. 4':.<> (->IV' 1989 $8.54 $2.37 $2 .52 18 .13% 1990 $8.04 $2.36 $2 .66 19.01% 1991 $8.60 $2 .39 $2.96 17.47% 1992 $9.43 $2 .59 $3.08 15 91% 1993 $8.49 $2.49 $2.92 16 .11% 1994 $8.10 $2.31 $2.89 16.70% . """:; fil %Change 1989-.1994 -5%. '-3% 15.. .... < -8% .. NOTE: The trend tor trle tarebox recovery ratio indudH directly-ope rated motorbus data onty, s-inoe no revenue d ata were available for purchased motorl:lus during the two years it was operated 92

PAGE 125

Figure 3-15 Operating Expenl8 Per Capita Figure 3-17 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Figure 3 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Figure 3-18 Farebox Recovery Ratio 93

PAGE 126

Labor Productivity and Fare Structure Labor p roductivity, as measured by revenue hours per employee for directly-operated motorbus service, increased steadily from 1989 to 1991 and then decreased steadily from 1991 to 1994, as shown in Table 3-9 and Figure 3-19. Overall, this measure declined seven percent during the six-year trend period. Another measure of labor productivity, passenger trips per employee, steadily increased over the first three years of the trend period. F i gure 3-20 reveals that, after i ncreasing in the beginning years of the trend, this measure decreased, but began to grow again in 1994, showing increased labor efficiency in terms of service consumption. In FY 1994, MCAT generated 23 ,138 passenger trips on the directly-operated motorbus mode for each of its employees, as reported in Table 3-9. Table 3-9 also shows that MCA T's average tare per passenger trip on d i rectly-operated motorbus service fluctuated slightly throughout the first three years of the trend and has shown a steady decline since 1990. In FY 1994, the average fare continued to decline to $0.39. The trend for average fare per passenger trip is presented in Figure 3-21. Table 3-9 MCAT -Labor Productivity and Fare Structure ;;, v;1r < "PaMer ;TrtP.is\ "' ;; >6 ,', 4 < <"o -i:. -'-iii :' { NOTE ; Ttte trends in this table refleet directly-operated motol'bus set\liOe only since no employee or fare revenue data were available for putchas.d motorbus during the two year$ it was operated 94

PAGE 127

Figure 3-19 Revenue Hours Per Employee Figure 3-20 Passenger Trips Per Employee Figure 3-21 Average Fare 95

PAGE 128

96

PAGE 129

FIXED-ROUTE PEER REVIEW ANALYS I S A fiXed-route peer review analysis was conducted to compare MCAT's performance wnh other similar transit systems in Florida and the United States. The procedure to choose peer systems was based on both operating characteristics (number of vetiicles operated in maximum service, amount of service supplied, average speed, and number of days service is provided) and exogenous factors (geographic location, service area population, and service area population density). The two primary decision variables for selecting potential peer candidates, however, were geographic location and number of vehicles operated in maximum service. The specified geographic region for this study included the southeastern part of the United States since transit systems that operate in a similar geographic area are typically subjected to many of the same exogenous factors such as weather, labor cost historical transit ridership trends, and density. Initially, only transit systems that operate between one and nine vehicles in maximum serv i ce were considered for this peer group. This was primarily due to the fact that, historically, the Performance Evaluation Study completed each year for the Florida Department of Transportat i on has included MCAT (which is the third-smallest transit system in the state) In a 1-9 vehicle category for the study s peer review analysis However, since MCAT is the largest system in this particular peer group in terms of vehicles operated and service area population a second peer group (i.e., 1Q-20 vehicles) was developed for purposes of comparison In establishing both of these groups, population density, vehicle miles and average speed were also used in making the final selections from various p o tential peer systems. All systems chosen for each peer group were reviewed for reasonableness and extraordinary conditions In some cases it was necessary to contact the transit systems to clarify inconsistencies in the data and to colle .ct m i ssing data The end result of this process was the est ablishment of a 1-9 vehicle peer group consisting of eight transit systems, two from Florida and six from out of state, and a 1o-20 vehicle peer group containing six transit systems, including three Flori d a and three non-Florida systems Using 1993 data, peer group means were calculated for each group for selected performance ind iCators and measures. MCAT's statistics were then compared to the means to determ ine in which peer group MCAT would best fit. Table 3 10 on the fo ll owing page presents the MCAT and peer group mean data that were used for this comparison. 97

PAGE 130

Table 3-10 Comparison of MCAT to Peer Group Means 1993 '' ,, 1-9 vehicle 10.20 vehlj:ie ' MCAT''. . ';,: .. and ... ': Pee. r Group Mean!, < < ". ;; ;'> < .. . <> Service Area Population 72,790 183 ,484 223,996 Passenger T r ips 418 760 625,897 1 058,174 Vehicle M i les 271, 248 551,065 833,596 Operat ing Expense $669 013 $ 1, 556,944 $1, 934,998 Maximum Vehicles Operated 6 9 1 6 Passenger Trips Per Capita 5.48 3.41 6.88 Vehicle Miles Per 4.07 3.00 4.82 Operating Expense Per Capita $10.87 $8 49 $11.)2 1Peer group means do not inefude MCAT data. The data in the table i ndicate that, while MCAT is most similar to the larger peer group i n service area popul ation and total operating expense the 1-9 vehicle peer group is a more realistic "measuring stick" with which to compare Manatee County's transit system. MCAT's ride rship and maximum vehicles operated are more congruous wijh the smaller peer group's means and, wh ile the system's per capita measures are significantly lower than those of eijher group, they are for the most part, more comparable to those of the 1 peer group. As such, the 1 9 veh i cle peer group was selected to conduct the peer review analysis for this TOP The final peer group contains a total of nine systems including MCAT. Table 3-11 shows the transij systems included in the final pee r group. Data presented for MCAT and its peer systems represent FY 1993. Tables 3-12 through 3-18 present MCAT's value and the peer group minimum, maximum and mean for each indicator and measure Additionally, MCAT's deviation from the mean is a l so reported as a penoentage of the mean val ue. Detailed data tables for all of the peer systems are provided in Appendix I. Graphics throughout this section (F i gures 3-22 through 3-42) ill ustrate sel ected perfomnance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures from this analysis. These figures indicate the rank of the systems from best to worst, as well as the peer group mean (indicated by the vertical line) for each measure. 98

PAGE 131

T a b l e 3-11 M C AT's P ee r Systems Key West Department of Transportation Smyrna TransH System Albany Transit System (GA) Bryan BVCANBrazo s Transit System (TX) Clarksville Transit Sys tem (TN) Lake Char l es T r a nsi t S ystem (LA) Gaston i a Transit System (NC) Owensboro TransH System (KY) 99

PAGE 132

Perfonnance Indicators Population, Ridership, and Level of Service M CAT which serves Manat ee County, reported a service are a population of 183,4841n FY 1993. Se rv ice area populations for Florida and non -Florida systems were prov ided directly through each of the systems' Section 15 reports. Figure 3 shows serv ice area popu l ations for all of the peer system s M CAT's population i s 116 percent above the peer group mean of 85, 089, according to Table 3-12 The table also indicates tha t MCAT is 42 percent above the peer group mean for total number of annual passenger trips Figure 3-23 reveals tha t M CA T's FY 1993 passenger trips ran k s econd overall In the peer group. In addition, M CA T's number of revenue miles is the largest of the peer group at 533 ,693 miles, as i llustrated in Figure 3 4 This figure is 85 percent above the peer group mean of 288 ,309 miles. Tab l e 3 12 Pee r Analyela Population Ridership and Level of Service FY 1993 . . PMrGroup MCAT : MCAT M lxlmurft.; !i' Meen % Froln Mean Servic e Area Pop. 183,484 17,231 183,484 65,069 +116% Passenger Trips 625 ,897 25,859 1 ,3 59 537 441 776 +42% Revenue M iles 533,693 63, 373 533,693 288 ,309 +65% 100

PAGE 133

Figure 3 Service Area Population (000) .,.. AICIItbvlte Lako Cl'lartes "'"""' Bryon o ........ LakeChart.s C1Mbvtll e o-...... Key Wool Figure 3 PassengerTrips(OOO) Smy"" !--..L..::t:-+----:-:1:-:---:--:L LakaCNrlea Figure 3 Revenue Miles (000) 1().1

PAGE 134

Expenses and Revenues Table 3-13 indicates that MCA T's operating expense is the highest of the peer systems and is 103 percent above the peer group mean of $767 672 Total maintenance expense i s 62 percent above the group mean. Figures 3-25 and 3-26 show the total operating and maintenance expenses respectively for all members of the peer group. Overall, MCAT's costs are significantly above the mean of the peer group Operat i ng revenue, according to Figure 3-27. tends to be si gnificantly above the group average MCAT's operating revenue is 77 percent above the peer g r oup mean o f $173 ,432, as evidenced in Table 3-13. Table 3 -13 Peer Analysis -Expenses and Revenues, FY 1993 Operating Expense $1,556, 944 $199,578 $1,556 944 $767 672 +103% Maintenance Expense $293,654 $ 1 8 ,751 $339,062 $181,527 +62% Operating Revenue $307, 176 $13,331 $323,059 $173 432 +77% 102

PAGE 135

Figure 3-25 Total Operating Ellpense (000) labCharle1 F ig ure 3-26 Maintenance Expense (000) F igure 3 27 Operating Revenue (000) 103

PAGE 136

Emplo y ees and Vehicles MCAT is the highest of the peer group for the total number of employees as evi d enced i n T able 3-14. In FY 1993, M CAT uti lized 29.60 full time employee equ iva lents (FTEs) wh ich is 65 percent above the peer group mean. Accordin g to MCA T, the system may have more emp loyees than most because MCAT is the county's Community Transportation Coo rd i nator (CTC), thus requi ring additional employees for the provision of thi s service The total number of emp loyees for each peer system is dep i cted in Figure 3 28 MCA rs numbe r of vehicles available for max imum serv i ce is 80 percent grea t e r than the me an of th e peer group which i s 10 vehicles, as shown in Table 3-14 and Figure 3-29 Also, i n 1993, M CAT operated nine vehicle s in maximum serv ice, whi ch is three vehic les mo' re than the peer group average of six vehi cles. F igure 3-30 indicate s tha t MCAT is the highest of Its peer group for the number of vehicles operated i n peak service Table 3-14 Peer Analysis Employees and Vehicles FY 1993 ,;. MCAT PHt'Group P-Group. Pa.tGroup. MCAT : Parfonnance; lndlclltor Mtmmum Maximum-< .. M. .. n % From Mllan A Total Employees 29.60 4 .20 29.60 17 99 +65% Vehicles Ava i lable for 18 2 18 10 + 80% Maximum Service Vehicles Operated i n 9 2 9 6 +50% Maximum Service 104

PAGE 137

.... Albany L.akeChlrios ..,. .. Key Watt Gatton fa Smyrna Figure 3 28 Total Employees Figure 3-29 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service IIIIMtM Albony K.yWest ClartSVilte La lot Chartee Bryan Ow9nsboro GaMonla Snoyma Figure 3-30 Vehicles Operated In Maximu m Service Bryn ClarkSVII .. Owtnaboro Lake Chartt. Gae.ton1a Key W ... Srnymo 105

PAGE 138

Effectiveness Measures Service Supply and Service Consumption Service supply, as measured by the number of vehicle miles per capita, is below the peer group mean of 3.96, as reported in Table 3-15. However, the system does have by far the largest service area population of the peer group, and this may deflate the measure somewhat. Another possible explanation for MCA T's low figure for vehicle miles per capHa is the fact that most buses stop service in Manatee County by 7:00 p.m., and there is no Sunday service. Figure 3-31 presents vehicle miles per capita for each system in the peer group. Figure 3-32 Indicates that service consumption, in terms of passenger trips per capita, is also below the mean of the peer group. A larger service population may also be a factor in th is low figure. MCAT's 3.41 passenger trips per capita is 35 percent below the group mean of 5.25 trips, according to Table 3-15. Table 3-15 Peer Analysis Service Supply and Service Consumption, FY 1993 ,r ... < w... ":t c ., Peel' P .. rG;'4up' ;P'8erGrouP:; r" E ectlvenea x;s.:..,.;-<;-"''<.<:' J : $ MC'A.T. ,,._ ,-., li : . :; M[niri.IU'!f":. Maicfmum .. Mi % .F.r<.in .Mean 811!\ ,,,, d ,, .. Vehicle Miles per 3.00 1 .84 5.48 3.96 -24% Passenger Trips per 3.41 1 50 14.12 5.25 -35% 106

PAGE 139

..... a..n. Figure 3-31 Vehicle Miles Per Capita Figure 3-32 Passenger Trips Per Capita 107

PAGE 140

Service Consumption and Quality of Serv ice Servi ce consumption can also be measured by the number of passenger trips per revenu e mile and per revenue hour. As sho wn in Table 3-16, M CAT reports 1 .17 passenger trips for every revenue mile of service, which is 16 percent below the peer group mean of 1 .40 trips per mile. The number of passenge r trips per revenue hour is yet another measure of service consumption. Table 3-16 indicates tha t MCAT's value of 18.31 trips pe r hour is six percent belo w the peer group mean of 19.46 t rips per hour. The peer group's serv ice consump tion m easures are depicted in Figures 3-33 and 3-34. One method by which serv i ce qua l ity can be assessed is by elCamining the average age of a system's vehicle fleet. Table 3 16 indicates that MCAT has a younger fleet (5 .06 years) in comparison to the peer group mean of 7.39 years. Figure 3-35 shows the averag e fleet ages for all peer systems Table 3-16 Peer Analysis Service Consumption and Quality of Service FY 1993 MCAT Peer Group Peer Group Peer Group MCAT : M_..u,. .. Minimum Maximum M"ean A. From Mnn Passenger Trips per 1.17 0.41 3.37 1.40 16% Revenue Mile Passenger Trips per 18 .31 6.44 47.05 19 .46 .e% Revenue Hour Average Age of F l eet 5 .06 1 .91 11 .50 7 .39 -3 2 % (i n years ) 108

PAGE 141

Figure 3-33 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Figure 3-34 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ......... C&amvllle OWtntbOro Figure 3-35 Average Age of Fleet (years) KeyWeat 109

PAGE 142

Efficiency Measures Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery According to Figures 3-36 through 3-38, MCAT is relatively cost efficient when compared to its peers: the system is below the peer group mean for two of the three operating expense ratios (operating expense per capita and operating expense per passenger trip). As shown in Table 3-17. operating expense per is 20 percent below the mean of$1 0.61, and operating expense per passenger trip is eight percent below the mean of $2.70. Operating expense per revenue mile is fou r percent above the peer group mean of $2.81. Overall MCAT performs well in terms of cost efficiency in comparison to its peers. The farebox recovery ratio shows the percentage of a system's operating expenses covered by passenge r fare revenues. MCA T's reported fare box recovery ratio is 14 percent below the peer group mean of 18. 93 percent as shown in Table 3-17 and Figure 3 39. Table 3-17 Peer Analysis Cost Efficiency and Farebox Recovery, FY 1993 ;, ''cs_sr . '" . 'Pe8'fGriliAP.t f!ur.broi.p .. ;.:.; .. < ., A rh .' idm""! .. :M !lt*"' ,.,H.;.; ; A >'>'{>. Operating Expense per $8 .49 $5.22 $20.77 $10 61 20% Capita Operating Expense per $2.49 $0.63 $7.72 $2.70 Passenger Trip Operating Expense per $2.92 $ 1.93 $3.84 $2.81 +4% Revenue Mile Farebox Recovery 16 11% 6.68% 37. 55% 1 8 .83% -14% Ratio 110

PAGE 143

Figure 3-36 Operating Expense Per Capita F igure 3-38 O perating Expense Per Revenue Mile F igure 3-37 O pe rating Expense Per Passeng e r Trip Figure 3-39 Farebox Recovery Ratio 111

PAGE 144

Labor Productivity and Fara Structure MCA rs labor productivity is measured by revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employe e. MCAT is one percent below the peer group mean for revenue hours per employee (see Table 3). Table 3 also reports that MCAT's passenger trips per employee is 10 percent below the mean of 23,548. Despite the additional employees the system requires to operate as the county s CTC, MCAT seems to be reasonably labor efficient in terms of service supply and service consumption Rgures 3-40 and 3-41 exhibit the values of these measures fo r each m embe r of the peer group Table 3-18 indicates that the average fare of $0.40 is equal to the peer group average. According to Figure 3-42, all of the Florida peer systems, including MCAT, are equal to or above the mean for this measure. Table 3-18 Peer Analysla Labor Productivity and Fare Struetunt, FY 1993 . PMrGI'oup PMrGroup :!'-Group MCAT: MCAT Minimum Maximum ,. Meaft %From Mean Revenue Hours per 1,155 919 1,957 1,165 -1% Employee Passenger Trips per 21 ,145 6,157 59,629 23,548 10% Employee Average Fare $0.40 $0. 17 $0.58 $0.40 0 % 112

PAGE 145

Figure 3-40 Revenue Hours Pe r Employee GUIGAia Owensboro Clat11r.Aikll K e y Welt Laktctaart .. Figure 3-41 Passenger Trip Per Employee ---LabCI*ICit Key West C llrf(av'lle OwonoiM>n> Figure 3-42 Average Fa re 113

PAGE 146

APPLICATION TOMCAT GOALS In order to assess the specific performance evaluation results for MCAT, it is useful to review the goals previously identified in Chapter Two. Specific performance evaluation measures can be identified that assist in determining the extent to which MCAT is meet ing each of the stated goals. Table 3-19 reiterates the goals presented in the second chapter, while Table 3-20 identifies applicable effectiveness and efficiency measures that relate to the assessment of MCAT wHh respect to each of the stated goals. Tables 3-21 and 3-22 specifically look at the trend and peer performance measures applicable to each of the goals. For each measure, the percent change from 1989 to 1994 and from 1993 to 1994 Is provided from the fixed-route trend analysis In addition the percent deviation from the peer group mean i s provided based on the peer review analysis These tables provide a useful overview of the performance of MCA T over time and in comparison to similar systems i n the southeastern United States. Interpretation was purposely omitted from t his section since the intent is to not suggest that performance evaluation is the only mechanism for assessing whether goals are being achieved. Performance measures do not comprehensively cover the objectives i dentified under each goal in Table 3-19. Many of the objectives cannot be measured through this mechanism and require additional information or more subjective evaluation. However, a consideration of the applicable measures provides a useful starting point for fully understanding the status of MCAT in its efforts to achieve these goals. As a result the appropriate measures are provided in the tables, but the interpretation of these measures as they relate to the achievement of goals is left to the reader. 114

PAGE 147

Table 3-19 MCAT Goats Provide the sefea t pottlbl e traMit seNice ; include provisio n s for p edestrians end blcycll$t. 1 t a ll trans l facilities. Identify the appropriate service area for MCAT, Provii:Se tram.tt setvlce lMt meets demand and needs Optimize the transla)'$tem and facilitie s for both ftlced-route and para _u-a nslt operat)ons, to provide current 18\fe.l of u.rvice or bett.r tMtughout the a.rea. Increase frequency oiSIMoe on most oonge$1ed conidoro tl>d busiest touln sYNem routing to Nduc:e need co nnster. ProW:fe Parir...ancf.Ride PtOgtlm and express bus seMc:e. Ma in tain in1Jtove. or expand servk:e to majof i'!teonodal facifitiet, terminals, employment cen1:11ra, activity centers, parks, recreational areas, cultu r a l facilities, and sociiJ and medical f ac::iities. Conlinu e to manito, ovtrall system performance '' wei as ft!dMdual route perfonnane&. Provide netw ork o f r o .. onab le trans.it and paratranart connections to counties adjaoen t to M eneteo County. Comply with a n ADA requirements: improv& access lo tral\ait f o r persons with disabilities. Provide adequate trenalt and paratumslt service lo accommodllo h urricane evsouatio n requlremen\1 Research the ftaalblllty o f usrtg alternative fuels -bus &helel'l wflh lnlomlation kslcs and/or bencllos 11 highly used bus slops and """''"' loco!lons tncrease the ivallbMy of .net effeetiw:fy disbblte route tnd SChedule itfonnation Continue the outreachlectucation program for trlftll. and lmQme In dedfve Customer Information Syl.1tm: tnvestigata lhe use of automated technology Contfnue to fncreue the vtlibility of MCAT through mark eting efforts Hire a fi.JJ. time public r elation s coordin a tor. Continue to ooordlnate lttr\Sit ucvlces with other transportltlo n providers in and acQacent to M an1tee Co u nty J nitiate planning to ptovtde servioe in pso;tcted growth arett of the QOUI\ty. Coordinate with locel governments for th e oonstruc:llon ot ac:cellible sicSewatks, bus stops, and otner bus stop mptovements Coordinate wflh state onc1 loea11Janllj)(ll1a1ion agenc:ieo fo< tho urty -of ,.. ... amenllleo In 11>e planM!g .,._... lrlleglllte .,_nsi nee!018 lnlorml1ion about ltanSl Issues. adtquolo pubic noloe of tine and pllao, and f'UI pubic ac:cess to open pubic meeti'lgs where mallet'S mated to tranll programs are being conskt ered Mow tine for public review and ClOmmenl at key dedslon in the cranslt plann ing p4'oc:eas. Utilize public nd expert opinions about the overall quality and fttqi.Hincy of tr a nsit servic.es In oplfmlling lixe
PAGE 148

T ab l e 3 -2 0 Perf o nnance Measures A pp lie d to M CA T Goals i "', GOa'J a ' : Appllcabt. ' ' . Goa l 1 Partic ipate In and Ensure Avai l ability Service Suppl y of an Effective Public Tran sportati o n Vehicle Miles Per Capita System t h at Safely and Efficiently M oves People Throughout, In, and Serv i ce Consumption Out of Manatee County Passenge r T r ips Per Capita Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Passenger Trips Per Rev enue Hour Cost Efficiency Operating E x pense Per Capita Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip Operating Expense Per Revenue M il e Opera t i n g R a t i os Farebox Recovery Labor Product ivity Revenue Hours Per Employee Passenger T rips Per EmplOyee Fare Full Cash Fare Average Fare Goal2 Provide New and Maximize t h e Use Quality of Service of the E x isting Quality Passenger Averag e Age of Fleet Ame n i ties to Enhance Bus Servi ce and Attract Discretionary Riders Goal3 Coordinate the Tra n stt System a n d No appl i cable performance measures in Its Improvements wit h Section 15 database. SpecifiC act i ons are Transportation Planning Efforts of All addressed in the recommendations as Government Entities system enhancements Goal4 Provide a Transit System t h a t i s to No applicable performance measures in the Extent Possibl e F i n ancially Sect ion 15 database Specific a ct io n s are F e asible by S ecuring Adequate addressed in the recommendations as Funding system e nhancements. Goal S Establish a Proact i ve Publ i c No app l icable performa n ce measures in Involvement Process Section 15 database. Spec ifiC actions are addressed in t h e recomme ndatio n s as sys lem enhancements 116

PAGE 149

Table 3 Status of Goal1: Participate In and Ensu re Availability of an Effective Public Transportation System that Safely and Efficiently Moves People Throughout, In, and Out of Manatee County Applicable Performance M eas ure Tab l e 3 22 Trend P"r % Deviation Mean Status of Goal 2 : Provide New and Maximize the Use of Ex isting Quality Passenger Amenities to Enhance Bus Service and Attract Discretionary Riders Applicable Performance Measure Trend %Change 1989-1994 Trend %Change 199l-1994m"""* Peer % Deviation from Mean 117

PAGE 150

CONCLUSIONS A summary of MCA T's performance strengths and weaknesses based on the trend analysis of effectiveness and efficiency measures is provided in Tab le 3-23. The intent of this table is not to suggest the extent of the strength or weakness but to identify those performance areas where the trend has improved or worsened from 1gsg to 1994 A performance strength is defined as any performance area that improved or was maintained over the trend analysis t ime period. A performance weakness is defined as a t rend that declined over the trend analysis time period. Table 3-23 MCAT Performance Strengths and Weaknesses, Trend Analysis 1 i :t,: }. . . . Service Consumption Service Supply Cost Efficiency Farebox Recovery Labor Productivity Labor Productivity {Servioo Conoumption) {Servioo Supply) A summary of the performance streng ths and weaknesses based on the peer review analysis effectiveness and efficiency measures is provided in Table 3-24 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 t han 10 percent worse than the peer group average. Table 3-24 MCAT Performance Strengths and Weaknesses, Peer Review Analysis r:1 i Cost Efficiency Service Supply Service Consumption Farebox Recovery Labor Productivity (Sarvlce Consumption) Resuhs from the trend analysis are mixed, as are the peer resuhs. While the actual revenue miles of service provided by MCAT is the highest of the peer systems, when population is taken into account, the number of vehicle miles per cap"a is lower than average Wrth ridership 118

PAGE 151

steadily increasing over recent years of the trend period the number of passenger trips i s above the peer group mean t hough passenger trips per capita is well below the peer group mean Service consumption, in terms of passenger trips per capita and passenger trips per revenue mile, Is significantly lower in comparison to MCA rs peer sys tems. One area in which MCA T performs better than its peers is in terms of cost efficiency MCAT's cost efficiency has improved over the six-year trend period Two of the three operating ratios, operating expense per c a pita and operating expense per passenger trip are below the mean of t he peer group for FY 1993 Over the past six years, MCA rs revenue hours per employee has declined seven percent, whil e over the same. period, passenger trips per employee increased. However when compared to its peers, MCA rs number of revenue hours per employee is slightly below average and the number of passenger trips per employee is significantly below the peer group average. The performance weaknesses revealed by the peer review analysis are somew h a t mislead i ng. Serv i ce supp l y and consumption measures are cases I n which the peer revie w approach does not necessarily reflect the of transit service For example MCAT provides t he greatest revenue miles of service of all sys tems in its peer group and it is only MCA rs large service area population that causes the service supply measure (vehicle miles per capita) to be below average The same holds true for passenger trips per capita, a measure of service consumption, while the below-average number for passenger trips per revenue mile reflects the high service levels provided by MCAT In short, the per-cap"a measures are deflated because of the large service area population, which i s essentially out of MCAT's cont rol The remain i ng performance weaknesses include the farebox recovery ratio or the percentage of operating costs covered by passenger fares and labor productivity in terms of service consumption, as measured by the ratio of passenger trips to total employees While trend and peer review analyses can be useful in developing a better understanding of MCAT performance and In identifying target areas for additional attention and Improvemen t, performance evaluation measures do not comprehens i vely cover aU of the objectives of a transit system Many ob j ectives cannot be measured wtth this mech a nism and require add i tional i nform a t ion or more sub j ective eva l uation However the results of the trend and peer review analyses provide a useful starting po int for fully understand i ng the performance of MCA T and complement the other components of this study. 119

PAGE 152

120

PAGE 153

CHAP T ER F O U R De mand Esti mation a n d Needs Assessment I NTRODUC TION One p articular task i n the development of the five-year TOP for Manatee County Inclu des the preparation of estim ates o f deman d for transit service over the fiv e-year period t he a sse ss ment of mobility n eeds in the county and an evaluat i on of alternate m e thod s for increas ing mobility t hrough transit system improvement s This chapter summarizes the results of this effort Various methodS" of est im ating transit demand and assessing unrnet mobility needs are presen ted and discussed herein These techniques utiliz e the data and findings from all previous tasks Transit service alternatives are id enti fied through the i nte rviews, focus group s and surve ys and through CUTR s experi ence in o ther urban areas similar i n s ize to Ma natee County. CURR ENT AND FUTURE DE. MAND FOR T RANSIT SERVICE There are several different me t hods available to estimate the level o f demand for transit service in Manatee County The demand may be estimated through the use of trend analysis peer revie w compar i sons among si milar Florida and non -Florid a transit systems fare and se rvice elastic ities, census tract analysis, resuHs of interv iews and non-tr ansit-user fo cus groups and survey resu l ts The following secti ons provide estimates for fixed-route transit deman d in Ma n a tee County Ffxed Rou18 Demand E s timates Ridership Trends Over the past 11 years, w hile riders hip on MCA T has fluctuated significantly, i t has shown an ove rall dec lin e of 13 pe rcent, from 7 58,400 passenger trips in FY 1984 to 657,588 p a ssenger trips in FY 1 994 After incre as ing more than six percen t in fisc a l year 1985 ridership fell over 26 percent between 1985 an d 1990, primari l y due t o major declines in the amount of serv ice provided. Following a nine percent incre ase be tween the 1990 and 1992 fiscal years, ridership de clined slightly once again in FY 1993 Betw een 1993 and 1994 t h e number of passenger tri ps increased five percent. 121

PAGE 154

I n order to provide estimates of future annua l ridersh i p levels a multiple linear regress i on model was calibra ted us i ng the historica l ridership data from fisca l years 1984 to 1994 Such a model fits a straight line to lhe data points, thereby allowing ridership in future years to be predicted Regression equations are very useful tools for forecasting. Clearly, however, the further int o the future a fore c ast is made, the less precise it becomes I n this exercise, ridership levels, as measured by total number of annual passenger trips were estimated through fiscal year 2000 The cl assical multip l e l inear regression model takes the following general fonn : where y, Cl X. /J y,. Cl + /J x,, + IJ.i'... + ... + /JJ( ... + E, = dependent variable, or the variable to be forecast at time t; constant tenn; = independent variables that Influence y,, at time I; = parameters on the independent variable (also known as partial regression coefficients) ; = e rror tenn wh ich represents influence not captured by the independent variab les. For this model, a regression line was fitted for annual ridership (in terms of passenger trips) with respect to three ind ependent variables: time, the number of revenue miles, and the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. The data set contained observations for 11 years (19841994). The regression equation that resulted is as follows : w h ere y, -568 ,032 + 20,059x,, + 1.098398x,. + 48,04 1 x,. y, x .. x,. x,. = annual ridersh i p i n tenns of passenger trips at t ime t; = year (year = 1 ,2, 3 ... ) ; = revenue miles at time t; = vehicles operated in maximum service at time t The coefficient of detennination for this model denoted by R', is 8922 which means that approximately 89 percent of the variation in the estimated annual ridership is explained by this regression equation In addit ion, the F-stat istic, which i s a me asure of the overall usefulness of the mode l for predictive purposes i s 19.321, which i s st a t i stically significant a t the 95 percent confidence leve l ( u = 0.05) Table 4-1 shows the exlstlng level of ridersh i p (FY 1994) for MCAT and the estimated future ridership derived from the model for fiscal years 1995 through 2000. As can be seen in the 122

PAGE 155

. table ridership is projected t o t o approximately 0 8 million trips by 2000 nea rl y a 20 pe r cent increase from FY 1994 It i s important to note that the regression model ho lds all exogenous factors such as fare cha nges, constant. In addition, for simplicity, these forecasts were generated assuming a cons tant level of service and numbe r of vehicles operate d From the model it is clea r that if either revenue miles or the number of vehicles operated in maximum service increases, the number of passenger trips will li kewise increase and I f e i ther of these declines the converse wi ll be true. There a re some associated with these forecasts however One drawback i s the small number of observations used i n the model calibration : only 11 years of data were a vailable for the est imat i on As the number of data points increases, so does the re li ability of the model. Table 4 1 Projected Fixed-Route R idership for MCAT 682.861 722,9 7 9 783,156 Peer Group Comparison One alternate approach In determinin g the extent of transit demand is to compare per capita ridership service a11d spe11ding levels a t MCAT with th ose at s i mil a r s y ste ms I n Flor ida and the southe astern United States The peer review analys i s conta i ned i n Chapter Three presented a wide array of data fo r n i n e syst ems that operate between one and nine buses i n max imum service Of these systems, three are i n F l o ri da and si x are i n other southeaste rn s tates. B y taking the averages of riders h ip per capita and other measures and then apply ing them to Manatee County's population it is possible to estimat e the l e vel of demand for transit service in systems of this size all othe r things being equal. Tab l e 4-2 presents the results of this exercise In FY 1993 the peer group systems averaged 5 .25 passenger trips per capit a while MCAT a v eraged only 3.41 trips per cap i ta If M a na t ee County were to match t he average number of trips per capita for the peer group MCA T ridersh i p w ould incr ease t o a l most one million from its ex i sting 626 000 Similarly, MCAT provides le ss serv ice as measured by vehicle miles per capita than the peer group average Service leve ls 123

PAGE 156

would have to increase by approximately 32 percent to match the peer group. The operating expenses per capita for MCAT are about 80 percent of the peer group average. The projected operating expense would be more than $1.9 million based on the per capita peer group average One factor to consider in interpreting these numbers is the variation in ho w service area population is measured. Transit systems often utilize different methods in the determination of actual service area boundaries and the number of persons that reside within those boundaries. For example, some Florida transit systems use county population as a proxy estimate for service area population, even if the system does not serve the entire county. While simple to calculate, this particular technique will effectively lower a system s per capita measures. Table 4-2 Peer Group Comparisons with MCAT 1; . z .; Meaaur. ., . (, : ., ''MeAT t_..; : >.t' .;, "\ t"::. . ;; . . I .... ,, p G "-' '"-':.1: .. iJ .. !'OYP!j' _" ''. Population 183.4&4 85.089 Passenger Trips per Capita 3 .41 5.25 Vehicle Miles per Capita 3.00 3.98 Maximum Vehicles Operaled 9 6 Operating Expenses per $8.49 $10.61 Ridership: MCAT ActuaV Actual 625,897 441,776 Projected & Peer Group Mean Projected 984 000 Vehicle M iles: MCAT ActuaV Actual 551,065 302 338 Projected & Peer Group Mean Projected 725,800 Operating Expense: MCAT AcluaV Actual $1,556,944 $767,672 Projected & Peer Group Mean Projected $1 946,200 It may be instructive to look at subsets of the peer group, since MCAT operates nine buses in maximum service and the peer group span ranges from one to nine buses operating in maximum service. Subsets are created in order to narrow the span in which MCAT is compared. Table 4 presents the ridership and service data for MCAT and three different subsets : peer group systems that operate between seven to nine buses in maximum service, peer group systems in Florida, and an expanded peer group consisting of systems in Florida and the southeastern U.S. that operate between nine to 20 buses in maximum service. As can be seen from the table, MCAT's performance resutts are most similar to the averages of Peer Subset 1, except for population, population density, and passenger trips per capita. This suggests that a greater discrepancy between MCAT and the averages of the full peer group resulted from the 124

PAGE 157

incl usion of the smaller systems between. one and six buses In maximum service) Even so, MCAT has lower ridership and less serv i ce per capita, but higher expenses per capita, th a n would be expected for a system of It s si ze Table 4 Peer Comparisons with MCAT Population 183,-484 129.084 77,729 218.209 Service Alea Population Oenslly 2 ,039 1.355 1 552 1 473 (population/square mile) Passe nger Trips per Capita 3.41 7 .07 4.08 8.38 Vehicle Miles Capita 3.00 3.48 4.09 4 .56 Maximum Vehicles Operated 9 8 5 15 Operating Expense per Capita $8.49 $7.73 $13.61 $10.7 4 T able 4-4 presents MCAT projections based upon the per-capita averages in the peer group and lhe peer subsets. For example annual ridership estimates range from 7 49,300 If MCAT per capita ridership were to match the Florida peer subset average, to 1,296,500, it MCAT per-capita ridership were to match the 7 to-9-bus peer subset average. Projected annual vehicle miles of service range from 634,700 to 836,500, and operating expens e project ion s range from $1.4 to $2.5 million. Table 4-4 MCAT Projections Based on Per Capita Averages I n Peer Groups Proje cted Vehi cle Miles Projected Operating Elcpense 551,065 $1 ,558, 944 725,800 63 4 ,70 0 750 400 $ 1,948,200 82,497,500 $1,970,900 While peer group analysis Is useful for compa ring the relative perfonnance levels of similar systems; cautic;>n must be used in applying these results to demand estimat ion and needs 125

PAGE 158

assessment. The under1ying assumption that the propensity to use transit is constant across urbanized areas of s i m i lar size and similar transit system ch a racterist i cs ignores differences among in urban development demographics, and quality of service. In MCA T's case the high end of the range (i e., peer systems operating between 9 to 20 buses in maximum service) may be out of reach Even realistic projections, der i ved primarily from averages of those peer systems operating between seven to nine buses i n maximum service, would result i n a 107 percent i ncrease in fixed-route ridership and a 15 percent i ncrease in fixed-route service. However these projections would also result i n a nine percent decline i n operating expenditures Fare and Service Elasticities Another means of estimat i ng future demand for transit is through the use of fare and service elasticities An elasticity is a measure of the sensitivity of a dependent variable, such as passenger trips, to changes in an independent variable such as fare or leve l of service. It is also represented by the percent change in a dependent variable divided by the percent change in an independent variable VVhile considerable variations can occur, especially for changes at the level of individual routes, fare and service elasticities have been shown to remain relatively cons i stent across transit systems of all sizes at the aggregate system level. The American Public Transit Association (APTA) has published a value of -0.43 for the elasticity of ridership with r espect to fare (for systems serving areas with populations of less than one million). According to an Ecosometrics, Inc report, the elasticity of ridersh i p respect to level of serv i ce as measured by vehicle miles is +0 .612 The elasticity measures are interpreted as follows : a 10 percent increase in the transit fare would result in a 4.3 percent decrease in ridership while a 10 percent i ncrease in the level of service wou l d generate a 6.1 percent increase in ridership. These elasticities show that generally, transit riders are more sensitive to service levels than to the fare. Table 4-5 presents the results of two f are pricing scenarios as well as a scenario involving an increase i n the level of service. The first scenario predicts how ridership will be affected if the current fare of $1.00 were to increase an addit i onal tO percent to $1. 10. According to the elasticity measure, with a fare of $1.10 the system can expect a decrease in ridership (as measured by the number of passenger trips) of 28,276 trips all other things being equal. 'American Public Tran$it As&oclallon. Eff8cls of Fare Changes On Bus Ridership (Wasllington: American Pubtic Transit Assoccaclon. May 1 991). 7. Inc., Patronage lmtMcts of Changes in Transit Farvs and SsrviOes. tflport prepared fof the U .S. Department of Trans.portation (Washington: Government Printing Office. Septembe r 1 980). 65 126

PAGE 159

. . : However, s i nce the demand for transit is consi dered ine l astic With respect to fare ( ind i ca ting a lesser degree of sensitivity to fare changes) the increase in revenue from passengers paying the higher fare w ill more than offse t the loss from fewer t rips resulting in an annual net financi al impact of $13,394 (based on the average fare). Table 4 .S Impacts of Fare and Service Scena r ios Fare $1.00 $1.10 $0.90 $1.00 Average Fare $0.39 $0.43 $0.35 $0. 39 Vehicl e Miles 546.224 546,224 546.224 600,846 Passenger Trips 657,588 629 312 685,884 697.701 Operating Expense $1, 521,500 $1 521,500 $1 521,500 $1 6 7 3 650 Change In Ridership 28.27 6 +28 278 Change in Revenue + $ 13,394 -$15,580 +$ 1 5 503 scenario 3 utilizes fuWy.allocate
PAGE 160

The results of the e l asticity calculations indica te that i ncreas ing service levels does not necessarily produce the results one might expect since the cost i nvolved in service expans i on Is significant. A 1 0 percent I ncrease in vehicle miles w ould represent a major challenge for any small transit agency These results imply that proposed service impr ovements must be closely scrutinized for impacts on cost as well as ridership. Also important, however is the fact that all service extensions are not equal ; an impro ve ment targeted at a specific corridor or location where there i s sign i ficant demand can perfonn much better than aggregate averages Tab le 4-S i ncludes the origina l fixed-route ridership projections from Table 4 1 as we ll as est i mates assum ing that an annual 10 percent increase in servi ce w ould result in a 6 1 percent increase in ridersh i p This incre ase would be in addition to the annual ridersh i p i ncreases estimated by the linear regression equation which for predictive purposes, held service changes constant. The resulting estimate is one million trip s by FY 2000, compared to the original estimate in Table 4-1 of 0 8 million Given that the actual level of change in fixed -rou te service i s likely to be somewhere between zero and 10 percent annua ll y it is estimated that MCAT will generate approx i mately 900 000 trips per year by fisc a l year 2000. TableU Base and Enhanced Fixed-Route Ridership Projections for MCAT t rF m: FY1t84 :f.'t ,; FY 1997 FY 19tt FY 2000 :;: . Base (no service 657 588 682,861 702,920 722,979 743,038 763,097 783,156 lncteue) Enhanced ( 1 0% yearly 857 588 682,861 744, 575 811,2 4 1 883,235 960,956 1 ,044.834 seNice ncreasa ) Census Tract Analysis Census tract data from the 1990 Census can be used to compare demographic infonnation particularly those characteristics that are highly correlated with a person's or household s need for with the county's exi sting networl< configuration. This type of analys i s is useful for d etenn i ning whethe r census tracts characteristics are adequately served by the exi s tin g networl<. For t his a nalysis th e demograph ic characteristics that were used to indicate trans it dependence inc l uded the d i stribution of elderly (60 years or older ) persons, low-income (less than $10 000 annual househo l d income) households and zero vehicle-ownership households 128

PAGE 161

The first step in identifying the census tracts that have persons or hou se ho lds the greatest propensity for transit use involved t h e ca lcula t ion of the percent d i s tributions of the t hree demogr aphic characteristics for each-tract This process resu lted in a table of values indicatin g th e percent of elder1y persons low income households and zero-vehicle househ o lds for each of Manatee County's 45 ce nsus tracts. The census tracts were then sorted for each characterist ic in de scending orde r of perce n t d istributio n so that the tracts with higher percentages fo r each char a cteristic would appear at the top of their respe ctive ranges. From th e percentage ranges an average percent value and a standard devi a tion v alue w ere calcu l ated for each characteristic. S t atistically the s t andard devi at ion may be though t of as a mejlsure of d i s t anc e from the average v a lu e According to an empirical rule of thumb, for most moderately-sized data sets with e bell-shaped normal distribution approx im ately 68 percent of the data values will lie within one standard devia tion of their average and approximately 95 percent .of the data valu es will lie within two standard deviations of their average. Each of the three charact erist ic ranges was then stratified into four segments based on the folloWing brea k po i nts : average percent average percent p lus one standard deviation -and average percent plus two standard deviat i ons Thus the censu s tracts fell Int o one of the folloWing f ou r ca t egories for each charact e ristic: belo w average above average bu t below one s t anda rd devia t ion (l!v erage) be tween one and two standard deviation s above average (a b ove average), and more than two standard deviations above average (far above average) The next step i nvolved the assi gnment of discrete numerical scores to each o f the four categories estab lished for each demographic characteristic. These scores serve two basic purposes: to provide unifol!" rankin g to all of the tracts w ithin a particular category and to numerically differentiate among the f ou r ca tegories fo r e a ch ch aracte ristic. A compa rative probab ility est i mation method was ut il ized to deve lop t he scores. First the probability that a t ract would be part of a specific category for a g i ven characterist ic wa s cal culated for e ach category For exam p l e three of Man atee Count y s 45 census tract s w ere part of the "far above average" categ ory for the elderly characterist i c. This meant that there was a 6 7 percent probability (# tracts in category + # total tracts x 100%) that one of M a natee County's tracts woul d fall Within the range established for that particular category for the e lderly characteristic. After the prob ab ilities were calculated for each cha racte ristic's ca tego ries they were then us ed to estimate the catego ries' scores via compara t ive probab ility ratios. That is the prob ability pe rcentage for each category was divided int o th e probab ility percent age for the "belo w average category. This numerator was selecte d so that, for each characte ristic, the census tracts in the "below average" category would rece ive a score of one (1 ) Again u sing the "far above avera ge 129

PAGE 162

category of the elderly characteristic as an example, it was determined that the score for this category would be 9.3, since the probability for the "below average" category was 62.2 percent and this probability divided by the '1ar above average" category probability of 6.7 percent equals 9.283. The probabilities and final scores for each demographic characteristic's categories are presented in tabular form in Appendix J. 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 then ranked by composite score and stratified Into four levels using the same method that was utilized to develop characteristic categories. The census tracts that fell into the "far above average" category were defined as primary t ransit-dependent tracts, i.e., census tracts with the greatest propensity for transit based on the tracts' percentages of elderly persons, low-income households, and zero-vehicle households Secondary transit-dependent tracts included those that fell into the "above average" category; tertiary transit-dependent tracts included those tracts in the "average" category. Table 4-7 presents the results of the census tract analysis. Of t he census tracts listed in the table, all but two tracts are served by the existing transit system, with the tracts in Bradenton receiving the most service coverage. Figure 4-1 illustrates the primary, secondary, and tertiary transit-dependent census tracts with an ovenay of MCA rs fixed-route network. Based upon this analysis, it was determined that all p rimary transit-dependent tracts are currently being served. In fact, only two tracts were Identified as transit-dependent that are not currently served: 14.02 in Snead Island (tertiary) and 16.00 in Rubonia/Terra Ceia (tertiary). Other areas that warrant further detailed analysis with regard to the possible need for additional service coverage inc lude census tract 13.00 in Palmetto, tract 17 .02 in Longboat Key, and tract 19.03 in Ellenton. Interview, Focus Group, and Survey Results Findings from interviews with key local officials and focus groups with non-users have been discussed in Chapter One The overall opin ions of the t ransit system were generally positive. However, some of those interviewed believed that the land use patterns and low density of Manatee County are not favorable to extensive trans it use. These interviewees believed MCA T is just not convenient enough to generate the demand necessary to make the transi t system self sufficient to a greater degree. Also, there does not seem to be a high level of public support (fiscally) for public transit in the county. Positive comments about the system included commendations for operating well despite lim ited resources and fo r serving those who depend on transit for their personal mobility needs. 130

PAGE 163

1 .03 7.01 6.02 7 .02 15 .02 1 .02 1.04 3.01 3 .02 3 .03 4.04 6.01 11. 01 13.00 1 4.02 15 .0 1 16.00 17 .02 19 .03 Bradenton Bradenton Bradenton E. Bradenton PatmeHo Bradenton Bradenton W. Bradenton W Bradenton BradentOn Bradenton Bradenton COrtez Palmetto Snead I sland Pa lmetto Rubonia/Teml Ceia Longboat Key Ellenton Table 4-7 Transit-Dependent Census Tracts 2, 4, 9 3 4 2 6,9 3, 4 1 3 4, 9 2,6, 8, 9,10 6,8,9, 10 6,8, 10 8 10 3 4 5, 6 2,3,4, 9 5 1 n/a 1 n/a 5 1 setved Ade quately served Routes serve eastem weste m & soulhem boundaries Servlce concentrated In northern portion of census tract Adequately served Adequately served Adequately served Adequately served Adequately served Adequately served Routes eastern, northern, & southern boundaries, as welt as Blake Hospital Adequately served Adequately served Service oonoentrated I n eastem portion of census tract Not served Service concentrated in southwestern portion of census tract Not served Route on ly extends into northern portion of key Route only extends Into soutllwestem comet" of census trad 131

PAGE 164

1 32

PAGE 165

. ,:: .\ '-: "'""'" ' < ..... ' '.1' '"' , ., .... 11.:. .... .;:, _j' , < . .. :: .. : . '}:,;' ........... ....... .. .;. 18.00 ., ,_. .... : l l-01. ?I : .-, ' /A \.: .. /..-; v-v-t .... '/ &Y . Manatee County Bus Routes and Transit Dependent Tracts 11 .02 'I 9.00 8.03 8 05 8.04 8.06 ;. .. -; 19.01 20.02 Bus Routes 02 l i Transit Dependent Tracts

PAGE 166

this page IS blank

PAGE 167

Some of the most common suggestions for attracting additional riders {specifically discretionary riders) Inc luded Increased freq uency, increased service hours, initi ation of "group -oriented" services (such as lunch shuttles and mall trips), and implementation of express bus service, primarily to major employment centers. In addition, both groups agreed that exploring various methods of distributing an increased amount of system information to the public was necessary and that MCAT must also analyze different marketing techniques. Results from the on-board survey were also discussed I n Chapter One. One interesting finding was that 80 percent of the survey respondents rated MCA rs service as ''very good" or "good In addition, personal safety, operator courtesy, and vehicle cleanliness and comfort were rated quite highly. Although most of the respondents a re dependent on the system, these positive perceptions, along with positive comments from the interviews and focus groups, seem to suggest a foundation for increased support and utilization of MCA T's transit serv ice. Demand-Responsive Service Ridership Estimates Americans with Disabilities Act In addition to requiring transit agencies to provide accessible, fixed-route bus service, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires these agencies to provide complementary paratranslt service. MCAT has until 1997 to phase in its complementary paratransit service, which must "shadow" the fixed-route service area and provide a r;omparable level of service for per-Sons who cannot use the fixed-route service The regulations define the service criteria that must be met when implement ing complementary paratransit service. The six service criteria, described in Section 37.31 of the federal regulations (49 CFR Part 37), include the following: Service area Trip purpose Response time Hours and days of service Fares Capacity constraints Section 37 123 of the ADA regulations describes the eligibility standards for the paratransit service. To be eligible for ADA complementary paratransit services, persons must be unable to use fiXed-route service for some or all of their trips because of the nature of their disabilities. A person who is blind or uses a wheelchair, for example, is not automatically eligible for ADA paratransit unless he or she is specifically unable to use the fixed-route service. Manatee County can manage the demand for ADA complementary paratransit services by following the 135

PAGE 168

strict ADA elig i b ili ty standards outl i ned in the regu l a tion s This wo uld e ncourage the use of less cost ly, fixed-route service by those who are able to do so. ADA requires public transit systems to prepare a Complementary Paratransit Plan describing the system's implementation plan for the ADA paratransit service, and to provide annual updates to the plan. MCATs 1992 plan and supplemental 1993 plan update i nclude several sections: a d i scussion of fixed-route and services currently provided ; a proposed process for determin i ng elig ibili ty fo r the service ; certification(s); an ADA paratransit plan timetable and progress report; estimates of demand for ADA paratransit service; a budget summary with cost and vehicle estimates; a public participation process; and unresolved and other issues Accord ing to MCA rs supplementa l 1993 p l an update, the number of ADA paratransit t rip s i s p roj ected to increase from 5 ,790 i n FY 1995 to 9 048 in FY 1997 as shown in Table 4-8. MCAT will be in full compliance with the requirements for ADA complementary paratransit service by January 1997. A basic straight-line regression model was estimated for the number of ADA paratransit trips with respect to time for the years 1998 to 2000 using the actual and projected trips provided from 1993 to 1997 The resulting regression equation ( R "= 9868) Is as follows : where Projection Number of ADA : y X, Para118n$lt Trips Plovided 136 y, = 2,001.4 + 1 ,352.6X, = annual ADA paratransit trips at time t; = year (year = 1 2,3 ... ) Tabl e 4-8 A D A Paratranait T r i p Projections FlocaiY-1H5 1t96 11t7 19ta 5,790 7,238 9 048 10,117 1fltt 2000 11,470 12, 822

PAGE 169

Fixed-route service improvements such as route extensions lengthening of the span of service during the day, and provision of Sunday service, have detinne Implications with regard to ADA requirements. Complementary paratrans" service must be provided during the hours of normal fixed-route operation, and must be made available to all eligible persons within of a mile of a fixed route. Therefore, such proposals as evening or Sunday fixed-route service or Introduction of service to new areas will also expand the hours or geographic service coverage that will be required for complementary ADA service and, thus, increase the projected number of ADA trips. According to the Manatee County Area Transff ADA Paratransit Plan, 1993 Update, MCAT is currently in compliance with regard to service area, response time, and purpose. ADA trips receive first priority and MCAT does not prioritize ADA trips by trip type. The plan update asserts that response tlme for paratrans" has always been comparable to that of fixed-route service, which is one element of the level-of-service requirement of Manatee County's comprehensive plan. The plan update al .so indicates that ADA paratransit service Is provided to all required ADA service areas. NEEDS ASSESSMENT Fixed-Route Service The previous section outlined demand estimates for transit service In Manatee County. In certain cases, such as the census tract analysis, an attempt was made to compare demand with existing transit service. This type of comparison is the basis for an assessment of unmet trans" needs, along with consideration of existing perceptions of the system and of the goals and objeCtives developed in earlier tasks. The elasticity calculations yield a 6.1 percent increase In ridership for a 10 percent expansion in transit service, although ridership increases might be optimize d if routes and areas for expansion or new service are carefully selected An annual service expansion of this magnitude would involve a significant commitment of resources, even if done in phases, so this should be considered the upper bound of what is realistically possible over the next five years, unless significant new resources are directed to transit service. The concept of "unmet demand" can be interpreted in more than one way. I t can mean those persons who use transit today but are not able to do so for all of their travel needs. It can also be viewed more broadly to include those persons who do not currently use the transit system but who might be induced to become riders t hrou gh various changes to the system. The primary focus in this needs assessment is on the first group, because the mobility issue is more pressing 137

PAGE 170

for these riders. The latter group of potential riders must also be addressed in any needs assessment, since they comprise the most promis ing market for future transit growth. This future growth will result in better service for all riders, captive as well as discretionary. Based upon the system goals and objectives, demand estimates, and the findings from previous tasks, the following mobility needs have been identified. Note t hat these are not listed in priority order. Service area Later evening service Improved frequency, especially on the busiest routes Express service Service to major residentiaUemployment sites Comprehensive operations analysis Improved service coverage in transit-dependent census tracts SeNice Area The current MCAT fixed-route bus system serves Bradenton, Palmetto, Ellenton, Anna Maria Island, and the northern portion of Longboat Key. MCAT also operates bus service down to the Sarasota-Bradenton Intern ational Airport. Areas not served by the transit system include Rubonia, Terra Ceia, Parrish, Snead Island, and the southern. portion of Longboat Key. In it is expected that areas of ne w development, such as the Schroeder-Manatee development that will be loc ated just east of Interstate 75 between State Road 70 and University Parkway will be completed within the next five years and will require direct transit service. In the meetings with transit users, non-users, and key local officials, there was not a consensus on whether MCA T should use the five-year plan to denote an expansion of service w ith in the county, a contraction of service using the existing resources to provide increased service to a smaller geographical area, or a combination of both alternatives. Both alternatives can have positive impacts on the residents of the county, one serving the current user and the other addressing t h e potential needs of residents not currently served by MCAT. An expansion of t he service area wou ld certainly require the purchase of equipment and an Inc rease in service miles, since the current service operates at minimum standards of frequency and could not, therefore, be spread out any further. 138

PAGE 171

Evening Service At present, of the nine MCAT fixed routes, seven routes finish their final trip between 6:00 and 7:00p.m. The exceptions are Route 1 and Route 10, with service ending at 7:15p.m. and 7:10 p.m., respectively. The desire for later transit service has been expressed by many _of the riders in addition to a number of the local officials and drivers. Of the eight other systems in MCA T's 1-9 vehicle peer group, only one provides late r evening service, operating until10:40 p .m. In addition, only two of the six peer systems in MCAT's supplementary 9-20 vehicle peer group3 provide later evening service, i.e., unt il 8:15p.m. Given that few of MCA T's peers operate significantly longe r hours it' would seem that later evening service is not necessarily a priority, especially given the relatively high use of the system for work commute purposes. However, in MCAT's case, the issue is not so much providing service to tl)e average 8:00 a.m.-to-5:00 p.m. working commuter, as is providing evening service later than 7:15 p.m. A first step in providing evening transit service is to identify trip generators which produce a large numbe r of trips during these lime periods. Colleges, shopping malls, major businesses, and hospitals are among the obvious generators. Hours of service could be extended on routes serving these locations, as well as routes serving t ransit-dep endent neighborhoods. Exact hours of operation should be determined through detailed evaluation during service design. Service into the evening might encourage shopping mall workers to commute via transit and open up employment opportunities for those without access to an automobile. Even a more modest lengthe ning of the service day would support the objectives of increasing mobility for captive riders and providing service to working commuters. Unfortunately, financing evening service is problematic. While some existing equipment can be utilized, ADA paratra nsit service would need to be expanded to match the new hours of service. Further, labor costs for this service may be significant. Improved Frequency Currently, MCAT service is provided at a frequency of one bus per hour on seven routes, with one ro ute (Route 5) providing service every two liours, and one route (Route 2) providing half hour service. It is very difficult to attract discretionary riders out of their automobiles at this 3A supplementary 1 0 vehic.\e peer group was discussed i n Cheptar 3 in the Peer Review Anal}t&ia Introduction. Thi$ peer group was developed for purposes of additional comparison since MQ\T is the iargest system in the 1-9 vehicle p&er group in terms of vehicles operated and service area population. I n thls chapter, this peer group was combined with MCAT lo create Peer Subset S (9-20 buses) which was used for peer g roup comp.aftsons in Table 4-3 of 1he d emand Mti'na1ion section. 139

PAGE 172

frequency. On busiest routes and corridors MCA T might consider expe rimen ting with a frequ ency of one bus every 30 m i nutes during peak hours Recommend ed routes for such an improvem ent in frequency include Routes 1 3, and 6. Additionally, it is possible that Route 5 may benefit from a shift to one-hour service. The fiscal implications of Improved frequency are significant. Additional equipment will be required a long with additional labor costs, and no funding source is Imm ediately I dentifiable. One possible a pproach is to sated the most promising route as a test case If overa ll service elasticities hold, route ridership might i ncrease by approxi m a tely 60 percent during peak hours, since service is be i ng increased by 100 percent. On its busiest route with the h i ghest demand, however, MCAT might exped to experience a greater-than-average ridership increase. express Service E xpress service is generally provided from a suburban outlying area to an urban high density employment site such as the Central Business Distrid ( CBD) In meetings with the focus groups a n d key local officials the need for express service in the county was discussed In particular express service along either the U S 301 or U S 41 corridors betwe e n downtown Sarasota and downtown Bradenton was seen as an important need In conjunction with this service, the establishment of a park-and-ride lot along the border between Manatee and Sarasota County wa s also mentioned as a potential improvement to inter-county service. Service to Major Resldenl/aVEmp/oyment Sites One of the objectives for MCAT is to seek out markets for transit service at res i dential sites employment sites and other major trip generators. Fo r examp l e one resi dentiaVemployment sit e that is expected to be completed the next five years is the Schroeder Manatee development, which w ill be located in the area east of Interstate 75 between State Road 70 and University Parkway : Due to the anticipated city-like nature of this new development, dired transit service to Bradenton will most likely be necessary The identification of other potential trip generators throughout the area should be pursued and often can be accomplished as one of the tasks in a comprehensive operations analysis Comprehensiv e Operations Analysis It i s recommended that MCA T consider completing a comprehen sive operat ions analysis of its transit system Typically, every three to fwe years a system should take a more detailed loo k 140

PAGE 173

at its existing service and future market potential. Such an analysis usually entails an on-board survey (this task would not be necessary since has been completed as part of this TOP) ; a ridecheck study which would examine schedule adherence, peak load points, and boardingslalightlngs by stop and time of day; and the evaluation of other aspects of MCA T's service. Improved Service Coverage in Transit-Dependent Tracts Primary, secondary and tertiary transit-dependent census tracts have been identified earlier i n Table 4-7 and Rgure 4-1. That particular section compared the fixed-route system with a r eas of transit need These concentrations of elderly population low-income households, and zero vehicle househo l ds have a clear need for transit service. All primary and secondary transit dependent census tracts are currently served by MCAT fixed-route bus service. Census tracts 14. 02 (Snead Island) and 16.00 (RuboniafTerra Ceia) are tertiary transit-dependent tracts that are currently unserved. These tracts should be analyzed further when considering any mod i fications or eXPansion of service in the county. MOBILITY NEEDS AND TRANSIT DEMAND: SUMMARY The peer and census tract analyses suggest that there may be some leve l of unmet demand for transit service In Manatee County, but that overall, MCAT does a good job in providing service where it is needed. Demand projections suggest that ridership will continue to grow, helped along by appropriate service extensions Specific transit-dependent areas deserving additional analysis have been noted. MCAT must also take into account growth patterns in the county, particularly in and around Ellenton, the Interstate 75 corridor, and areas of new development such as the Schroede r -Manatee development between State Road 70 and University Parkway and east of Interstate 75. All of these issues raise important questions r egarding the future direction MCAT should take. The next chapter presents and evaluates broad alternatives for MCAT, and develops a series of recommendations to help the transit agency achieve its v i sion and goa l s In the next five years 14 1

PAGE 174

142

PAGE 175

CHAPTER FIVE Transit Alternatives and Reco mmendations INTRODUCTION This is the final chapter for the Manatee County Transit Development Plan. Previous chapters have described the current conditions for trans i t service in Manatee County External factors such as population growth developm e nt patterns and demographic characteris t ics o f Manatee County residents have been analyzed in terms of their impacts on MCA T's ab il ity to provide quality transit service Community participation in the form of the TOP Review Comm itt ee has produced goals and objectives for the transit system. At this J>Oint in the project, the focus shifts from a descriptive, analytical approach to a future oriented perspective. The findings presented ear1ier are no w brought together and used to sketch alternatives for MCAT and to make recommendations for transit improvements in Manatee County. The first section of thi s chapter presents broad for MCA T's future directio.n over the next five years The most reasonable and promising alternatives are then selected to form the basis of MCA T's vis i on for transit. To help achieve this vision and the agency's proposed goals and objectives, the next section develops a series of recommendations to be implemented ove r t he next live years. The recommendations are prioritized according to the time frame for action: immediately, within one-to-two years and within three -to-frve years. The final section estimates the costs associated with each recommendation. ALTERNATIVES Broad alternatives for the future direction of the transit agency are presented in the following paragraphs. These alternatives reflect overall policy decisions regarding ridership, extent of se rvice, and the role of tran sit in the day-to-day lives of M anatee County residents. Amo n g the Issues consid ered are whether the transit system should be expanded; what markets s hould be targeted for transit service; and how MCAT should respond to growth in Manatee County. Expand the Transit Syste m to Existing Uns erved and U nderserved Areas of the County This alternative applies to the geographic coverage of the county by the transit system, and would stress provision of service beyond the current service area to communities not adequately 143

PAGE 176

or not currently served. The process of service expansion could in i t ially focus on areas with high concentrations of transit-dependent households. Chapter Four analyzed demographic data to detennine transit dependent census tracts in the county. Of t he three levels of transit dependent census tracts identified in the county, only two tracts (Snead Island and RuboniafTerra Ceia) were not served by existing transit service. Other areas that may warrant further detailed analysis with regard to possible need for additional service coverage include census tract 13.00 in Palmetto, tract 17.02 in Lo ngboat Key, and tract 19.03 in Ellenton. A major benefit of the service expansion is increased access for residents of Manatee County to the transit system. Greater geographic coverage should Improve mobility. There is also the potential to enlarge the constituency supporting public transportat ion There are two significant Issues related to this aHemative The first involves cost. Transit worl
PAGE 177

first alternative in its focus on responding to change i nst ead of expanding the serv ice area of the county The primary benefit& of this alternative are twofold. First, it ties the need for transit service to land use devel o pment and population growth patterns in Manatee C o unty. Second, It clearly permits and encourages growth In the transit system, in response to these and similar changes. In essence, the transit networl<. is treated like any other part of the transportation system in the county : it will expand to meet the emerging travel demands of growth areas It should be noted that serv i ce expans i on, as discussed previous l y can be expensive especially if the new service area is suburban in character and the automobile is by far the dominant mode of transportation. Also, this approach leaves the question of the appropriate level of service unanswered and so runs the risk of spre a ding t he transit agency too thinly, as is also poss i ble In the first alternative. FUTURE D IREC T IO NS FO R MCAT The peer results and public I nput obtained through interviews focus groups and surveys ind i cate that MCA T is well-positioned to move into the future. There is now a staple, kn owtedgeable management team in place There also appears to be an increased awareness regarding the role that the public transit system can potentially play in meeting the challenges posed by Manatee County s growth. Each of the two broad alternatives outlined in the preceding section has merit on its own terms The most promising course for MCAT to pursue i nvolves taking the best of each alternative and Implementing it at the appropriate time. Areas where growth is concentrated are obv ious candidates for expanded routes In the immediate future improvements such as I ncreased frequency, enhanced amenities, and the possible extension of the time span of service can be considered for the core areas of the transit system, those routes which are most heavily traveled. The existing t ransit service in Manatee County is healthy In Its essential aspects: ridership is increas i ng costs are not out of line, and the system i s well-regarded by those who use it. This provides a solid base for i mprovements which can proceed on several fronts The strategy proposed for MCAT over the next fwe years is to marl<.et the existing system while making needed improvements to plan for new services and to implement these new services at the appropriate time and when funding is established. The following paragraphs elaborate on this proposed stra t egy. 145

PAGE 178

A need iden tified by the pub lic and local officials is in the area of mar1ceting, passenger information, and public involvement Because good service is currently provided, marketing actions are appropriate at an early stage to improve public awareness and perceptions of the transit system. These actions can benefit both the transit-dependent and discretionary riders and can encourage additional ridership. Along with improved marketing and Information, actions should be undertaken to improve the existing transit system. Reliability does not appear to be a problem. but there is a desire for more frequent and later transit service. Upgrading the for transit riders (shelters, information displays, transfer locations) is also a priority. The third area of attention is expanding transit service to other parts of Manatee County. This service expansion should be focused in areas where growth is occurring. Overall growth in the county is expected to o ccu r primarily In the southern and eastern portions of the county, and MCAT should be prepared to respond to these changes In summary, the most promising future direction for MCA T is to focus immediate attention on core service, and to expand selectively in response to population and employment shifts. This strategy allows MCAT to continue to serve its transit-dependent ridership while taking advantage of opportunities to attract new riders to public transportation. MCATVISION As is the case with most small transit agencies, Manatee County has not devoted considerable resources to articulating MCAT's vision or defining its role in the community The transit development plan process provides the opportunity to consider these issues as the context in which to present recommendations for future developments in public transportation. Public inpu t received as part of the TOP process suggests that public transportation is viewed as an important component of the local transportation network. The discussion of future directions for transit in Manatee County and the findings presented in previous chapters help to define the vision for the role MCAT can play in the community. MCAT's vision may be expressed as: 146 MCA T will continue to be the major public transportation provider in Manatee County. MCA T will continue to improve the quality of life for county residents and visitors by providing, in a cost-efficient manner, a readily accessible means

PAGE 179

of mobility for those who want to use its services and by reducing traffic congestion on major roads in the county This vision statement recognizes the importance of providing mobility and of keeping costs within reason. It defines the essential function of the transit system, but it also stresses the broader community role that transit can play beyond serving its existing riders. The next section contains specific recommendations for improving transit service in Manatee County over the next five years. Taken together, these recommendations constiMe a series of actions intended to bring MCAT closer to achieving its vision. FIVE-YEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PlAN: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section summarizes findings with regard to transit service in Manatee County and presents recommendations for MCAT over the next fiVe years. Recommendations are prioritized by time frame for implementation: immediately, over the next one-to-two years, and over the next three to-five years Most of the recommendations fall into the near-term time frames, and it is expected that the transit development plan will be updated annually to account for changing conditions in Manatee County. Within each time frame, recommendations with a higher priority are generally listed earlier, but related actions are grouped as appropriate Thus, the numbering scheme of the recommendations is not strictly in priority order. The 1989 Mass Transit Element of the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan includes a level of service standard line haul (fiXed-route transit service). The county's funding of MCA T's capital and operating expenses is contingent on a formula based on annual passenger miles per capita As passenger miles increase and costs increase proportionately, the comprehensive plan proposes an increase in county capital and operating assistance. A majority of the actions recommended below will positively affect ridership, though many at a cost which will exceed the current budget. This may invoke an Increase in county funding of MCAT as referenced in the comprehensive plan. Actions to be Initiated Immediately 1. Pursue the establishment of a long-term dedicated funding source for MCAT. MCA T is currently receiving funds as a division of county government from local property tax revenues as well as other state and federal sources Manatee County should work toward a permanent source of dedicated funding for MCAT Based on interviews with local officials, 147

PAGE 180

there appears to be support for partial funding of the transit service from a percentage of the available local option five-cent gas tax. A dedicated funding source w i ll help ensure the continued fisca l health of the system 2. Increase efforts towards supplying the public w i th transit marketing information. There is an identified need for additional marketing, pub lic ou treach, and overall education of the public and loca l officials. 3. Install bus shelters at key locations. Transfer l ocations, major street in tersections and stop s near major trip generators are candidates for bus sheHers An ultimate plan would be to locate bus shelters along a ro ute every one-half mile in the urbanized area of the county Approximately 1 00 shelters are envisioned to be placed during the five years of the plan at the rate of 20 per year. This would inclu de a major shelter to be l ocated at one of the primary transfer locations. Metro Advertising currently locates benches along roadways in Mana tee County as part of a project wHh the Kiwanis and lions Clubs. 4. Provide Information kiosks at major transfer centers These kiosks should contain information on route s 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. Information on alternate payment options (passes multi-ride punch passes) should also be included. Three information kiosks are planned for installation in the first year (FY 1996) of the plan. 5. Explore the potential for shelter advertising and/or privatization of shelter ownership. There are two alternatives to shelte r advertising. One aHernative is to market the shelter advertising within MCA T and keep the advertising revenues. This would entail MCAT pu r chasing and maintaining the sheHers. A second alternative many systems have opted to implement is through privatization of the shelters and their advertising This program is usually run by an advertising company that will be responsible for the purchase and maintenance of the shelters as well as for the marketing/selling of. advertising space. A combination of the two alternatives can also be accomplished as is currently the case for MCAT's request for proposals. 6. Implement the use of specially painted buses to market transit. Specially painted "Supergraphic" buses around the state have proven to be extremely popular and can be a major sou rce of revenue to the transit system These types of buses can "li ven up" the streets and get the transit system noticed. Similar advertising is used on buses in Orlando, 146

PAGE 181

Tampa, and Fort Myers. MCAT should take care to ens11re a consistent visual identification on all of its buses. 7. Expand service north to serve Rubonia and Port Manatee Extension of service to the growing areas north of the Manatee River will provide transit access to Port Manatee, and would be utilized by port employees and cruise ship patrons. This route will provide access to the fixed-route system to the low-income areas of Rubonia, the new community center, the new public rural unit, and the new county jail. Access to other parts of Manatee County will be available through a transfer point in Palmetto or at the downtown courthouse. 8. Apply for State of Florida Transit Corridor Program funds to make transit improvements in congested corridors. The initial priorities for such improvements are the increased frequency of service along Routes 1 and 3, which operate significant portions of their service upon State roadways. All transit corridorS will be further analyzed In future Congestion Management Systems projects. 9. Establish a vehicle replacement program and purchase new expansion vehicles. Four of MCA T's current buses are scheduled for replacement during the five years of the TOP. The proposed five-year budget in the following section assumes bus replacement on an ongoing basis. MCAT is currently in the process of replacing four fixed-route vehicles using Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. New buses will be lift-equipped to comply with ADA provisions. Six new vehicles will need to be purchased for Increased frequency of service on four existing routes, for service to areas of new development (such as the proposed Schroeder-Manatee development), and for the new express service from 10. Expand .the formal monitoring program to track the performance of Individual routes. This information is the basis for making decisions on the routing and frequency of buses. Although some data is currently being collected, a more formal data monitoring and analysis program should be set up and followed. This program will require a significant amount of person hours from the MCAT Planning Department. 11. Increase MCAT's Involvement in the transportation planning process. The current intermodal emphasis at the federal and state levels and the increased recognition of the role that transit can play in the community suggest that MCAT should be involved in transportation decisions for Manatee County. This is probably best accomplished through the Development Review Committee and the metropoman planning process. 149

PAGE 182

12. Educate local officials on the impact of transit service in Manatee County. Based on our Interviews wi th key local officials, a need was ident ified to educate these officials on the workings of the transit system. This includes bringing them up to date on specific related issues including the recent cuts in Federal operating assistance, the impacts of ISTEA, the funding needs of the transit system, and the system's need for a dedicated funding source. 13. Maintain independent nature of transit management within the County structure. I n the last TOP document great detail was presented dealing with the organization of the transit management with in the workings of the Manatee County Government. Since that time man y changes have occurred and are in the process of occurring. It is recommended that stability be brought to the management staff and as much autonomy as possible be given to that staff so as to be able to effectively operate the transit system. This includes ma intain ing the functions of planning and finance personnel specifically with in the control of the transit director so as to be able to effectively implement the priority projects detailed in this TOP. 14 Continue to encourage public input by forming a Citizens Transit Advisory Council. Increased public involvement should be promoted Tran sit syst ems with open channels for public input tend to be successful. 16. Ensure that MCAT maintains compliance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). MCAT i s in full compliance with the requirements for ADA complementary paratransit service but will need to update the ADA plan should l ater evening service or n ew routes be implemented. 16. Install bike racks on existing and expanded large bus fleet In order to highlight its sensitivity to the environment and alternative modes of transporta tion, MCAT should cons ider inst alling bike racks on its existing fixed-route fl eet. These bike racks are planned for installation on the existing fleet, and on the new expansion buses as service is implemented. Actions to be Initiated over the Next One-to-Two Years 17. Conduct a pilot program to Increase frequency on the busiest routes. Routes 1, 3, and 6 are the top candidates for inc reas ing service to every 30 minutes, based on current ridership and on ease of implementation These routes have p re vio usly operated with 30 minute service. These routes should be carefully monitored after the service increase to determine the impact on ridership. 150

PAGE 183

18 Conduct a compnthena lve operations analy s is of MCAT service. A full operation s analysis wou ld examine the entire existing trans it network as well as unserved areas of the county, and make recommendation s for specific r oute-level changes M CAT has not undertak e n such a study in recent years 19 Identify an appropriate location for a parkand ride lot and implement express bus service MCAT needs to identify sites a long U .S. 301 or U.S. 41 for a park-and-ride lotto operate serv ice between downtown Sa rasota and downtown Brade nton. Shared church parking lots and shopping center l ots have worked very well as a joint development project for the establishment o f a park-and-ride lot. These possibilities should be explored in greater deta il In addition express bus service should be implemented in conjunction w i th a park-and-ride lot. Again this may be m ost feasible in the U.S. 41 or U .S 301 corrido r from d owntow n Sara sota to do wntown Bradenton, with a 50-10 0 space park -an d -ride lot located along the county border. At least two morning peak and two late afternoon/ e vening peak trips shou ld be operated. One-way trip mileage is estima ted at 12.8 miles 20 Examine route reconflgurations Responses to the on-boar d survey i ndicated diss a tisf a ction w it h long travel t i mes on the bus. Routes should be exam i ned to determine w hether minor re-rout in gs are appropriate This might be part of an operat ions analysis, but It can a lso be done on an individua l route-by -route basis. 21. Become more Involved, possibly as a review agency In the local land use planning process. On a global level, land use patterns affect t he potenti al for transit ridership At a more immediate level, a menhies such as sidewalks can ma ke a difference in attracting po t ential riders. MCAT should becom e involved perhaps as a r ev iewer of development proposals i n its current or planned service area 22 Identify possible routing Improvements to serve transit-dependent areas All areas characterized as p rimary transit-dep endent tracts are reaso nably well served by the existing transit system, but MC AT shou ld keep these area s In mind when considering improvements. In terms of mobility nee ds these areas are most cri t ical. 23 Begin planning transit connections to identified areas of new m aj o r development One new deve lopm ent that i s scheduled t o ope n i n 1999 i s the Schroeder-M a natee development. MCA T must be involved in the ea rly plann ing for sites such as this so tha t its buses can conveni ently serve the development. At the same lime, preliminary route planning can begin now 151

PAGE 184

Actions to be Initiated over the Next Three-to-Five Years 24. lncreue bus service on Route 5 to Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key Route 5 serving Anna Maria I sland and Longboat Key over the years has been reduced from one hour to two-hour headways because of the increasing traffic congestion. specifically during the tourist season Two-hour service I s not seen as practical service headways to the riding public; therefore, service to the Island should be increased to one hour headways This increased service would necessitate the purchase of an expans i on bus. 25. Monitor the use of alternative fuels at other transit systems for future potential at MCAT. Though MCAT shou l d not necessarily take the lead in testing new alternative fuels for their bus fleel they must continue to monito r the p r ogress of other test s i tes so as to be prepared to purchase alternative fue l ed vehic l es as the technology changes and federal regu lations related to alternative fue l s are revised. 26. Initiate later evening service on selected routes. Candidate routes include those serving the malls and other even i ng activity centers. Connections with resi dent i al areas of employees at these activity centers would be i deal. A pilot program involving a small number of approximately one-ha l f of the routes might provide an indication of demand for later service Service could be operated until 9:30 p .m. on these selected routes It is anticipated that th i s action can be implemented in the one-to-two year time frame if MCAT decides to postpone or forego recommended service expansion. 27. Implement service to identified areas of new major development This is the implementation portion of a previous recommendation Major developments such as Schroeder Manatee should generate a large number of transit trips, and involvement in the p lann i ng for the new deve l opment will hopefully have ensured that access to transit is convenient. FIVE-YEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN: FINANCIAL PLAN Up to this point, the TDP process has not been constra i ned by fisca l considerations, in accordance with its strategic intent. Demograph ics survey results. community input in various forms, and peer and trend analyses have all been used to assess the demand for transit service and to identify mobility needs i n Manatee County The recommendations presented above have been based on previous findings and future d i rections. The final step in the transit development 152

PAGE 185

p l an process is to estimate costs for these recommendations and compare them against current and anticipated financial resources. Table 5-1 presents the costs associated with the above recommendations and the projected dates of implementation These costs are based on several assumptions for Hems, ranging from unit cost per bus shelter to the average cost of a new route These are the most reasonable assumptions available but cost estimates should be refined at the time the recommendations are implemented, when greater detail will be ava il able Table 5-2 presents the cap i tal and operating costs of the recommended projects by the fiscal year of i mplementation It should be noted that MCAT is currently operating under a constra i ned budget. Federal operating assistance is projected to decrease by as much as 30 percent in the next year. A shortfall in M CAT's operating and capllal budget (more significantly on the operating side) is projected in order to implement the recommendations. Thus, priorities must be revised based on fiscal constraints, or potential ne w funding sources must be Identified for implementation of the recommendations. Among potential sources are State Urban Corridor funds, State Service Development funds Surface Transportation Program funds avai l able through ISTEA, and additional l ocal funding sources 153

PAGE 186

Ac tion -2 Marketing 3 Shelters 4 IQosks 7 Expan.s.ion of Service to RubonJa/Port ManttH1 Sus Replacemet'II/Expan.sion 16. Bike Rltclpment -Table 5-1 MCAT Transit Development Plan Estimated Cost of Recommendations Ntrnbo
    Ot Opotollog unill Coot' $10.000 n/a $10.000 $6,000/sheller 100 shelter$ n/o $200 3 $0 $2.92/revenue 58,500 $170 ,820 mio revenue miles $ 250,000 replacement nil 6 expansion $600 20 $0 $2..92/reven.ue 196,000 $5 72.320 mle rewnuemles $ 75 000 1 nla $2.92/revenue 25,600 $ 7 4 7$0 mio revenue miles $2.92/fevenue 69,000 $201 480 mio revenue miles $2.92frevenue 52,555 $190,000 mio revenue miles $2.92/revenue 68,250 $199,000 mio revenue miles Annual Rovenue nla $ 1 00,000 nlo $23,100 n/a nla $45,000 nla $25, 000 $6,500 $32 000 $27,000 ----------Fllcal v ,. Capitol ec.t' Allocled nla 1* $600,000 1996 $600 199e nla $2.soo ,ooo 1996-2000 $ 1 2 000 1996 -2000 n/o 1996 $ 75,000 1996 nJo 1997 nla 1998 nla 1998 -2 000 n la 1999 -2000 -' U ses fully-albeated costs per revenue mile to generate tlllmated annual opera&lg cost. however, actuallncr.mental costs may be Jess for inlial route expansion 2Ponions of the projeded operating and cap ita l costs will be funded by noll--lOcal revenue soun:es (federaJ, ata ) '80% of lhe capi!a! COS1S are progroovned fol lodoral fund ing. eost estmatn are based on service lO the dewiOpmenl ' '

    PAGE 187

    2. Tf'tll&tl Marketing $10,000 $0 -$0 $120.000 -$0 seoo 1 &pansiOn ol Service to 1170,82 0 so RubOnia/Port -natee' .. I $0 1 s1.ooo.ooo 1 10. --$0 $8 <00 11. f r equency' so $750,000 18. Opotations M{Sis $0 so 11. Elcptt:N Bus SetYioe' I $0 I $250,000 I 24. tncftlllse Frequeney en I $0 I $0 I Routo5' 28. Evtnlng Service' $0 so :0. _.....,.w,..,.,._...,.._ 1 $0 I s o I Table S-2 M CAT Transit Development Plan Estimated Operating a nd Capital Cost by Fisca l Year (in 1895 dollars) SIO,OOD so $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 1120.0CXl $0 $1211,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 1170,820 $0 $170,820 so $170,820 $0 I $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2.<00 $0 .... so $52'7,320 so $527,320 $0 $527,3.20 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $49.750 I $0 I $49,750 I $0 I $41,750 $0 I $250,000 I ., .. ..,. I $0 I $194,5110 $0 $0 I $0 I so I $158,000 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 so $10,000 .. .._ $0 so $0 $0 $170,8.20 $0 $0 seoo $0 $0 $527,320 $0 $0 I $0 I Mt.750 I I $0 I $1$4,811) I I so I $158,000 I I $250,000 I $172,101 I 'Bus tal\llee opera&lg cos.ts use f\llty411oeattd co61l1nct are ellen reduced by projtclled tare Actual incremental eostt De iess ror i nila l route expansion. 1Portiont Of l he projectad ope ratltlg 111'\d c:epl.31 eos.ts will IHt funciOd bY noN)Ca l revenue sourcu (redefal. tllte). 'Cost ft,tlmlttt a.re baSed on MNICI to the Schroecltf-MIMiet development. so $&0,000 I $0 $120.000 $0 seoo.ooo $0 $0 seco $0 $854,100 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 .. $0 $0 $12.00Q. so S2,109.280 $750,000 so $0 $15,000 $0 I ., ...... I S2SO.ooo $0 I S514,8o40 I S2SO,OOO so I I $0 $0 I St12.m I S2SO.ooo

    PAGE 188

    APPENDIX A MANATEE COUNTY CENSUS DATA TABLES

    PAGE 189

    this page 0 IS b\ank

    PAGE 190

    Table A-1 Population and Population Density Manatee County, 1990

    PAGE 191

    Table A-2 Manatee County, 1990

    PAGE 192

    Table A-3 Household Income Manatee County, 1990

    PAGE 193

    Table A-4 Vltblc:le.AvoUablllty Manatee County, 1990

    PAGE 194

    Table A-5 Travel Time to Work Manatee County, 1990

    PAGE 195

    Table A-6 Means ,ofTr avel-to Work Manatee County, 1990

    PAGE 196

    APPENDIX B SURVEY FORMS

    PAGE 197

    this page IS blank

    PAGE 198

    DEAR BUS RIDER; P lease take a minule to help us plan for your transit needs by c:omplctiog the following survey. Pl ace the sUM:y in the box as you exit the bus, or band it 10 the SURVEYOR. Please fill out this s urvey e"'n if you f illed one out earlier. I. Where did y ou st art this t rip? (.f only one) liome Doctor /Denti$1 1 Oth er z Work s = Shopping/ Errands &bool Visiting/Recreation 2. Where did you gel on Ibis bus? that nutcu tM bus $tOp) 3 How d i d you get t o l h e bus Slop? (.f only one) Walked 0 b locks Tr ansferred from bus route # z Walked mor e than 3 blocks s Drove : Was dropped orr Other 4 Where will you gel orr this bus? & (st reeu thll irllciSCd --5 What wiU you do when you get off this bus? (.f ooly one) Walk ().3 blocks Trans fer to bus route # z Walk more thaD 3 b locks Drive = Be picked up Other 6 Where are you going t o now? (.f ool y one) Home Doctor /Dentist 1 Othe r z Work s = Shopping/ Errands School Visiting/Recreat .ion 7 Which fare category are you in? 1 St udent 1 = R egular Adult Senior Disabled 8. How did you pay f or your fare o n this bus trip? 1 Cash 4Q.Ride Punch Pass 1 -Monthly Pass s T raosfer lORide Punch Pass -Other 9. How often do you ride the bus? 1 4 or more days per week About 1 day per week = Once cYCry_ week s z 2 or 3 days per week 10. What is th e most imnonant reason you ride the bus? (.f ooly one) I don't drive P arking is difficult/coolly : Car is not available ei Bus is more convenient 1 -Bus is more economkal ., Other -Traffic is t oo bad """'(s_pe_c-:-:iry-:)---11. How would you make this trip if DOl by bus? (.f only one) Dri' Walk z Ride with someone s Taxi = Bicycle Wouldn' t make trip 12. How l ong have you been using M ana tee CAT bus service? o Less than 6 m onths 3 I t o 2 y ears l 6 utonlhs to 1 2 years o r longer --13. Your age is .. 1 17 years or under z = 18 1 0 24 years 3 25 t o 34 years 35 to 44 years 14. You are: Male 15. Your ethnic origin i s ... (.f o nl y ooe) 45 1 0 54 years -55 t o 59 years = 60 10 65 years 65 years or more l Female White z Black Hispanic 16. Your total annua l househo l d income is.. 1 Less t han $10,000 $30,000 to $39,999 SIO,OOO t o $19,999 $40,000 to $49,999 = $20,000 t o $29,999 = $50,000 and oYer 17. H ow many cars are available iJI your h ou .. hol d ? Other None J One J Two Three or more (PLEASE COM1'LETE OT H ER SIDE)

    PAGE 199

    18. Please answer the following questioos by placing a check( I) in the appropriate column. In general, how do you rate each of the following .. peels of Manatee CAT bus s ervice a. Days of service b. Hours of service c. Freq uency of service (how ofte n buses run) d. Convcnicocc of rou tes (where buses go) e D ependability of buses (on time) f. Travel time on bus g. Cost of riding the bus h Availability of bus route information Vehicle cleanliness and comfort J. Operator courtesy k Safety on bus and at bus stops l. How would YOU rate overall bus service? Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor 19. If you could make only ONE improvement to the bus system, what would it be? __________________________________________________ __ THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. PLEASE PLACE IN RETURN BOX ON BUS OR REtURN TO SURVEYOR. If you have any additional comments or questions call 747-8621. 0 A

    PAGE 200

    MCAT OPERATOR SURVEY I. The f ollowing is a list o f possible complaints passengen may voice to bus opennon. Please ranlc the S complaints you bear most from "I" to s ( I being the most frequ eot ) __ fan is too high __ infrequent service __ bus doesn't go where I want __ bus i s late __ bus leaves stop too early bus i s not clean bus is not comforta b le __ need Sunday service __ security 2 Wbat is your opi n ion of these complaints? Are they valid ? _ passengen cannot get information __ bus schedule too hard to undeman d __ eating or drinking on the bus _ smoking on bus _ route or d .. tination not clear _ no bus shelters/ben ches _ need evening service __ OTHl!R. (specify)----3. The following is a list of possible improvements to tho transit system. you think would be helpful ( "1" being the most helpful) Please rank all the improvement s that new, smaller vehicles __ provide better route and schedule information __ maintain buses more frequently __ give more time in schedules __ OTHl!R (please spec ify)------_ lower the fares _ put u p shelters at bus stops _ operate Sunday service __ reduce headways 4 Do you know of any safesy problems on any routes ? Please describe (Please complete o ther si de) B-5

    PAGE 201

    . S Are there any schedules or pari$ of schedllles wh ich are difficult to maintain? _ yes _ no If y es which routes?---------------6 Are there any routes which s hould be modified in any way? If so, bow? 7 In your opinion, is night service necessary? _ yes __ no 8 In your opinion, is S1mday service necessary? __ yes _ no 9 A re there any other comments that would be helpful to us? THANKS FOR YOUR HELPI

    PAGE 202

    APPENDIX C SELECTED MCAT ON-BOARD SURVEY RESULTS BY ROUTE

    PAGE 203

    C-2

    PAGE 204

    Male Fomale 0.0% t 7 YNrt. or unct.r 11to24y .... 25to34ye.,. 35to44yoora 45 to 64 yn 55to5tyN .. 10tol4yN
    PAGE 205

    le$S than 6 months 6 months to 1 yea .. 1 to 2 years 2 years or longer .,. StudiHlt Regular AduH: Senior Disabled Figure C-6 Route 1 Length of Use ..,. .... 4 or more days per week 2 or 3 daYs per week About 1 day p&r week Once every_ weeks 0% Figure C-8 Route 1 Fare Category 80% Flash Pass Easy Rlclor Super Rider Transfer Otller (Golden Age Pass} 0% Figure C-7 Route 1 -Frequency of Use ,..,. Figure C 9 Route 1 Fare Type 40% 80% 80%

    PAGE 206

    Figure C 10 Route 1 Alternative Transportation Drive Ride with someone Bleyelo Walk Taxi Wouldn't make tttp 0 % W.lkod 0.3 bloeko Walked more than 3 blocks Drove .... 80% Figure C-11 Route 1 Reason for Riding MCAT I don't drive car Ia not avallabte Sua Ia mo ... .eonomlcal Traffic II too bad Perking dffftcuttleo.tl1 Sua 11 more Othot 0% Figure C-12 Route 1 Mode of Access Walk G-3 blocko Walk more than 3 blocks Transfer Drive Other % Figure C 13 Route 1 Mode of Egress C-5

    PAGE 207

    Figure C.14 Figure C-115 Route 1 Oaya of Service Route 1 Hours of Service Very Good Very Good Good Good Folr f l lr pPoor V ery Poor Very Poor 0% 40% 0% 40% 80% Figure C.16 Figure C-1 7 Route 1 Frequency of Service Route 1 Convenience of Routes Vory Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor V"Y Poor Vry Poor -F igure C-18 Figure C-19 Route 1 Dependability of Buses Route 1 Travel Time on Bus Very Good V ery Good Good Good Fair Fair ppVtty Poor VtfY Poor 0% '"" .,,, 0% '"" 80%

    PAGE 208

    Figure C-20 Figure C-21 Route 1 Cost of Riding Bus Route 1 Availability of Sua Route Info. Very Good Good Fair Very Poor Very Poor 0% 40% 80% 40% Figure C-22 FlgureC-23 Route 1 Vehk:le CleanllnHs and Comfort Route 1 Operator CourtHy Very Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fa i r Poor PO Very Poor VeryP-0% -80% 0% 40% Figure C-24 Route 1 Safety on Bus and At Bus Stop Figure C-25 Route 1 Overall Quality of Service Very Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor 0% 80% 0% 40% 80% C

    PAGE 209

    Mal Female 0 .0% 17 ytlf8 or under 18to24y01111 25 to :w years 35to44yo..,. 45to54yrs 55 to 59 YN111 12. 0 ... IOtoMyears 81$ yura or more 0% Figun1 C-26 Figun1 C-27 Route 2 Gender Route 2 Ethnic Origin White Black Hltp.anlc OtMr tiQ.G% 0.0% -40 .0'16 Flgun1 C 28 Route 2 Ann ua l Household Income LAs:a than $10,000 $10,000to$11,1H $20,000 to $29,999 $3(1,000 to $31,999 $40,000 to ..... ,. $50,000 and over Figu r e C-29 Route 2 -Age o% -Flgure C-30 Route 2 -Vehicle Owne111hip None One Tht11 Of more 0% 80.0% 80%

    PAGE 210

    Lese than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to Zyo ars 2 years or longer SIUdont R e gular Adult Senior Oloabled Figure C-31 Route 2 Length of Use 80% Figure C-32 Route 2 Frequency of Use 4 or more days per week 2 or 3 days per week Om:e OYO
    PAGE 211

    Figure C-35 Route 2 Alternative Transportation Drive Ride with someone Bicycle Walk Taxi Wouldn't make trip 0% walked 0-3 block& . Walked more than 3 blocks C-10 Was dropped off Transfened Drove FigureC-36 Route 2-Reason for Riding MCAT I don't drivo Car Is not available Bus Is moro oconoml<:al Traffic Ia too bad Parking dlfflcultleootly Bus Is more convenient other 0% Figura C-37 Route 2 Mode of Acceos Walk 0-3 blocks Walk more than 3 blocks Be picked up Transfer Otner 40% 80% Figura C-38 Route 2 Mode Of Egress 40% 80%

    PAGE 212

    FlgureC-39 Figure C-40 Route 2 Days of Service Route 2 Hours of Service Very Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Vry Poor Very Poor 0% o% 0% .. % 80% Figure C-41 Figure C-42 Route 2 Frequency of Service Route 2Convenience of Routes Very Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor 0% 80% 0% 80% Figure C-43 FlgureC-44 Route 2 Dependability of Buses Route 2 Travel Time on Bus Very Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Very Poor Very Poor C-11

    PAGE 213

    Figure C-45 Figure C-48 Route 2 Coat of Riding Bus Route 2 Availability of Bu Route Info. Very Good Very Good Good Good Fait F 1lr Pcor V ery Poor Very Poor 0% F i gure C-47 Route 2 -Vehicle CleaniiMSs and Comfort F igure C-48 Route 2 Operator Courtesy VYGood Good F a i r Vory Poor 014 .. ,. .. ,. Figure C-49 Route 2 Safety on Bu end At Bus Stop Vory Good Good Fair Pcor Very Poor 0% C-12 V ery Good Good Fair Vary Poor -Figure c-so Route 2 Overall Quality of Serv ice Very Goo d Good F11lr Pcor Very POOf" .... .. ,. 80%

    PAGE 214

    Mal e F omalo 0 .0% 17 yeara or under 111<>24yoan 25U>34y001'1 S5U>44y.-45to54yN.rs 55toetyu,. IOtoMyun 15 yea,. or more 0% Figure C-61 F igure C..S2 Route 3 Gende r Route 3 Ethnic Origin White Bloc k Hlapanlo OtN< ...... 80.0% 0.0% ...... .. .... Figure C-63 Route 3 Annu.i Houuhokllncome '-""Ilion $10,000 s1o.ooo "'S1t,m $20,000 I<> Ut,ttt $30,000"' '"'" $<0,000"' ....... $50 000 nd over ... Fi g u re C-64 Rout.3 Age .. ,. 80% .... .... Figure C-55 Route 3 Veh icl e OWnership 0% .... 80% C1 3

    PAGE 215

    L ess than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2years 2 years or longer 0% Student R egular Adult Senior Disabled C-14 Figure C-56 Route 3 Length of Use 4 or more days per weef( 2 or 3 days per we e k About 1 day pGr week on.ce every _weeks Figure C-57 Route 3 Frequency of Use ... .... .... Figure C-58 Route 3 Fare Category 80% Casll Flash Pass Easy Rider Transfer Other (Golden Age Pass ) Figure C-59 Route 3 Fare Type 0% 40% 80 %

    PAGE 216

    Figure Route 3 Alternative Transportation Dt1ve Ride with aomeone Bk:yoto Walk Taxi Woolctn't make b'fp .,. Figure Route 3 Reason for Riding MCAT Wolkod 0-3 bloeko Walked mor. than 3 bloc:ka Wu dropped off Tranafernd Car Ia not available Bus Is more economical Trallk: Is too bad Par1<1ng dlfflcultle0011y Bus Is more convnlent 0% Route 3 Mode of Access .... .. .. Walk ()..3 blocks Walk more than 3 btocke Dt1ve 0% 40% Figure Route 3 Mode of Egress .... &0% C-15

    PAGE 217

    Very GOOd Good Fair Poor Very Poor VtryGOOd Good Fair Poor VtryPOO< 0% FlgureC-64 Route 3 Days of Service Figure C-66 Route 3 Frequency of Service -FigureC-68 Route 3 Dependability of BUMS Vtry GOOd GOOd Ftlr Poor Very Poor 8 0% C-16 C-65 Route 3 -Hours of Service Flg ureC-67 Route 3 -Convenience of R outee Vtry Good Good Fair Poor -FlgureC-69 Route 3 -Travel nme on Bue Vt
    PAGE 218

    Figure C Route 3 Coat ol Riding Bua F igure C-71 Route 3 Availability of Bua Route Info. Very Good Vory Good Fair Poor Vory Poor VeryPoor U% <0 % 0% ..... 80% F igure C-7 2 Route 3 -Vehicle CINnlln ... and Comfort Figure C-73 Route 3 Operator Courtesy Vory Good VoryOood Good Good Fair Fair Poor Very Poor Vory Poor -Figure C 74 FlgureC-75 Route 3 Safety on Bua and At Bus Stop Route 3 OVerall Quality of Service Vory Good VoryGood Good Good Fair F afr Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor 0% 40% 80% ... 40 % 80 % C-17

    PAGE 219

    Male Fmale 0 .0% 17 yea!'$ or under 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 56 to 69 years 60 to 84 years 65 years or more 0% C1 8 .. Figure C-76 F i gure C-77 Route 4 -Gender Route 4 Ethnic Origin White Black Hispanic Olllor -10.0% 80.0% 0.0'4 40 .0% Figure C -78 Route 4 Annual Housellold Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $39, 999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 and over Figure C-79 Route4-Age 40% 80% Figure C 80 Route 4Vehicle Ownership None 1% One Two Three or more 0% 40% 80%

    PAGE 220

    this page IS blank

    PAGE 221

    Less than 8 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to2y..,rs 2 yean; or longer Student Regular Adult Senior OJN.bfOd Figure C-81 Route 4 Length of Use 80% 4 or more days per week 2 or 3 days per week About 1 day pEH" week Once every_ weeks Figure C-83 Route 4. Fare Category -80% Flash Pass Easy Rider Super Rider Transfer Other (Golden Age Pass) Figure C-82 Route 4Frequency of Use "'" Figure C-84 Route 4 Fare Type 40% 80% C-19.

    PAGE 222

    Figure C-85 Route 4-Alternative Transportation DrMI Ride with aomeone Bieyc&e Walk Taxi Woul dn't make trip W alked 0-3 bloeke Walked more than 3 bloeka C-20 Was dropped off Translernd Drovo Other Figure C-86 Route 4 -Reason for Riding MCAT I don't driw Carls not available Sus Ia maN economical Traffic lo too bad Parl< lng dlffteultleostly Bua Is mor. convenhtnt Other 0% Figure C-87 Route 4 Mode of Ace ... -80% Walk 0-3 blocke Walk more than 3 bloekt Be pfek.cl up Trana-._r Other 0% 40% 80% Figure C-88 Route 4-Mode of Egress 40%

    PAGE 223

    . Figure C-89 Figure C-90 Route 4 -Days of Service Route 4 Hours of Service Very Good Very Good Good Good F air Falr p-Poor Very Poor Vtf'l Poor 0% <0 % 0% 40% Figure C-.&1 Figure C-$2 Route 4 -Frequency of Service Route 4 Convenience of Rout88 VOfYGood Very Good Good Good Fair F a ir Very Poor Figure C-93 Figure C-94 Route 4 -Dependblltty of sRoute 4 Travel Time o n Bue Very Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fair p..,.. Poor Very Poor V ery Poor 0% -C-21

    PAGE 224

    Figure C-95 Figure C 98 Route 4 Cost of Riding B u s Route 4 Availability o f Bue Route Info. VOf'/Good Vory Good Geed Geed hlr Fair Poor Vtry Poor Very Poor 0% .... 80% 014 <014 00% FlgureC-17 Route 4. Vehicle Clean lin-1nd Comfort Flgurec.ea Route 4. Operator Courtesy Vory Oeed VoryOccd -Fetr Fair Poor VfHY Poor Vwt Poor -Fig ure C-99 Figure C-100 Route 4 S.tety on BUI 1nd At Bus Stop Route 4 Overall Qua lity of Service VoryOccd VOf'/Geed Geed Good Fair F air Poor Very Poor v..., Poor I 2.:!% -C-22

    PAGE 225

    17 yea.ra or unMr 1 8 to24ynrs 25to34yean 35to44yetlr. 4Sto!Uy ..... 66toS9yoars 60to64yHI8 15 years Or more ... Figure C-10 1 Route 5 G.nder White Hi$panlc Figure C-103 Figure C-102 Route 5 c Ethnic Ortgln ...... Route 6. Annual Household Income LHI thon $ 10,000 $\0, 000 to $18,tllt $20 000 t o $2t,tt9 $30,000 to $39,000 $44,000 to $40,11t8 $60,000 1M ovtr ... Figure C-104 R o ute 5 -Age .... None Three or more .... .... Figure C-105 Route 5 Vehicle Ownership C 23

    PAGE 226

    1 months to 1 yNr tlo2yea,. 2 y1are or lo nger Student -C-24 Figure C-108 Route 6 Length of Use .... 2e
    PAGE 227

    F i gure C 110 Route 5 Alternative Transportation Drive Ride wtth someone Bicycle Walk Tax i Wouldn't make trip D% Walked 04 blocks Walked mqre than 3 blocks Wss dropped oft Transferred Drove I don't d'riva Car I s not avaJiabte Busls moro economical Traffic Is too bad Part
    PAGE 228

    Figure C-114 Figure C 115 R oute 5 Daya of Servic e Route 5 -Houre o f Servic e Very GOOd Very GOOd GOOd GOOd Fair Felt Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor 0% . ,. 0 % .. ,. ''"' F igure C-111 Figure C-1 1 7 Routa 5 Frequency of Service Route 5 Convenience of Rout" Vwt Good GOOd Good Fair F air Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor -Figure C 118 Flgure C-118 Routa 5 Dependability of Buses Route 5 Travel Tlme on Bus VoryOood GOOd Fair Fa ir Poor Very Poor VtfY POOf .,. -C-26

    PAGE 229

    Figure C120 Fig ure C1 21 Rou t e 5 Co a t of Riding Bus R oute 5 Availability of Bu s Route Info Vory Good Vory Good Good Good Fair Fatr Poet Poor Very Poor Very Poor 0 % 40% 80% 0% 4 0 % 80% Flg u reC-122 R oute 5 Vehicle Cteanllnand Comfort Figure C12 3 Route 5 -O pera tor Courtea y Vory Good VoryGood Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Vory Poor Vtry Poor ..,. -80% ..,. 40% -Fig ure C -124 F i gure C-12 5 R oute 5 S afety on B ue and At Bus Sto p Route 6 -Ove rall Qua lity of Servlc
    PAGE 230

    F ....... 17 years or under 18 to 2Ayeai'W 2Sto 34y .. ,. 35to.WyMIS sto54yoon 55to5tyNro 60to64yNrw 65 years or moN ... C-28 Figure C-128 Figure C-127 Route 8 Gander Route 6 Ethnic Origin -Bl1
    PAGE 231

    Less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1to2years 2 years or longer Student Regular Adult Senior Disabled 0% Figure C-131 Route 8 Length of Use 80% 4 or mora days per week 2 or 3 days per week About1 day per week Once every _weeks 0% Figure C-133 Route 6 Fare Category 40% 80% Cash Flash Pass Easy Rider Super Rider Transfer Other (Golden Age Pass) 0% Figure C-132 Route 6 Frequency of Use Figure C-134 Route 6 Fare Type C-29

    PAGE 232

    Figure C-135 Route 6 -Alternative Transportation Ride with someone Bicycle Walk Taxi Wouldn't mak e trip 0% Walked ().3 bloeka Walkltd more than 3 bloc::U w .. dropped off T ransflrred 0% C-30 40% Car 11 not available Bus Ia mo,. Konomlcal Traffic Ia too bad Parl
    PAGE 233

    Figure C-139 Figure C-140 Route 6 Day a of Service Route 6 Houre of Service Vt
    PAGE 234

    Figure C-145 Figure C-146 Route 8 Coat of Riding Bua Route 8 Availability of Bua Route Info Very Good Very Good GOOd GOOd Fair FtJr Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor ... .... ..... ... ... F l gure C147 R outa 6 Vahlcle C l ean lin-and Comf ort Figure C146 Routa 6 Operat o r Court"Y Very Good Good Good Folr FoJr P oo r Very P oor ... --.... F l gureC-14t F lgureC-150 Route 6 Safety on Bua and At Bua Stop Routa 6 Overall Quality of Servi c e Vtry GOOd Vo ry GOOd GOOd Good Folr F t lr Poor Poor Very Poor Very POOf 1 $'A 0% -$0% ... .... C-32

    PAGE 235

    Mate Female 0.0% 17yearaorunder 18 to 24 years 2Sto 34yoars 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60to64yoars 65 years or more 0% Figure C-151 Route 8-Gender White Black Hispanic Other 1.1% 40.0% 80.0% 0.0% Figure C-153 Route 8 -Annual Household Income $10,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $29,999 $30,000"' $39,999.2.0% $40 ,000"' $49,999 $50,000 and over 0% 40% 80% Figure C-152 Route 8 -Ethnic Origin 40.0% $0.0% Figure C-165 Figure C-154 Route 8 -Age Route 8Vehicle Ownership None One TWo Three or more 40% 00% 0% 40% 80% C-33

    PAGE 236

    Leu than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2 yea,. 2 yea.s or longer Student Regular Adult Senior 0% C Figure C-156 Route 8 Length of Use 80% 4 or more days per week 2 or 3 daya per WMk About 1 day p
    PAGE 237

    Drive Ride with somone Bicycle Walk Tbi Wouldn't make trip Figure C-160 Route 8 Altematlve Transportation Figure C-161 Route 8 -Reason for Riding MCA T Walked 0..3 blocks Walked more than 3 blocks W..s dropped off Transferred Drov 0% l don't drive Car Is not available Bus Is more economical Tralfiols too bad 112.1% Parking dlffiCtJitlcostly Bus is more convenient Figure C-162 Route a Mode of Access 81)% Walk blocks Wa\k more than 3 blocks Be picked u:p Transfer Drive Other Figure C-163 Route 8 Mode of Egress 40% 80% C-35

    PAGE 238

    Figure C-164 Figure C-165 Route 8 Days of Service Route 8 -Hours of Service Very Good \le
    PAGE 239

    Figure C Figure C-171 Route 8 Coat of Riding Bus Route 8 Availability of Bua Route Info V e ry Good V t ry Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor 1.2% 0% 40 % 60% 0% -F igure C Route 8 Vehicle Cieanllnan d Comfort Figure C-173 Route 8 Operator Courteay Voty Good Very Good Good Good Fair Folr Poor Poor Very Poor VoryPoor 0% -0% -FigureC-174 Figure C-175 Route 8 Safety on Bua and At Bus Stop Route 8 Overall Qua lity of Service Very Good Very Good Good Good Fotr Fair Vtry Poor Very Poor 1.21' L------------------0% o% '"" 0 % .0% C-37

    PAGE 240

    Male Female 0.0% 1 7 y e arw or u ncMr 1 8to24yeare 25to34yeara 36 to 44 y ean. 45 to 54 years 1 2 <>% 6 5toS9yeat8 eo to 64 yea,. 65 yean or more 0% C 38 Figure C 176 Route 9 Ge n der White Blaek Hispanic 01h e r 40.0% 80 0% 0 0% F igu re C 17 8 Route 9 Annua l Hou seltold Income Lou lhln $ 10,000 $ 10,000 to $ 18,t9 1 $ 20 000 to $ 29,119 $ 34,000 to $39 ,999 12.<1 % $40, 00 0 to $41 999 $ 50,000 and owr 0% .. 0% 80% Figure C 177 Route 9 Ethni c O rig i n 40.0% F i g u re C180 Figure C179 RouteS Age R oute 9 V eltlcl e Own e rslt l p 0% JJO.O% 80 %

    PAGE 241

    Less than 6 months 8 months to 1 year 1 to 2years 2 years or longer Student Regular Adult Senior Disabled Figure C-181 Route 9 Length of Use 40% .... 4 or more days per week 2 or 3 day$ per Mek About 1 ""Y per weel< Once every _weeks Figure C-183 Route 9 Fare Category 40% 80% 0% Cash Flash Pass Easy Rider Super Rider Transfer Figure C-182 Route 9 Frequency of Use .... Figure C-184 Route 9-Fare Type 80% Other (Golden Age Pllss) 2.0% L--------------0% 40% 80% C-39

    PAGE 242

    Figure C-185 Route 9 -Alternative Transportation Drtw Ride with somtone Ill cycle W.l k Taxi Wouldn't make trtp 0% W.lkod 0-3 blocks Walked more than 3 btocQ w .. dropped off Transferred DI'O'Io C-40 .... Figure C-186 Route 9 Reaeon for Rid i ng MCAT Car Ia not available Bua Ia moN e.;onomleal TraffiC Is too bad Partdng dlftlcultlccm!y Bua Ia more eonven lent OtMr 0% AgureC-187 Route 9 Mode of Access W.lk 0.$ blocks Walk more than 3 blocks Be picked up Tranefw Figure C-188 Routl9 Mode of Egress 80% 80%

    PAGE 243

    Very Good Good Fair Poor V t ry Poor 0% Good Fair Poor V'l<'f Poor 0% Figure C 189 Route 9 Daye of Service 40% 80% Figure C-191 Route 9 Frequency of Service -Fi gu re C1 9 3 Route 9 Dep e ndability of Buses Very Good Good Fair Poor Vt"f Poor 0% 80% Figure C 180 Ro ute 9 Houra of Se rvice Very Good Good Fal r Poor Very Poor 0% 4 0 % 80% figure C-192 Route 9 Convenience of Routes Fair Poor Vtry Poor Figu r e C-184 Route 9 Trav e l Time on Bus Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor 0% 40% 80% C-41

    PAGE 244

    Figure C-195 Figure C-196 Route 9 Coat of Riding Bus Route 9 -Availability of Bus Route Info. Very Good Very Good Good Good Falr Fair Poor 1''" Poor Very Poor 12.01% Very Poor Figure C-197 Route 9 -Vehicle Cleanliness and Comfort Figure C-198 Route 9 -Operator Courtesy Very Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fair Very Poor Very Poor 12'"' 0% 80% .. ,. Figure C-199 Figure C Route 9 -Safety on Bua and At Bua Stop Route 9 Overall Quality of Service Very Good Very Good Good Good .t% Falr Fair Poor Poor V e ry Poor Very Poor "' 40% 80% 0% 80% C-42

    PAGE 245

    Male Female 0 0 % 17 y eara or under 11 to 24 years 25toUy.ars 35to.WyeoJS 45 t o 54 yoars 155 to 59 years e o to 84 yeara ee yearw or more 0 % FlgureC-20 1 Figure C -202 Route 10 Gende r Route 10Ethnic Origin Wllil8 B laCk Hispan i c othw """ <10.0'4 80.0% 0.0% 40.01)6 Figure C-203 Route 10 Annual HoUMhold Income Loa than $10,0CIO $10,000 to $11,999 $20,000 to $ 2t,999 $30,000 t o $ 39, 999 $40, 000 to $41, 999 $500000 and over Fig ure C-204 Route 10 Age 80 % Figure C-205 Route10 Vehicle Ownership T hree or mort U%
    PAGE 246

    Lese than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1to2y..,.. 2 yea,. or longer Student Regular Adult Sef'ttor Dloabled C-44 Figure C-206 Route 10 Length of Use .... .t or more days per week 2 or 3 day per week About t day por-k Once ewry WMka FlgureC-208 Route 10-Fare Category caah FlashP ... easy Rider Super Rider Tnnsfer Figure C-207 Route 10 Frequency of Use .. ,. Figure C-209 Route 10 -Fare Type

    PAGE 247

    Figure C-210 Route 10 Alternative Transportation Drive Ride with someone B i cyclo Walk Taxi Wouldn't make trip 80% Figure C-211 Route 10Reason for Riding MCAT I don't drive Car is not availabe Bus Is more economical Traffk: is too bad Parkin; dlfftcultlcosUY Bust s more convenient Other 0% Figure C-212 Route 10 Mode of Access Walk-.! o.a blocks Wal ked more than 3 blocks Was dropped oil Transferred Drove Other 1.5% 0% 80% Walk 0-3 blocks Walk more than 3 blocks Be pioked up Transfer Figure C-213 Route 10Mode o1 Egress C-45

    PAGE 248

    Figure C-214 Figure C-215 Route 10 Dy of Service Route 10 Hours of Service Vory Good V
    PAGE 249

    Figure C-220 Figure C-221 Route 10Cost of Riding Bus Route 10-Availability of Bus Route Info. Very Goqd Very Good Good Good FaJr Fair Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor 0% 40% Figure C-222 Figure C-223 Route 10 -Vehicle Cleanliness and Comfort Route 10 -Operator Courtesy Very Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Very Poor 0% 40% -01> 40% 80% Figure C-224 Route 10 Safety on Bus and At Bus Stop Figure C-225 Route 10-Overall Quality of Service Very Good Very Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor 0% 40% 10% 0% 80% C-47

    PAGE 250

    C-48

    PAGE 251

    . APPENDIX D FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OUTLINE AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

    PAGE 252

    0 2

    PAGE 253

    NON-USER FQCUS GROUP STRUCTURE MCAT GENERAL INTRODUCTION Who lam Why we are here Not a transit sales pitch Outline of how we will proceed QUESTIONS 1. What are some of the reaso ns you do not use the transit system in Manatee County? (Probe all participants for reasons and follow up) 2. I'd like to share some answers to this question from transit surveys in other places and get your reactions (Ask all that have not been mentioned). does not go where I want to go too far to walk (how far is not too far?) does not run when I want to travel (when?) not frequent enough unsafe (bus/bus stops?) can't stop off on my way can't come and go as I please don't know !"low to use don't know where to get information takes too long not comfortable not clean rude operators/personnel costs too much not dependable (how not?) dislike other passengers (why?) like to drive dislike waiting (how long is good to wait?) bus only for those with no choice routes are not direct don't like to transfer need my own car for business purposes (how often?) need my own car for personal business (how often, what for? will be stranded If I miss the bus worried about an emergency might have to wort< late 3. Now I'd like to ask you what it would take to persuade you to ride transit? (Probe all participants for possible enticements) (Discussion can go for up to 30 minutes) 4 Again, here are some answers from surveys taken in other places. Please tell me if they 0-3

    PAGE 254

    app l y to you (ask all that have not been mentioned): direct service without transfers m ore frequent service (how frequent) convenient times of service (when?) more bus stop signs more passenger waiting shelters bette r bus schedules and maps more bus routes (where?) more convenient trans fer po i nts and times (where/when?) lower fares (how low?) free coupon to try the bus newer buses (what about o l d?) m ore TO informatio n easier way to schedule TO !Tips a guaranteed ride home 5 Here are some reasons riders have given us why they l ike trans i t. Do you think any of these would persuade you or your friends? save on gas minimize wear and tear on car no place to park too expensive to park more relaxing than driving can read/sleep/do work traffic congestion is too bad to drive reliable transportation safer meet people quie t 6. Do you ever ride trans i t in another city when you trave l ? ( I f anyone does ... ) Do you like it? Is i t better than Manatee County s system? What about it is better? 7 Any fina l suggestions for imp r oveme n ts to MCAT? 0-4

    PAGE 255

    MANATEE COUNTY TDP INTERVIEW QUESTION $ A : WHERE WE ARE 1. 2. 3. 4 5 6 7 How much awareness of and support for transit is there i n the community? Have the levels of awareness and support changed in the last two years? How is MCA T perceived in the community? What is your perception of transit's role In the community? Is the transit system responsive to community needs? How are those needs communicated to the transit system? Is information on transit readily available in the community? What is your opinion of the transit fare? Is traffic congestion a problem in Manatee County? If so, what role can transit play in alleviating this problem? Is there a par!Qng problem I n Manatee County? If so how does thi s affect transit's role i n the community? B WHERE WE WANT TO GO 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. What goals has the and elected officials voiced for transit? What do you see as appropriate goals for the transit system? How can MCAT better meet community needs? What is happening In Man atee County in terms of residential and commercial development? How much? Where? How can transit best respond to these trands? Is the establishment of serv ice guidelines a worthwh ile goal for transit? Should MCAT be look i ng at new marllets for transit service, or should it concentrate on its existing marllets? I s there a wi lli ngness I n the community to consider additional l ocal funding sources for transit? Are you aware of the $0.05 loca l option gas tax for transportation projects? C. HOW WE GET THERE 14. 15. 16. 17. What Improvements are needed In the transit system to attract more riders and meet community goals? Is there a need for park and ride lots possibly in conjunction with express or limited-stop bus service? Are there areas currently not served or underserved by transit that should receive a higher priority? Are there other po li cies that should be changed to he l p the transit system reach its goals?

    PAGE 256

    D. SUMMARY 18. 1 9 20. D-6 What are the major strengths and accomplishments of the transit system? How have perceptions of the trans i t system changed over the last two years? I f you could pick one th i ng to change about the transit system what would it be?

    PAGE 257

    APPENDIX E TRANSIT-RELATED GOALS IN THE MANATEE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

    PAGE 258

    E 2

    PAGE 259

    TRANSIT-RELATED GOALS IN THE MANATEE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan for Manatee County was reviewed to Identify the existing body of policies that support transit. These policies cover a wide range of related issues. The policies presented in this section were compiled from frve key elements of the Comprehensive Plan. They are : Traffic Circulation Element Mass Transit Element Port Element Aviation Element Capital Improvements Element GOAL 5.2: Source: Objective 5.2.1: Policy 5.2.1. 1: Polley 5.2 .1.2: Policy 5.2.1.3: TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT Coordination of the traffic circulation system with future l and uses and with other public facility and natural resources constraints. The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, May 15, 1989, Traffic Circulation Element, p 5-43. Interstate Highway Capacity: Preserve Leve l of Service "C" on inters tate highways to ensur e adequate capacity for projected in ternal-external and external-external travel demand Develop an adequate road network of arterials and collectors which are parallel to, or otherwise limit the degree of local travel demand on 1-275 and 1-75. As used i n this policy, an "adequate" parallel road network shall mean a network designed to maintain a peak hour Level of Service on 1-275 and 1-75 of "C" or better. Proh ibit the adoption of any current year, five-year, or 2010 Level of Service standard on any segment of 1-275 and 1-75 which is lower thanLevel of Service "C". Establish a Future Land Use Map and related policies which minimize the E-3

    PAGE 260

    Objective 5.2.2: Polley 5.2.2.1: Policy 5.2.2.2: Policy 5.2.2.3: Polley 5.2.2.4: Polley 5.2.2.5: Policy 5.2.2.6: E-4 utilization of 1-75 and 1-275 as roadways for meeting local travel demand The Future Land Use Map shall provide for, and encourage, highly integrated multiuse projects, and varied complementary projects in dose proxlmity to the interstate highway interchanges to increase internal trip capture within and between such projects. Coordinated Land Use/Transportation: Coordination of Future Land Uses with Traffic Circulation Systems. Generally limit the location of land uses which serve as central destinations, or major trip attractors, to points of convergence (intersections) on the roadway nelwor1<, or to areas characterized by and conta in ing major points of convergence o f roadways. Encourage the location of industrial land uses at locations which are served by major roadways, rail, or are readily accessible to Port Manatee, and which are otherwise compatible with other adjacent land uses. Generally limit the use of the Res-9 Mure land use category on vacant land to locations that are adjacent to roadways shown on the Future Traffic Circulation Map as collector or higher. Limit the use of the ROR and MU future land use categories on vacant land to locations which are adjacent to roadways shown on the Future Traffic Circulation Map as arterial or higher Nothing in this policy shall prohibit compliance with Policy 2.4.5.2. Generally limit the locat ions of projects wh ich achieve any increased density and Intensity reserved for projects accomplished under the special approval process to sites which have direct access to roadways shown on the Roadway Classification Map as collector or higher. Ensure that land uses and project designs are consistent with the proper functioning of the FOOT state highway system by requiring FOOT comment on all development order applications requesting access onto the state highway system, and by requiring appropriate limitations on project access.

    PAGE 261

    Polley 6 2 . 2.7: Objective 6.2.3: Polley 5.2.3.1: Objective 6.2. 4 : Polley 5.2.4.1: Reference: Fund where expendHures are approved by the Board of County Comm i ssioners, the improvement of state roadways shown on the Cap i t a l Projects List. This funding may address part of or all cos t s associa ted with nsquinsd improvements. Adequacy of Other Public Faclllties: Ensure that adequacy of other public facilities is nsquinsd simuHaneously with adequacy of transportation facili ties Requ i re when compliance with the level or service standards contained in Objecti ves 5.1 4 and 5 1 5 is demonstrated, that no Certificate of Leve l of Service Compliance is issued u nl ess either: (1) Compliance with all other l evel of service standards listed under Policies 2.4.1. 1 and 2 4 1 2 has also been demonstrated, or { 2) Any Certificate of Level of S e rvice Comp liance issued contains appropriate cond iti ons guaranteeing future comp li ance with other adopted leve l of service standards for which comp li ance has not been demonstrated at time of issuan ce o f the Certificate Natural Resource Consideration : Ensure that a ll transporta tion improvements are COnducted In a manner which minimizes ad verse Impact on i mportant natura l resources Coordinate with FOOT to ens u re that the a l ignmen t of any new east-west expressway l ocated with i n Manatee County during I mplementation of th e 1988 S trategic Transportation Plan, or subsequ ent update of part or all thereof, Is located (to the maximum extent practicable ) outside of the W OM and WO-E Overlay Districts shown on the Future Land Use Map. Furthermo re, to encourage FOOT's consideration of access limitations and other design factors to ensure minimal impact on those watershed areas if alignment within the watersheds is be ing pursued ove r Manatee County's objections. This Comprehensive Plan goal Is I n cluded in Goals 1 and 3 of the TOP E-5

    PAGE 262

    GOAL 5.3: Source: Objective 5.3.2: Policy 5.3 2.1: Polley 5.3.2.2: Polley 5.3.2.3: Reference: GOAL 6.1: Source: E-6 TRAFF I C CIRCULAT I ON ELEMENT A safe and conven i ent bikeway and pedestrian circulation system The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, May 15, 1989, Traffic Circu l ation Element p. 5-49 Pedestr1an Facimies: A safe and convenient pedestr1an circulation system Require the inclusion of pedestrianways i n all typical urban roadway sections developed pursuant to Pol icy 5 1.5 .1. Encourage the use of Manatee County parks for pedestrian r ecreat i onal actJvity by maintaining, where financially feasible, a minimum of one mile per 50,000 resident population of accessible hiking trail and achieving {then maintaining) one mila of fitness trai l with parcourse stations per 50,000 resident population within Manatee County parks. Encourage the use of pedestrianways, preferably separated from. and i ndependent of, vehi cular roadways w i thin the design of residential and nonresidential developments to serve as quality-enhancing design features, and to facilitate pedestrian movement within and between projects. This Comprehensive Plan goal Is Included In Goals 1 and 3 of the TOP. MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT A safe, efficient, and financially feasible mass transit system. The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan Revised May 5, 1994, Mass Transit E l ement p 1.

    PAGE 263

    Objective 6.1.1: Policy 6.1.1.1: Policy 6.1.1.2: Policy 6.1.1.3: Policy 6.1.1.4: Objective 6.1.2: Policy 6.1.2.1: Level of Service Standards for Line Haul (Fixed-Route) Transit: Establish and use the following infrastructure and performance standards to maintain current levels of service through appropriate capijal and operating expenditures on the line haul transit service. Provide and fund, subject to limijations described in policy 6.1. 1 3 below, a fixed-route (line haul) mass transit system which is designed to provide service at a projected level of 9.81 Annual Passenger Miles per Capita. As used in calculating this per capita infrastructure standard, population shall be total resident and seasonal population for Manatee County, within both incorporated and un incorporated areas. Project total annual capital and operating expenditures necessary to address the demand projected using the adopted infrastructure standard, contained In Policy 6.1.1.1 above. Address the increased demand for line haul mass transit service which is projected to occur concurrent with increase in tota l resident and seasonal population by budgeting and expending as necessary local fund i ng to address the projected annual operating and capital costs. Establis h the follo wing performance standards for design and operations of the fixed route transit system. Compl i ance wijh these performance standards shall be achieved where financially-feasible. These performance standards shall be used to evaluate the quality of the transit system's service, and shall be utilized to review proposed capital expenditures for compliance with the adopted level of service standards: (1) A systemwide average of one bus stop every one-quarter mile. (2) A systemwide average of one bus shelter every 7.1 route mi les. Level of Service Standards for Paratransit: Establish and use the following infrastrUcture standard to maintain current levels of service thr ough appropriate capital and operating expenditures on the paratransit (demand-response) bus system. Provide and fund, subject to limitations described in Policy 6.1.2.3 below, a demand-response paratransit system which is designed to provide service at a projected level of 23 .95 Annual Passenger Miles per Elderly E-7

    PAGE 264

    Polley 6.1.2.2: Policy 6.1 2.3: Polley 6.1.2.4: Objective 6 1.3 : E-8 and Handicapped (E&H) Person. As used in calculating this per unit infrastructure standard. E&H population shall be based on a constant percentage (27.9%) of total resident and seasonal population for Manatee County, within both incorporated and unincorporated areas. New projections of E&H population may be derived from appropriate data and may update the 27.9% factor adopted for projecting total E&H population. Projected total annual capital and operating expenditures necessary to address the demand projected using the adopted infrastructure standard, contained in Policy 6.1.2.1 above. Address the increased demand for demand-response paratransit service which is projected to occur concurrent with increase in total E&H population by budgeting, and expending as necessary, local funding to address the projected annual operating and capital costs. Establish the following perfonnance standards for design and operation of the demand-response paratransit system. These perfonnance standards shall be used to evaluate the quality of paratransit service, and shall be utilized to review proposed expenditures for the effect which these are (or are not having) on maintenance of a quality paratransit service: (1) Availability of Service: Entire Manatee County Fu ture Mass Trans i t Service Area and any other area west of 1-75. (2) Door-to-door service. (3) Minimum advance notice required for pick-up: Day before requested trip. (4) Schedule pick-up time within 60 minutes of requested pick-up time. (5) Comply with Americans w ith Disabilities Act service standards Coordinated Transit Planning: Achieve an efficient, coordinated transit s ystem

    PAGE 265

    Policy 6.1.3.1: Policy 6.1.3.2: Policy 6.1.3.3: Policy 6.1.3.4: Policy 6.1.3.5: Objective 6.1.4: Polley 6.1.4.1: Policy 6.1.4.2: Policy 6.1.4.3: Encourage the consolidation of all passenger transportation services within the County to el i minate duplication of services. Accept the designation of Transportation Coordinator or Operator as offered by the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and the Sarasota/Manatee Metropoman Planning Organization {MPO) under Chapter 427, F S and Chapter 41, F.A.C. Ensure appropriate consistency between the operation and plans of Manatee County Area Transit and the MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan, the FOOT 5-year Won< Program, the 10-Year Needs Plan, the 20Year Needs Plan, and other federal, state or local planning requirements or regulations. Consider, and include as necessary, mass transit corridor protection and reservation through the inc lus ion of appropriate rail and mass transit corridors on appropriate Right-of-Way Protection or Reservation Maps. Coordinate with the transit systems of Hill sbo rough, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties to identify, and imple ment when feasible, intercounty services to increase the transit system's utility. Elderly and Handicapped {E&H) and Transportation Disadvantaged {TO): An adequate transit system for the E&H and TO. Maintain line haul a nd paratransit systems, which, through use of kneeler-equipped coaches on line haul service, and through use of wheelchair lift equipped coaches for paratransit, allow for system accessibility to the E lderly and Handicapped having a public transportation disability. Provide information services on mass transit to the visuallyand hearing impaired, through appropriate sociaUhuman service agencies, and through public service announcements Offer service to the E&H and the TO at the most reasonable possible fares bY. maximizing funding sources for this service. E-9

    PAGE 266

    Policy 6.1.4.4: Policy 6.1.4.5: Policy 6 1.4.6: Reference: GOAL 7.1: Source: Objective 7.1.4: Policy 7.1.4.1: Policy 7.1.4.2: Reference: F -10 P r ovide safety and sens i tivity training for transit personnel dealing with the E&H and the TO. Coordinate pick ups of sponsored paratransit clientele w i th pick-ups of non-sponsored users. Comply with regulations issued by the Federal Transit Adm i nistration including Section 504 r egulations, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federally imposed regulations. This Comprehensive Plan goal is included in Goals 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the TOP. PORT ELEMENT Development and operation of Port Manatee as a competitive and viable deep water shipping port to stimulate local economic deve l opment, where consistent with goals, objectives, and polic i es of parts of this comprehensive p lan not contained in the Port Master Plan; and serve local state, national, and international shi pp i ng needs generated by economic development. The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, May 15 1989, Port Element, p. 7-2. T ransportation Access: Maintain and improve highway and rail transportation access to Port Manatee. Coord i nate Port-related highway transportation needs with all highway development agencies. Encourage the Manatee County Port Authority to coordinate rail transportation to achieve maximum rai l service to the Port and its related industries. This Comprehensive Plan goal is included in Goal 3 of the TOP.

    PAGE 267

    GOAL 8.3 : Source: Objective 8.3. 1 : Policy 8.3. 1 .3: Policy 8.3.1. 4 : Reference : AVIATION ELEM ENT Effective coordination of the operation, development or expansion of all airports in Manatee .County with all appropriate federal, state regional and local agencies including the Federal Aviation Admlnlatratlon, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Environmenta iRegulation the Florida Department of Natura l Resources, the Tampa Bay and Southwest Florida Regional P l anning Councils the Southwest Aorida Water Management D i strict, the Metropo iHan Plann ing Organization and Manatee County Government. The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, May 15; 1989 Aviation Element, p 8-9. Capital Improvements Coordination : Improvements to Sarasota Bradenton Airport, and improvements to roads and other public faci lities im pacted by the airport that are consistent with the budgets of the Federal Aviation Admin i strat i on the Florida Department of Transportation s five-year transportation plan the metropolitan planning organizations's (MPO) transportation improvements plan, and Manatee County's. Capi t al Improvements Element. Require the provision of concurrent improvements to the roadway or mass transit system serv ing the a irp ort with the development of any ne w or expanded a i rport faciiHy, so as to meet adopted ro adway leve l of service standards contained in the Traffic Circulation Element. Require the planning and implementation of multi-modal transportation facilities and services t o existing and future airports in Manatee County, so as to maintain adopted roadway l evels of serv i ce as described in the Traffic Circulation Element. This Compre h ensive Plan goal Is Included i n Goal 3 of the TOP. E-11

    PAGE 268

    GOAL 12 .1: Source : Objective 12.1.2: Polley 12 1 .2.7: E-12 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT Adequ a te pub lic as detennined by adopted level of service (L OS ) standards The Manatee County Comprohensive Plan, May 15, 1989, Capital Improvements Element p 12 Capital Improvements Prioritization Criteria: Prioritization of capital improvement projects In a manner that achieves and maintains adopted Level of Service standards w ithin the shortest time frame possible while maintaining and protect ing the County's investment in existing cap"al facilities. Achieve compliance the follo wing policies { adop ted lev e l of service stand a rds) by the expenditure of capital project funding on projects designed to achiev e and maintain these standards: b. Mass Transit Level of Service Standards (1) Provide and fund, subject to limitations described in b.(2) below, a fixed-route (line haul) mass trans" system which is designed to provide service at a projected level of 9 .81 Annual Passenger Miles per Capita As capita infra structure standard, population shall be total resident and seasonal population for Manatee County with in both in corporated and unincorporated areas ( 2 ) Project tota l annual and operat ing expendit ures necessary to address the demand projected usin g the adopted infrastructur e standard, conta i ned in b.(1) above Demand s hall be projected by calculating Annual Projected Passenger Miles and by using this Annual Projected Passe nge r Mile total for any year to project annual operating and capital costs Th i s three step calculation shall be accomplished as follows :

    PAGE 269

    . Reference: (a) Total Projected Demand is first determined pursuant to b.(1) above. (b) Total Projected Annual Operating Costs =Total Projected Demand (in Annual Passenger Miles) x $0.55 (1987 $) Operating Cost/Passenger Mile. (c) Total Projected Annual Capital Costs = Total Projected Demand (in Annual Passenger Miles) x $0.26 (1987 $) Capital Cost/Passenger Mile. This Comprehensive Plan goal is included in Goals 1 and 3 of the TOP. E-13

    PAGE 270

    E-14

    PAGE 271

    APPENDIX F LIST OF DEFINITIONS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND MEASURES

    PAGE 272

    F 2

    PAGE 273

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CounMService Area Population For 199 1 and prior years, county pop u lation is used to approximate the service area population for each of the Florida transit systems and is taken from the Florida Statistical Abstract for each year. The only el;(ception is Smyrna Transit System (STS), for which the population of the city of New Smyrna Beach is used to approximate the service area population for these years. This measure prov ides a suitable approximation of overall market size for comparison of relative spending and service levels among communities in the absence of actual serv i ce area population. However in 1992 FTA began requi r ing transit systems to provide serv i ce a r ea population in their Section 15 reports. As a result, this is the measure that is now utilized i n this study. National Inflation Rate Used to deflate the operating expense data to constant 1984 dollars Inflation-adjusted dollars provide a more accurate representation of spending changes result i ng from agency decisions by factoring out the general p ri ce inflation. The i nflation rate reported is the percentage change i n the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items (including commodities and services) from year to year. Quring the 1 984 to 1993 period, service and labor cos ts tended to increase a t a faster rate than d i d commodity prices. Therefore transit operating expenses, which are p r edominantly 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 Annual number of pass enger boardings on the transit vehic les. A trip is counted each time a passenger boards a transit vehicle. Thus if a passenger has to transfer between buses to reach a destination, he/she is counted as making two passenger trips. Passenger Miles Number of annual passenger trips multiplied by the system s average trip l ength (in miles). This number provides a measure of the total number of passenger m i les of transportation service consumed. Vehicle Miles Total distal)ce traveled annually by revenue service vehicles, i ncluding both revenue m i les and deadhead mi l es Revenue Miles Number of annual miles of vehicle operation while in active service (available to pick up revenue passengers). This number is smaller than vehicle miles because of the exclusion of deadhead miles such as veh i cle miles from the garage to the start of service, veh i cle miles from the end of service to the garage, driver training, and other miscellaneous miles that are not considered to be in direct revenue serv ice. Vehicle Hours-Tota l hours of operation by revenue service vehicles including hours consumed i n passenge r service and deadhead travel. Revenue HOUJ'l! Total hours of operation by revenue service vehicles in active revenue service. Route Miles Number of d i rectional route miles as reported in Section 15 data; defined as the mileage that service operates in each di r ection over routes traveled by public transportation vehicles in revenue service Total Operating Exptmse Reported total spending on operations, including admin i stration maintenance, and operation of service veh i cles. F 3

    PAGE 274

    Tot!ll Operating Expense 11984 SlTot a l operating expenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of detenn i n ing the re a l ch a nge in spending for operating expenses T ota l Malnttnance ExpenstSum of all expenses ca te goriZ e d as maintenance expenses ; a subse t of total operat i ng expe nse T ot!lt Mtlnttnance Expense 11984 $ 1 Total mainten a nce e xpenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of detennining the re a l change In spending for main tenance purposes Total Capital E!tpense Dollar amount of spending for capital projects and equipment. T ota l Lout Revenue All revenues originating at the l ocal level (excluding state and federa l assistance) Operatin g Revenue Includes passenger fares, special tr ans it fares school bus service revenues freight t a riffs chart e r service revenues auxiliary transportation revenues, subsidy from other sectors of operations a nd non-transportation revenues Putengar Fart Revenue Revenue generated annually from p asse nger fares Total EmployHsTotal number of payroll employees of the transit agency It i s use f u l to note that the incre a sing t endency to contract ou t for s ervice s may result in some significant differences in this m easure between otherwise simil a r properties It i s impo rtan t to unders t and wh ich services are contracted before drawing conclu s ions based on employe e levels A ll employees c la ssi fied as capital were excluded from this report. TrantDOrtat!on Operating Employeu All employees classified as operating employees : vehicle drivers, supervisory personnel direct personnel. Maintenance EmploveetAll employee s d a ssifled as m aintenance employees who are direct ly or ind i rectly responsibl e for vehicle m a intenance Admlnlttrttlvt Employ--All personne l pos i tions class i fied as admin i strative in n a ture Th i s re port i n cl udes all general admin i stration t i cketing / fare collection and system security employees as c l assified by FTA in Fonn 404 Vthlclu Ave liable for Maximum Service Number o f vehicles owned by the transit authority that are ava il able for use in bus service Vahle; I" OptraWd In Max!my m StrvlceThe la rgest number of vehicles required f or providing service during peak hours (typically the rush period). Spare Ratlp Vehicles operated in max imum se rvi c e subtracted from vehicles available for maximum se rvice divided by vehicles operated in maximum service. This measure Is an Indica tor of the number of spare veh icles available for service. A spare ratio of approximately 20 percent is consi dered app ropriate in the i ndustry However, this varies depending on the s i ze and age of fleet as well as th e condition of equ i pment. T ota l Gallons Consumed -Total gallons of fue l consumed by th e v e hicle fle et. F-4

    PAGE 275

    Average Age of Fleet -Traditionally, a standard transit coach is considered to have a useful life of 12 years. However, longer service lives are not uncommon. The vehicle age and the reliability record of the equipment, the number of miles and hours on the equipment, the sophistication and features (l.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 lncidtmts 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 veh i cle or occur on transit property. Revenue Service InterruptionsA revenue service interrupt ion 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. EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Vehicle Miles Per Capita -Total number of annual vehicle miles divided by the service area's population. This can be characterized as the number of miles of service provided for each man woman, and child in the service area and is a measure of the extensiveness of service provided in the service area Passenger Trips Per Capita -Average number of transit hoardings per person per year. This number is larger in areas where public transportation is emphasized and in areas where there are more transit dependents, and is a measure of the extent to which the public utilizes transit in a given service area. Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile The ratio of passenger trips to revenue miles of service; a key Indicator of service effectiveness that is influenced by the levels of demand and the supply of service provided. Passenger Trip& Per 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 service. Average Speed Average speed of vehicles in operation (including to and from the garage) calculated by dividing total vehicle miles by total vehicle hours. Revenue Miles Between Incidents Number of revenue miles divided by the number of incidents; reports the average interval, in miles, between incidents. Revenue Miles Between lnterruRtionl! Number of revenue miles divided by revenue service interruptions; an indicator of the average frequency of delays because of a problem with the equipment. Revenue Miles Per Route Mile-Number of revenue miles divided by the number of directional route miles of service. F-5

    PAGE 276

    EFFICIENCY MEASURES 0Rtrallng E!(pense Per Capita Annual operating budget divided by the county / service area popu lation ; a measure of the resource comm itment to transit by the community OP!n!tlng E!(pense Per Peak Vehicle Total operating expense per vehicle operated i n max imum service (peak vehicle) ; provides a measure of the resources required per vehicle to have a coach in operation for a year Operating Ex Rente Per Passenger TriP Operating expenditures divided by the total annual ridership; a measure of the efficiency of transporting riders; one of the key Indicators of comparative performance of transit properties since it reflects both the efficiency with which service Is delivered and the market demands for the service. Optn!ting Expense Per Passenger Mile Reflection of operating expense divided by the number of passenger m iles; takes into account the impact of trip length on performance s ince some operators provide lengthy trips whil e others provide short trips. Operating Expense Per Revenue ltllle Operating expense divided by the annua l revenue miles of service ; a measure of the efficiency wilh which service i s del ivered and i s another key comparative indicator O!!tratlng El!pense Per Revenue Hour Operating expense divided by revenue hours of operation ; a key comparative measure which differs from operating expense per vehicle mile in that the vehicle speed is factored out. This is often I mportant since vehicle speed is strongly Influenced by local traffic cond i tions Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile Maintenance cost divided by the revenue miles. Maintenance Expense Per Operating ExpenttCalculated by dividing maintenance expense by operating expense; expressed as a percent of total operating expense Farebo11 RtctOvt!XRatio of passenger fare revenues to total operating expenses ; an indicato r of the share of revenues provided by the passengers Local Revenue Ptr OP!n!tl!!9 Expense Rat i o of tot a l local commitment with respect to tota l operating expense Operating Revenue Per OP!!'Jtlng EIIRtnl! Operating ratio calcu l ated by divid i ng operat ing rev enue by total operating expense. Vehlclt Mil!! Per Peak Vehicle Vehicle miles divided by the number of peak vehicles It is an Indicator of how intensively the equipment Is used and is Influenced by the bus travel speeds as well as by the levels of service in the off -pea k time periods. A more uniform demand for service over the day would result in a higher number. Vthlclt HOU!'J Per Peak VehicleSubstitutes veh i cle hours for vehicle miles and again reflects how i ntensively equ ipment is utilized F-0

    PAGE 277

    Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile Reflects how much o f the total vehicle opera t ion i s in passenger service Higher ratios are favorable but garage location, training needs and other consideration s may influe nce the ratio. Revenue Miles Per Total Yehjc l!lTo tal revenue miles of service that are provided by each vehicle available for maximum se rvice. Revenue Hours Per Total Vehi!;le$ -Indicates total reve nue hours of serv ice provided by each vehicle available for maximum servioe Revenue Hours Pe r Empl oyee Reflects overall labor productivity. Pasenger Trips Per Employee Another measure o f overall labor productivity. Vehicle Miles Per Gallon Vehicle miles of service divided by total gall ons consumed and is a measure of energy u1illzatlon. Average Fare-Passe nger fare revenues divided by the total number of passenge r trips. F-7

    PAGE 278

    F-8

    PAGE 279

    APPENDIX G INVENTORY OF TRANSIT PROVIDERS IN MANATEE COUNTY

    PAGE 280

    G-2

    PAGE 281

    INVENTORY OF TRANSIT PROVIDERS IN MANATEE COUNTY This appendix provides basic infonnation on existing public and private transit services operating in Manatee County. These Include fixed route and transportation disadvantaged services operated by Manatee County Area Transit taxi service and airport limousine service. Information on Manatee County Area Trans it (MCAT) and Handybus is drawn from published sources identified in the body of this report. The remaining Information was gathered by CUTR via telephone interviews G-3

    PAGE 282

    MANATEE COUNTY AREA TRANSIT 1994 Operating Data 1 1 08 26th Avenue East Bradenton, FL 34208 (813) 748-4501 Contact: Peter Gajdjis GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Are a: Service Users: SERVICE HOURS Fixed Route Motorbus Manatee County General Public OPERATING STATISTICS Monday-saturday: 6:10 a.m.-7:10 p m Peak Vehicles Operated: Sunday: no service Vehicles Available: Annual Passenger Trips: Annual Vehicle Miles: Annual Revenue Miles: PERSONNEL Annual Vehicle Hours: Annual Revenue Hours: Transit Operations: 23.8 Average Age of Fleet: Administrative: 3.6 Annual No. of Incidents: Mai nte nance : 1 0 Annual No of Roadcalls: Total: 28.4 Annual Gallons of Diesel: FARE STRUCTURE Base Fare: $1.00 Babe in Anns : 9 14 657,588 546,224 527,013 32,148 31,312 5.21 0 140 119,927 Senior Citizen Fare: $0.50 Transfer Between MCAT Buses: FREE FREE FREE $0.50 Handicapped : Pre-school Children: FLASH PASS (Adult) Month ly : FLASH PASS (Discount) Monthly : (Student, Elderly, Handicapped) S tudent Easy Rider: Student Super Rider: Adult Easy Rider: Adult Super Rider: Golden Age Pass: G-4 $0.50 Transfer To SCAT Buses: $0.50 Saturday Fare: $28 .00 (unlimi ted trips) $14 00 trips) $6 00 (10-ride punch pass) $20.00 (40-ride punch pass) $8.50 (10-ride punch pass) $30.00 (40-ride punch pass) $3 .00 (10-ride senior punch pass)

    PAGE 283

    . MANA TEE COUNTY PARA TRANSIT SERVICE (HANDYBUS) 1108 26th Avenue East Bradenton, FL 34208 (813) 748-4501 Contact: Charles Clayman GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: SERVICE HOURS Paratransit Manatee County Elderly and Transportation Disadvantaged OPERATING STATISTICS Monday-Saturday: Sunday: 6:10 a.m.-7:10 p.m. no service Vehicles Operated Buses: Holidays: no service PERSONNEL Annual Passenger Trips: Weekly Passenger Trips Average: Range: Total Employees: 24 (paratransit service only) FINANCIAL INFORMATION Operating Revenue Special Transit Fares: Other NonTransportation Funds: Operating Expense: Capital Expense: FARE STRUCTURE $48,167 $62 ,242 $1,234,450 $366,566 23 125,164 2,513 nla $1.00 standard fee for eligible individuals. Fees for contract base paratransit services are as follows: Individual: Individual requiring specialized int ake/screening: Group centralized: Subscription group: Out of zone: Out of county: $8.00 $12.50 $4 25 $5.75 $2.00 additional $6.00 additional G-5

    PAGE 284

    ACTION ALERT CAB 2211 14th Street West Bradenton, FL 34205 (813) 746-8972 Contact: Sherly Bryant GENERA L INF ORMA TI O N Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: SERVICE HOURS Monday-Sunday: 24 hours PERSONNEL Taxi Bradenton Area General Public, Medicaid Transportation OPERATING S TATI STICS Veh i cles Operated Sedans: Total Employees: 13 (10 drivers and 3 office employees) Weekly Passenger Trips Average: Range: Dally Vehicle Trips: FARE STRUC T URE 6 300 150-500 n/a $2 50 minimum ; $1.50/ e ach add iti ona l mile Luggage wheelcha i r or groceries cost $1.00 i n CO MMENTS The fare structure for Medi cai d Is different. G-6

    PAGE 285

    DEPENDABLE CAB COMPANY P.O Box 894-F, Sugarbowl Road Myakka City, FL 34251 (813) 749-0 993 Contact: Barbara Roberts GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: SERVICE HOURS Monday-Sunday: 24 hours PERSONNEL Total Employees: 6 FARE STRUCTURE Taxi Bradenton, Sarasota, Tampa General Public OPERATING STATISTICS Vehicles Operated Sedans: Weekly Passenger Trips Average: Range: Daily Vehicle Trips: $3.00 minimum; $1.50/each additio nal mile. COMMENTS n/a 6 n/a n/a n/a G-7

    PAGE 286

    CHECKER CAB 6111 15th Street East Bradenton F L 34203 ( 813) 751-3181 Contact: Diane Rogers GENERAL INFORMATION Type o f Service: Serv i ce Area: Service Users: SERVICE HOURS Mon day-Sunday: 24 hours PERSONNEL Tota l Employees: 1 0 FARE STRUCTURE Tax i Bradenton Port Manatee and a ll airports in Florida General Public and Transportation Disadvanta ged OPERATING STATISTICS Vehicle s Operated Sedans: Slatlon Wagons : Weekly Passenger Trips Average: Range : Daily Vehicle T rips: 2 4 n/a n/a 130-210 $3.00 minimum; $1. 201meter tum -on ; $1.201each additional mile COMMENTS n l a G-8

    PAGE 287

    v BRUCE' S TAXI SERVICE, CO. 4103 18th Street \II,' est Bradenton FL 34205 ( 813) 755-6070 Contac t Mary Riese GENERAL INFORMATION T ype of Service: Service Area: Servic e U sers : S ERV IC E HO U RS Monday-Sunday : 24 hours PERS O NNEL Tot a l Empl oyees : 20 FARE STRUCTURE $3 00 Initial fee ; $1. 30/mil e C OMMENT S n/a Tax i Bradenton, Palmetto General Public O PERAT IN G STATIS TI CS Veh i cles Operate d Sedans : Station W a gons: Weekly P ass enge r T r i ps Average : R a nge : Dally Vehi c l e T rips : 6 2 n/a n/a 200 G

    PAGE 288

    YELLOW CAB OF BRADENTON,INC. 8251 15th Street East Sarasota, FL 34243 (813) 748-4800 Contact Pam Norton GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service : Taxi Service Area: Service Users : Bradenton Area Genera l Public S ERVI C E HOU R S M ond a y -Sunday: 24 hours PERSONNEL Total Employees : 21 (8 drivers and 13 employees) FARE S TRUCTU R E $1.45 meter tum-on; $1.30/mile. COMMENTS O P E RAT I N G STATISTI CS Vehicles Operat e d Caprice Classics: Oldsmobil e s : Station Wagons: Weekly Passenger Trips Average: Range: Daily Vehicle Tri p s: 5 1 1 n/a n/a 50-125 This company is a part of a group called Premier Ground Transport Services (PGTS) which runs five different cab compan i es. The office employees wo!X for all five compan ies While each driver only w o!Xs for one of th e companies G-10

    PAGE 289

    ALL AMERICAN CAB AND LIMO (813) 349-3952 Contact: Cart Mathews GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: SERVICE HOURS Monday-Friday : 24 hours PERSONNEL Total Employees: 64 FARE STRUCTURE n/a COMMENTS Lim ous ines Bradenton, Venice Fl Myers, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa General Public, Tra nsportation by request OPERATING STATISTICS Vehicles Operated Limo usines: nla Weekly Passenger Trips Average: nla An n ual Passe nger Trips : nla Daily Vehicle Trips : nla Company personne l did riot provide lnfonnation on the n umber of vehicles, trips or fare structure G-11

    PAGE 290

    TERRY'S WHEELCHAIR PATIENT TRANSPORT (MEDI-VAN) 3308 15th Avenue East Bradenton, FL 34203 (813) 745-2451 Contact : Terry Faneca GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Servioe: Servioe Area: Servioe Users: SERVICE HOURS Wheelcha ir, stretcher servioes for non-emergency cases Manatee County Medicaid Transportation Firms for Worl
    PAGE 291

    GREYHOUND BUS LINES 501 17th Avenue West Bradenton, FL 34205 ( 813) 747 2984 Contact : nta GENERAL INFO RMATIO N Type of Service: Service Area : Service Users: SERVICE H OURS Inte r -city bus service One station In Bradenton Araa General Public OPERATI NG STATIS TICS Monday-Saturday : Sunday: 7 : 30 a m 10 : 30 p m 7 : 30 a .m .-3: 30 p m Vehicles Operated Buses : PERSONNEL Tota l Emplo yees : 4 FARE S TRUCT U RE Weekly Passenger T rips Ave rage : Range: Daily Vehicle Trips: 9 nla n/a 9 Varies according to destination For examp l e a one-way ticket to go from Bradenton to Tampa costs $9 50 whil e a round -bip ticket for the same bip costa $18.50 CO MMENT S nla G-13

    PAGE 292

    WEST COAST SOUTHERN MEDICAL SERVICES 934 14th Street West Bradenton, FL 34205 (813) 748 Contact: Michael Hamish GENERA L INFORMAnON Typ e of Service: Service Area: Service Users: SERVICE HOURS M on day-sunday : 24 hours PERSONNEL Tota l Employees: 10-30 FARE STRUCTURE Ambulatory and Wheelcha i r Transportat i on Manatee and Sarasota Counties General Public, Med ical Facilitie s OPERATING STATISTICS Vehicles Operated Ambulances: large vans: Weekly Passenger Trips Average: Range: Daily Vehicle Trips: Wheelchair $25 per trip ; Ambulance $175-$275 per trip i n addition to mileage COMMENTS 8 3 nla nla 10 Southern Med i cal Services and West Coast Transfer were combined on June 1 1994 to form West Coast Southern M edical Services. G-14

    PAGE 293

    WE CARE TRANSPORT 2029 Racimo Drive Sarasota, FL 34240 (813) 350-2234 Contact: Chuck Williams GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Service: Service Area: Service Users: SERVICE HOURS Monday-sunday: 24 hours PERSONNEL Total Employees: 4 FARE STRUCTURE Wheelchair and Stretcher Manatee and Sarasota Counties General Public and Medicaid Transportation OPERATING STATISTICS Vehicles Operated Large Vans: 4 Weekly Passenger Trips Average: nla Range: 55-60 Daily Vehicle Trips: nla Wheelchair: $40-$50 round-trip. Stretcher: $60-$70 round-trip. COMMENTS This company is in the process of starting an ambulatory service as well. They are currently awaiting HRS approval. G-15

    PAGE 294

    G1 6

    PAGE 295

    APPENDIX H COMPLETE TREND DATA TABLESMCAT, 1989-1994 J

    PAGE 296

    H-2

    PAGE 297

    J: (, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Table H-1 Manatee County Area Transit Directly Operated Motorbus Perfonnance Indicators 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 %Change 1989-1994 ,;, .. t$:,.. ,$;

    PAGE 298

    :I: J,. Tab le H-2 Manatee County Area Transit Purchased Motorbus Perfonnance Indicators PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 198i 1HO 1ii1 1992 199) 1i94 Service Alto (000) 158.55 1n.01 176.90 183. 4 8 1 87.83 18.47 % Service Area Sl:te (aquate miles) n/a nJa nit 747.00 747 747 n/a (000) :: 11.88 65.!8 0 00 0 .00 0.00 nia Pass ..... Total Maintanonce Expense (000) nla nla $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 nia Total M1inlenonce (000 of 19 84 $ ) nio $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 nia Total CopQI Expense (000) nil n1a $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 nil TOIIII.ocal Rl-(000) nil nla $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ni a Operoling Rovonuo (000) nta nto $0 ,00 so.oo $0.00 $0.00 nta Passenger Fare Rlvonuos (000) nta nla so.oo $0. 00 $0 00 so.oo nlo Total Employees nla nla $ 0 .00 $0 00 $0 00 SO.OO n to Tran14>or1ation Opon1dng Emplo)'MS nil nla $0 .00 $0 00 $0.00 $ 0.00 nlo . Mainte na nce Employooo nla nla $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 .0 0 nlo Employees : nlo -'irif@ $ 0 .00 $0 00 $0 00 $ 0 .00 nlo Vehdes Avalloble fo< Maximum Service 2 00 2 00 0 .00 0.00 0 00 0.00 nla Vehdes Operated in Maximum Service 1 00 1 ,0!) 0 .00 0.00 0.00 O.QO n/o . Spore Ratio 100.00% 100 00% nla nia nia nlo n1a Total Galono ConiUmod (OOOJ nia nia nto nlfl nio nlo nlo ------------

    PAGE 299

    :I: (n Table H-3 Manatee County Area Trans i t System Total Perfo rmance Indicators

    PAGE 300

    r a, EFFECTlVaiESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Pet _, SERIIICE CONSUMPTlON Passen!IOf Tr\>0 ""' Coplla ... -""""-Tr\>0 Pot -ue Mio Passe-Tr\>0 Pot -.ue _, QUAI.ITY OF SERIIICE .. AY919g& S9,
    PAGE 301

    :I: .:... EfFECTIVENESS MEA SU RES SERVICE SUPPLY Table H 5 Manatee County Area Transit Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures 1889 1990 1!191 1912 1993 , .. % Chango 1189-1194

    PAGE 302

    :J: &, EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle Miei Per capita./ ... . SERVICE CONSUMPllON ,._ PaSS&ilgMTrlpa Per ;C8pitB. :} ;JJ:-, .. _,; __ , ..... _.)(._,. ........ ., ...... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile __ .... . Passenger Trlps .. ... ".1 QUAUTY OF SERVICE . ,. '< Age of Fleet (i n years) *. _:_ ., ... ... ,......, f I id ,. <.-<, ._,,.,, nc en .. H;)c>(v>'< ( -' .. ,-Revenue Service lntarruplions: Revenue Miles Betwee-n l11te-rruptions (000) AVAILABILITY Mae. Po< Rou!S t.llle .(000). Table H-6 Manatee County Area Transit System Total Effectiveness Measures 1989 1990 I 1991 I 1992 3 13 ' .,_ :i.2q > '"''. ,..., '' ' ;j:'!l!; .-., < 1.06 1.13 1.24 1.19 $- < ... ' "< .n '' '' : 18 .82: I 1993 3 .00 .. 3 41 .. 1 .17 18,31' '"t fs:sr.: "" ,_,...,,. 5.20 ,, .. ,, ., . '"' .. ;>-''1511'' .'\ .'!'' : 15 -lil<. n/a -illav ... .1'.-M n/a 6.37 '-H''?:'''< .f. 6.93 :. '$"'' ... ) 283.00 '"4288' . ,,, Ji.; -6 """"""'"""""'1 .82 "' 6 .44 5.06 _, __ . ,,. 1" '" <.3,00 ;. '." "'' ..... .'. '"' , ' 2 .00 .,;,>,; ,.,,.,,,."' 230 .00 195 .0 0 266 85 2.35 2.74 ' I 4 .38 v v I 199-4 %Cha'91: 1989-19 4 2.91 -17.35% ,. 3 .50. ,. :' .88% ,.. 1.25 17.55% 21 .00 20. 10% 16.83 ' ? ,11% 5.21 n/a \ ,.2 ;00 .. > "'* < j> '< .. 140.00 n /a "' '263.51 .. ': _, 3.78 n /a 3.61 I ..0.78%

    PAGE 303

    :I: u, Table H -7 Man a tee C o unty A re a Transi t Directly-Opera ted M oto rbu s E ffi c iency M e a sures EFFICIENCY MEASURES 1189 1990 1991 1112 COST EFACIENCY ,t., .. ...._ .... ... 11'111! ..... .,._,.. ... ......... _1 4'->! : ..... ......... .;.. 1. .....":.n ::.--, ..,. rc ... Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle Passenger 1 . .. 1913 1994 '1o Cllongo 1189

    PAGE 304

    :I: 0 Table H-8 Manatee County Area Transit Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures EFFICIENCY MEASURES 1988 COST EFACIENCY Or>.eral;ng $p 22 ', >.v,.;;vw>--"' <" ,. Operating Expense Per Peak V ehicle (000 ) $34.43 . .... _._ ... . 'n!.t.. ti Ex. ,_ Operat ing Expense Per Passenger Mile $0. 67 "'-.-, . "'<>'11:'''""'( __ < ___ .'lo. -1. '1 ' e!r. Maintenance Expense Per Operati'lg Exp. I nla OPERATING RAT I OS .Fa.rebox .-1' { '< Local Re-..enue Per Operating Expense Revenue Per VEHICLE UTILIZATION .Vehicle Mile< Per .. Vehicle Hours Per Peak Veh icle (000) Revenue Mile& Per Vehlde Miles ,.... "' --<'""-------> R even u e Miles Per Total Vehicle$ (000) Reven!(*.Hoor< LABOR PRODUCTl\IITY (Q9ffi.t,; Passenger Trips Per Employ M (000) E NERGY UT I LIZATION FARE : .. >. '"''. :.. '> .. ,, .... ,nJa .. < ...... ,. .. nla ..... ,._, ,: : ; > ; ry { 3 2 :35:. -< ;( 1 58 .. 0.95'' ' _, 15. 41 .'>.,,;;-.... : 0.70 "'" nla 1890 $0.29 $75.80 """,..,..'<" ... ''$ nla .,_ ,, 1891 n/a r ' nla .) '\( h -tw-. nla l1la' -> nla < ...... n/a <,.,,., ,.; ,,,. F "< y c::. .,' _., .. < I>; nta "" Jv'a ., .. ..,_...,. "' '' y: <'""" nla nla -< ,, < J)la ;' <'''l.1'< \< i' a. ... .. -;. 51'.30:;. -,.,_. .. rtf! <' ;.\ ; ,.,,., .. 2.51 nla .,.. 095' ,'.,.,'-- .... .. : .. 24.42 nla 1.)) !.fua 1982 nla nla _,_ ... . "' . . -;.,,;;.;>* . . ,...,_ nla 'f. ,.,, :nta ..... '" nla _,' >f .... nl ,_, ""' .... ' -nla _,_ ., ,. "<-'<& hla : 1 nla .. nJa >: > nla __ ,. n la ; nla nta ,. ,_. nta .: ., ": ;:; .:-.;;; hta ;, . $" ;.; : ... n/a n/a nla "'F 'Y.illa .. ,_.,. ; rita . 1993 n/a nla ,,;:;::, nfa ... >< ...... nla .. ;.va. 19i4 phl nla . ._._. n la n/a ,. _,., nla nla nfi. nla nla. nla n/1 n11 n/ 1 n/a nla n/1 %Chango 1989-1994 .. nla hla, n la nta -.. nla fJla n/a nla nla _nfa "/f nla Jl/0 n11 nla nla nla nla l '.... '' ;;::. ,_,,-, n la .. : :d nbl

    PAGE 305

    :I: -EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Table H-9 County Area Transit System Total Efficiency Measures 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 %Change 1989-1994

    PAGE 306

    H-12

    PAGE 307

    APPENDIX I COMPLETE PEER REVIEW DATA TABLES MCAT, 1993

    PAGE 308

    1-2

    PAGE 309

    l> Table 1 1 Manatee County Area Transit System Total Performance Indicator s Lak e Charles Total 34.00 20.30

    PAGE 310

    :;;: T a ble 1-1 (conti n u ed ) M anatee Co unty Area Trans i t System To ta l Perfo rman c e I n dica tors PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Owensboro Gas t onia KlWflt Total Total otal (QQO>' . "' r-: 62 .. .,.,. : < '>"' > ... .. '"'126>2 5 :;-' ,,._ . .,. >' > >'<"' .. "'" . Service Area Size (squa r e m i les) 13.30 151 .00 19. 00 ... r.m tllil-..19" Pus.enger M iles (000} 826.18 348 .88 821 .29 ;_;'>>> ' -J!,;, t, .. ,, ... :,.; ,_ .' '':?fl' i ':;'1<,'& 4 < g ><::-.'>l. Revenue M i les (000) 273 .19 221.22 175.45 ,. -,-... ' . ::-:, ,,: _,,.. ..... .., ' . .,. .-;. .. ., .7:; ,, 1: fAJl; 18 43 .> : 1 2.$7 -" -' :.-. ..... ,. .,.,,. "'" ;-;, ,, -R e venue Hours (000) 21.16 17. 61 12.56 1. ;. .. ,:: '': t ,.__,.., ,._. ' :'27.60'1;.( >.,. (. > 70.00 > .. -: ' -;. ,, ... ,,. ... Total Operating Expen10 (000) $646 .40 $659.57 $674.30 '"''" ., . :-',.. .... :; ,.,. $233:361 Tolai .. ... ,,, ) "'-.>>;-' ., ........ "' .. . ,_..,. .. .<-: '< .>:<>... .. "'"' '"' ..,_,. _., _,. Total Capital Expense (000) $10.00 $136 90 $597 .21 +;, :, .... "< .-... '" '''4. P""ss67:iis' .,. l i . . .. .,.,.,,_"' --. .. .. " :-><-<<<-N-> ;:.; ' .. .-. -Operating Revenue (000) $120.97 $159 86 $165.87 ,. 4!"." ''T .. : ................. ... .: :. (000) :: y: ; i $ .11N,.QiJi ' "' Emp loyees 19. 60 9 00 13.3 0 . .. / ,., .. 10.&0n-. ' 1 r,6o Mainte nance Employees 1 00 2 00 4 .20 .. .. 1 ;so. Admio i stflitiV!' gmptoy .. s >. Q .5Q .. ,. . -Vehicles Avail able for M aximum Service 8.00 7 .00 11.00 .... .. ,. ,.._ .. )I> ... Veh..lclel 0 d 111 &xmum SOrVIOe: ,,,. .. ,, 4.00 ., ,;, .. , .V _,,_. ft' .. _, ,.,_...,_.,._ Sp-are Ratio 33. 33% 40, 00% 175 00% New Smrrna lola Peer Group u .. n ' ., 8948. )7.23 .. . . 1 9 00 160 89 25 .86 441 78 72 .41 1,572 .65 '* 't .;,. . ;>'-'. . ..,,,. . : """ . $13 .33 stn.35 ... .. $13 .33 ->'. 4.20 1 7 99 4.oo ) 4 34 0.00 2.19 0.20 1 .45 2 .00 9.89 ' 2 .00'. 5.89 .. 0 00% 65. 03% (OQOJ; ;i0fF ---, .. ,.,,.'>
    PAGE 311

    ;;;; Table 1-2 Manatee County Area Transit System Total Effectiveness M e a s ure s EFFECTMHESS MEASURES Manatee TQial -=r Bryan Tolll SERVICE SUPPl Y Clar1
    PAGE 312

    0, Table 1 -2 (continued) Manatee County Area transit System Total Effectiveness Measures EFFECnVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY Vehicle MileS. SERVICE CONSUMPnON -.;,._;, ..... """"""" ,;rrio\s PerC ita > ., '1> t .. ... -.:I?.,.,_ ,._ Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mi -.... ._ ._,_,._ .. "''" Pa..ioflljOf ""' ttjfjli QUALITY OF SERVICE .,, '" '" ., ,._ .. Average AQe of Fleet (in years) : -' ,. Revenue Service Interruption' ", ,. _,.,_._, t< _., .;,_ : ; 'k', Revenue Mies Between lnterruptions (000) AVAILABILITY Mllea Per 0Mnsboro Gastonia Key West I New smyrna I Peer Group Total Total Total Tota Mean 4.91 I 3.7 9 I 3.90 >.<_.();, .l>l ... . .. ... 1.63 1 3$ 0 .41 1.40 "''.':'>1:1> ,., .... -."""' .. : _, ,.. .. - nn. ., 19 46 13.97: 1s : 1a : '; : 14.)0 ,.,.,.., v I 1.43 1.91 10.67 7 39 'o 100 .. 1oa i>f-Y,:.-' '(.;.' v . ,,_., ... I I 5.00 33.00 I 0.00 93 I 1 ''P-:. ..' %. ,'' "5. 5.30 ;;"' ,.63.:p:s .... 69 13 ;., ... .,....... ... _., ,,.,_, "'''. . ; 14.38 1.92 5.32 6.34 5.25 _,,,, . ,; -_ '. 1:15 < 3.82

    PAGE 313

    .:.. EF FICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Table 1-3 Manatee County Area Tran sit System Total Efficiency Measures Manatee Total Bryan TCICal Clart
    PAGE 314

    lo Table 1-3 (continued) Manatee County Area Transit System Total Efficiency Measure s EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Per C.pif!i : Expense Per Peak Vehicle (000) P.e" r P.a-nsrGiTtf> ... _,.._,.,._ .... ..., _,, ., '-".;.,:. .><.<.>-'"" Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile Owonabc<>< _,, Hi!<>'' -;-: :-'' >'<::it' ... $53.70 fJ.W : .... : ' .. > <,: ,:, Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour ... ,._, -, "-r ,_,._ >i ,;, .,,.,.,. ,,,.,.:{ -,.-. Uainleo&O(""""" POt ,R.-nue-u .. ,,,; < ;;il:ll '"; i'J:" .. .,....,., ,., .. _"'" i:';n).;. Maintenance Expense P&f Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS ''"' ,._ '< < , :'V'...,'l s3o.54 1 ,..,-:: 22.73% ,_ .. ( ,... .. '>.-.;. .. 62.55% 84.14% w!O%' r Local Revenue Per Operating Expense 6 .68% 6t.09% .. ;. .6 . 68'% : -;'-. 21: 68% VEJiiCLE UTI L IZATION .. . : --:-...... ,; .. ''46 33'' .. ';A1-Vehicle Miles Per P .. k Vehige (000) .; _, ,_ -;o ,_. .: -. -. ,_ . : -....... ;; .. . .. .. '-;;;: t. ,, -('< ... . ,_,:; ,_ . ;"' ; 32,63 :" <. 49,P8 .-. ... .-. Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle (000) 3 89 3 .69 3 .24 2 .51 3.54 Mles Per 'H o ei ;' . 0.99 ).. >. ..... ,.-.. ,._ J:-< 0.97 : 0 .96. Revenue Miles Pet Total Vehicles (000) 31.60 15.95 31.69 29.72 . ... RiMn. ue lfolrrs Per Total V.ehic!Oo (0.00) 2.52 .. .. 1 ,14 2 0 1 2 12 LABOR PRODUCTIVITY f l . I' {' . ''" ;, ,,, 13 .10 40.08 17.92 1.16 6 16 23 55 ENERGY UTI LIZATION -:-'he. f a l' ,._,_ ., < "' Y-., 5 .98 4.7g tE 1 } _<:,_,_ ';tQ.'!:4 ''?, so52 I to .'!Jl

    PAGE 315

    APPENDIXJ MANATEE COUNTY CENSUS TRACTS: DISTRIBUTIONS & SCORES .

    PAGE 316

    J-2

    PAGE 317

    Table J-1 Manatee County Census Tracts: Distributions and Scores 1 01 48% 2911 8.6 1 .02 26% 15% 2A 1.03 1 7% 32% 8 6 1 0 4 27% 20% 2 4 2 .00 74% 23% 5.2 3 01 24% 18% 2Jl 3.02 44% 11% 2 4 3 0 3 28% 1.0 2 2 % 5 2 4 0 3 33% 1 0 9% 1 0 4 .04 53% 7 0 8% 1 0 4 .05 39% 2.8 7% 1 0 4.08 42% 2 8 5% 1 0 5 0 1 19% 1 0 12% 1 0 5.03 32% 1 0 8% 1 0 5 .04 27% 1 0 4 % 1 0 8 0 1 19% 1 0 -2.4 6.02 49% 2.8 -2. 4 7 .01 24% 1 0 31% 8.6 7 .02 1 .0 23% 11.2 8.03 1 3 % 1 .0 9% 1 0 8.04 26% 1.0 9% 1.0 8.05 25% 1.0 7% 1 0 8 .08 40% 2.8 7% 1 0 9 .00 23% 1 0 9%. 1 0 1 0 .00 48% 2.8 18% 2. 4 U 01 53% 7 0 12% 1.0 11 0 2 39% 2 8 7% 1.0 12.0 2 22% 1 0 9% 1 0 12.03 19% 1 0 8% 1.0 1 2 0 4 23% 1 0 4 % 1 0 13.00 27% 1.0 15% 2. 4 14.01 29% 1 0 18% 2 4 1 4 .02 55% 7 0 15% 2 4 15 01 18% 1.0 22% 5 2 15 .02 20% 1.0 24% 52 1 8 .00 52% 7.0 17% 2 4 1 7 01 24% t.O 12% 1 0 1 7 .02 65% 9 3 9% 1.0 18 .00 2.8 8% 1.0 1 9 0 1 21% 1 0 8% 1. 0 1 9 .03 71% 9 3 10% 1 0 1 9 .04 48% 2 8 12% 1 0 20. 01 27% 1.0 10'14 1 0 20.02 13% 1.0 9% 1 0 190 1 0% 1 .0 0% 1 0 Composite Score Statistics Average Compos ite Score : 7 5 S tandard Deviation : 5 1 Ave r age Composite Score + One Standard D e viation : 12 6 Avera g e Composite Score+ Two Standard D evi at ion s : 1 7 7 27% 10 3 8% 4 4 26% 10.3 12% 4.4 7% 1 0 8% u 10% 4 4 1 0% 4A 1% 1 0 5% 1 0 1% 1.0 3% 1 0 4% 1 0 2% 1 0 4 % 1 0 17% 7 7 15% 7 7 22% 10. 3 1 5 % 7.7 5 % 1. 0 4% 1 0 4% 1. 0 1 % 1. 0 2% 1 0 6% 1.0 4% 1. 0 2% 1 0 3% 1,0 6% 1.0 0% 1.0 12% 4.4 6% 1 0 3% 1 .0 1 1 % 4.4 1 9 % 7 .7 4 % 1 0 5% 1 0 4% 1.0 4 % 1. 0 0% 1 0 4 % 1 0 9% 1.0 2% 1 0 5% 1. 0 0% 1.0 21. 7 7 8 19 9 7.8 15.6 7 8 9. 8 10.8 3 0 9 0 4 8 4.8 3 0 s.o 3.0 U 1 12.9 1 9,g 1U 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.8 3 0 &.2 9. 0 4 8 3 0 3 0 3.0 7 8 4A 1 0 .4 1 0 8 13 9 lOA 3.0 1 1.3 4 8 3. 0 U 3 4.8 3.0 3 0 3 0 J-3

    PAGE 318

    J-4